Much more clearly as the business error on his part was represented by his decision to divide Apple and Macintosh into two competing teams. From Blooms Taxonomy's perspective, one perhaps can understand that this decision was driven by internal drive of affective intelligence: the strong desire to perfect the esthetics does not matter what is the cost. He was more internalizing values with displaying self-reliance without thinking about the logical consequences of his decisions. This is one of those instances when it appears that affective intelligence drive would go against the logic of conducting successful business.
In that, Jobs was more of an artist than a businessman. Such a logic error on his part almost cost him his company and later on his position as the founder and the CEO of the company.
If we return to the beginning of his business career and inquire what did make him successful, one of many answers and the most obvious at best would be: his affective intelligence. His initial angry move in which his throws the first prototype in to the trash can clearly suggests that he wanted to follow what was displayed in his inner vision, and that what he had in his hands was far from that.
We cannot say the same about Gates. Gates was calculative with the most of his cognitive intelligence at game. His calculations were clear and logical and he followed them with the mathematical precision. Certainly, he made some errors, like greeting his potential investors in the clothes in which he slept and allowing his secretary to badge in with not beneficial for him statement. His Altair opportunity closed the door into his face because he forgot to include the major component. He demands a signing bonus with them just to learn that this was not the way they ran business.
Here, it appears that he would benefit from the affective and psychomotor intelligences (Granell, 2000) that with all evidence he lacked, but again his cognitive intelligence saves him and catapults him on to the path of enormous success. He finds an obscure programmer and purchases from him the original DOS for $ 40,000 payable later and in installments. He turns around and invents the concept of Software License, which becomes a sale point with IBM. That particular move exemplifies the power behind the cognitive intelligence.
To bring a parallel between Gates and Jobs and to inquire what drove the origins of their legendary success, we will clearly see that in Jobs it was affective intelligence and in Gates it was cognitive intelligence. The last 15 minutes were disappointing and made me wondering what if Gates decided to partner with Jobs – what if the cognitive intelligence would unite with affective and psychomotor? What if Gates' marketing genius would become a part of Apple? The answer to this question is unilateral: all of us would enjoy a much better product and would not have to be driven by limitations on both ends: Apple with its limited software market and higher prices and Window-based PCs with their constant software and hardware problems.
These two lives of two great men do not typically fit into the text book and professional articles dissection of business success. Some, like Granello, argue that supervisors must be trained in the principles of Blooms Taxonomy in order to understand their subordinates and to find the best way of their expression. While excellent in theory, in practice it does not happen necessarily in that way. Literature, elsewhere, suggested that among supervisors the most prevalent is the thinking from own perspective and demanding the environment to fit in. We can clearly see that in both, Gates and Jobs, as in an example after example they show intolerance toward their own employees and even their friends and partners' views and opinions. Jobs' obsession with esthetics made him neglect the human needs. Gates' logic and mathematical precision made him ignore the ethics in business deals. Certainly, both of them became instrumental in creating the computers that all of use today.
But can we even begin guessing how far their respective intelligences would take this industry if Jobs would use Wozniak's cognitive intelligence and Gates would appreciate Job's invitation for the partnership? What is Jobs would be more understanding of his employees' needs and Gates would think mire about Windows' design perfection and trouble-free operation?
If both men were aware of the aspects of Blooms Taxonomy and desire to apply them in practical matters of their respective business would we see a better outcome? According Granello's secondary sources, the targeted division of Blooms Taxonomy into domains would render one more cognizant of personal preferences. For example, the cognitive domain can be viewed from the perspective of six sub areas: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. I cannot say that Jobs lacked all of the above, but was he in preference of functioning from entirely cognitive perspective?
Although the levels have been represented as cumulative from each other, one should clearly start with first two: Knowledge and Comprehension. Clearly, Gates was more successful in that than Jobs. If Jobs would be led to believe that he had to apply his knowledge and then analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the results, the glorious Apple would not be born. In the beginning stage of development, blind following the Blooms Taxonomy would cripple his affective intelligence. In thus, the logic suggests that those intelligences that are more natural and dominant are the most powerful having the potential to bring the beholder to success.
If one insists to Gates in developing and using his affective intelligence in the beginning and before he so boldly went to IBM, we perhaps would never learn of Microsoft for Windows would be late in development and the idea of which would be swallowed by then rapidly developing Apple. Both followed naturally their own preference and quite successfully.
Thus, the proponents of Blooms Taxonomy must agree that teaching its principles might have a contradictory results for those would mask the natural inclinations. To be successful (and not only in business) one must discover and act upon the naturally inborn preference. Certainly, the knowledge of it and other modalities will be helpful thus leaving (and logically so) the influence of Taxonomy as an educative and informative tool but never as training and influencing one. For those supervisors who might be influenced by the goodness of this knowledge might get into an idea exercise that what is lacking thus brushing the natural aspects aside. If such "training" will be especially guided under the duress of the superordinates' supervision and their insistence of using it to be more "productive" we can expect nothing more but a meager performance of those whose natural talents and abilities were suppressed.
The conclusion is the most obvious. Blooms Taxonomy is a valuable knowledge, but only as the informative input. The key here, to the opinion, of this writer, is the synergetic force of people with preferences of different Blooms' domains. Then, we can expect the cumulative effect.
Order your paper now!
I asked Essay Lab to write an essay for me and received paper the next day after I ordered it! Thank you!
Awesome WORK! If I ever need to write my essay – I will use only EssayLab!
These people are lifesavers! Just ask – “write me an essay” and they will start right away!