I don't at all mean to be morbid, not in the least. Apple is a quarter-trillion public company, and CEOs of entities like that live in a bubble. The job comes with certain expectations and responsibilities, not the least of which is having a succession plan in place. That's life. I am simply being realistic.
Everyone here knows that I have nothing but the most phenomenal respect and admiration for Jobs, and I hope he lives forever!
I had no other thoughts that you didn't.
But for Apple to buck the norm, so to speak, preparing a succession plan and publicizing it at this time would basically tank the stock.
There would be no hope in hell that the announced successor would satisfy the invested interests, i.e., the shareholders/analysts/brokers, and in particular after the assholes who so frequently post here have their say.
Immediately after the posting, the media and the trolls would be announcing that Jobs is dying.
Equally concerning, there would be a deluge of comments, like, this is the end of the Mac.
I don't at all mean to be morbid, not in the least. Apple is a quarter-trillion public company, and CEOs of entities like that live in a bubble. The job comes with certain expectations and responsibilities, not the least of which is having a succession plan in place. That's life. I am simply being realistic.
Everyone here knows that I have nothing but the most phenomenal respect and admiration for Jobs, and I hope he lives forever!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka
Interesting.
Planning in general on how a successor will be chosen is one thing. Planning because someone could die on the job is another. And there is no law or obligation under effect that requires a company to do so either due to morbidity or mortality concerns. The only thing a company is required by law to do is to fulfill its board member list as stipulated in their corporate charter.
At the end of the day, we have someone over 50 in charge of one of the planet's most prominent companies. Who has been through cancer and has had an organ transplant. Who has taken two long periods of medical leave of absence.
Common sense would dictate somewhere in Cupertino, every now and then succession plans come up, and as shareholders or the board of directors, they surely must expect that any corporation has some processes of grooming successors to the top brass.
I can't recall any company doing so. Or anybody of high moral grounds wishing such. Why should Apple be any different?
That's not correct. Whether because of illness, age or any other reason, all well-managed large companies, especially public companies, are expected to have succession plans. Stockholders expect stability and they don't like surprises - that's why the stock of companies sometimes falls when they have a far better than expected quarter - even though it's better, Wall Street doesn't like to be surprised because it indicates that the company wasn't managing their "guidance" properly.
While it may seem morbid, some years ago I worked for a large media company that didn't permit more than X execs to fly on the same plane.
The perception that Jobs is Apple plus the health factors combine to set up a situation where the stock will crash big time when Steve leaves the company. We all know that Apple has some great talent - Tim Cook and Jonathan Ive, just to name two. And the reality is that Steve couldn't have been managing every little detail at Apple, especially when he was also managing Pixar (although perhaps that's why he was willing to let Pixar go to Disney.)
IMO, even if Steve didn't have health issues, he should be giving his senior execs more visibility. Steve should not be the only person inside Apple who can do a great presentation and get people excited. Steve should be the "moderator" at future presentations, but his execs should provide the details in an attempt to make the case that Apple can survive well without Steve.
But for Apple to buck the norm, so to speak, preparing a succession plan and publicizing it at this time would basically tank the stock.
There would be no hope in hell that the announced successor would satisfy the invested interests, i.e., the shareholders/analysts/brokers, and in particular after the assholes who so frequently post here have their say.
Immediately after the posting, the media and the trolls would be announcing that Jobs is dying.
Equally concerning, there would be a deluge of comments, like, this is the end of the Mac.
And as they say, perception is reality.
They don't have to publicise it, of course. I imagine though that the succession plans are discussed from time to time.
I of course wish Steve all the best, but, the universe is...
No one is as invested in Apple, personally and professionally, as Jobs. It's proof to me that a post-Jobs Apple returns to the middling performance of the years without Jobs. "Hired help" does not have the drive or vision of a company founder and Jobs is clearly always pushing the company forward, sometimes in directions they shouldn't.
This idea of Apple making and announcing a "succession plan" is just dumb.
