The manager said he was sick on May 4. On May 14 he said he was caught up and would get back next Monday (which is May 17). There was another nudge on Wednesday, May 19. Almost a week after that, on May 25, Steve gets CCed again.
While I grant that 3 days out due to sickness excuses some tardiness, the manager was given lots of time to catch up, many opportunities to respond, and over a week past the promised response time before Steve got CCed again.
Even so, what did he expect was going to happen by CCing Steve Jobs? Did he think Steve was going to come thundering down to the engineer's office wanting to know why he hadn't replied to that guy's previous email?
Realistically, I'd say that that kind of move, trying to embarrass someone you want something from in front of his boss's boss's boss, can only have negative consequences.
My comment was intended to point out that the time spent before escalating was reasonable, even despite the 3 day sickness.
As for the consequences of trying to escalate, it is true that it tends to upset the person you escalated in front of. However it is also true that it can motivate them to actually return to your case. I've seen organizations where it was a guaranteed disaster to use that strategy, and others where it was an effective way to get things done.
If I've seen that much variation between organizations within one country, how much more variation could there be between organizations across multiple countries with multiple cultures?
It's reasonable if the engineer in question was actually abandoning his duties, which he wasn't. The OP was deluded as to the nature of the conversation -- it was clear from email #1 it was all very non-committal.
Yeah, he was probably a lot more excited about this project than the other side. Doesn't mean that nothing could have come from it, but they probably didn't consider it 24/7, just at a lower priority. It almost sounds as if the OP felt he was Apple's savior.
All that I need to know about the manager's schedule is this.
The manager said on May 14 that he would get back by May 17, and failed to respond by May 25 despite an attempt to follow-up on May 19. If the manager's schedule, workload and working priorities were such that May 17 was unrealistic, then the manager should not have said he would get back on May 17.
What he should or shouldn't be doing with respect to his job is determined by his manager and company - not by the public at large, fortunately.
While the obvious case can be made that someone could have been more professional in this situation (as with almost any situation) - there is very little in terms of expectation set here. No promises of consequence were made, no binding contracts... and for all we know, the behaviour of the applicant in this situation was part of the hiring manager's decision process (whatever that might be)
The manager said he was sick on May 4. On May 14 he said he was caught up and would get back next Monday (which is May 17). There was another nudge on Wednesday, May 19. Almost a week after that, on May 25, Steve gets CCed again.
While I grant that 3 days out due to sickness excuses some tardiness, the manager was given lots of time to catch up, many opportunities to respond, and over a week past the promised response time before Steve got CCed again.