From Rob Kaiser: “According to conventional wisdom, leadership is about influencing individuals to contribute to group goals. Although the preferred way for leaders to influence followers has changed with the times—command and control leadership during the predictable days of industry, a more engaging person-oriented approach for the softer and less certain knowledge economy—the core assumption remains that leaders contribute to the bottom line by cajoling, inspiring, and motivating followers. The problem is that this view cannot explain „the Apple paradox.? By all accounts, Steven Jobs, the founder and CEO of Apple Inc., is a difficult person—abrasive, angry, mean, hard to satisfy, volatile, and supremely arrogant. He reduces subordinates to tears, takes credit for their ideas, curses them in public, and even yells at Board members. According to the conventional model, Jobs is a horrible leader…” However, Jobs has over 100 patents to his name, has created radical new products and new markets, has been deeply involved in the business, and has recruited some of the best talent in the world to work for Apple. Based on your knowledge of organizational behavior and leadership, how do you explain the apparent paradox? What theory or theories can provide insight?