Unless and until Steve Jobs announces, "I'll be retiring at the end of the year," which is unlikely to happen any year soon, it's not even possible to have a credible succession plan. Jobs could easily be running Apple for another 20 years, and there's no real reason to think otherwise at this point, but, even if he announced that he'd be retiring in, say, 5 years, you couldn't have a succession plan worth the paper it could be printed on. Who knows what sort of person the next head of Apple should be in 5, 10, 20 years, if it isn't Steve Jobs? Who knows who would even be available, internally or externally? So, they are supposed to lock themselves into some particular "plan" when no one knows what circumstances might exist when it came time to execute that plan?
I mean, really, this is just the worst idea ever, for any company.
Hoping that Apple's Board would be planning Job's successor "given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life," is morbid to say the least. And "plan(s) to publicize it,' even more so.
No competent board would allow its company not to have a succession plan in place for tragic events, e.g. if the CEO dies in a plane crash or of sudden cancer. If the CEO is liked and successful, he or she should be deeply involved in succession planning. That's not morbid; that's life. Bad things happen unexpectedly.
That said, some are holding Apple to a higher standard about making such details public because of Steve Jobs' influence over the company. Were I an Apple employee (and apparently they all have to be pretty creative!), I'd be a little insulted that my talents were held in such low regard by the investment community.
Quote:
Imagine coming home from work and finding your spouse and kids planning your funeral.
I would be quite upset: I'll plan my own, thank you very much.
Since Cutting Edge (as quoted in Insala) is a pharma research and marketing analysis firm -those numbers are for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. We don't know if they are reflective of the other market segments as there isn't (again, according to the Insala article you linked) any direct correlation nor enough data to be able to quantify this. Most BODs I've worked on or for have at least a rudimentary plan of succession in place for short-term impacts. Insala of course is marketing their services for
Quote:
Outplacement and Transition
Succession Planning
Career Development
Performance Management
Leadership Development
Employee Surveys
Mentoring
which may color how they present the data they are reporting.
Apple has an aggressively flat org structure, which is very dynamic and a far cry from hierarchical org structures like IBM, Microsoft and other traditional companies and very unusual for a company of its valuation and consumer impact. You can see the results of an hierarchical structure in how slow companies like Msoft and IBM are to react to market pressures and other impacts. Apple on the other hand and by Steve Jobs' design is more like a start-up and requires an entrepeneurial internal ownership attitude among it's managers and divisions for each project/product. I would have been very surprised that Papermaster would have been comfortable with that. You don't join Apple to do "business as usual" in the classic hierarchical sense, and Papermaster was probably unable to make the transition.
The hierarchical model allows for some very bad business practices to flourish, and supports a culture of mediocracy and deflection rather than direct ownership. In fact, after years involved with large corporations I coined the following analogy:
Quote:
Large organizations are successful in exactly the same way avalanches are successful - once critical mass overcomes resistance, there is so much momentum that large amounts of chaos and dysfunction can occur without slowing down the effective "success" of the organization. But just like the avalanche, once a significant obstacle (the bottom of the slope, or a significant market impact) is encountered, the internal dysfunction will make it impossible for the organization to adjust and re-acquire the order and functionality it needs to continue.
It is this dysfunction which Steve Jobs seems to want to avoid, and has replaced it with the other dysfunctions of the flatter, "personal accountability" model of the entrepeneurial management model. It takes a certain kind of personality to manage in that kind of environment and accept full ownership of the decisions made.
…Stockholders expect stability and they don't like surprises - that's why the stock of companies sometimes falls when they have a far better than expected quarter - even though it's better, Wall Street doesn't like to be surprised because it indicates that the company wasn't managing their "guidance" properly.
The only time stockholders want to hear about a 'successor' is when the company is in trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
While it may seem morbid, some years ago I worked for a large media company that didn't permit more than X execs to fly on the same plane.
And I am sure Apple has the same conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
The perception that Jobs is Apple plus the health factors combine to set up a situation where the stock will crash big time when Steve leaves the company. We all know that Apple has some great talent - Tim Cook and Jonathan Ive, just to name two. And the reality is that Steve couldn't have been managing every little detail at Apple, especially when he was also managing Pixar (although perhaps that's why he was willing to let Pixar go to Disney.)
And how does that affect a 'succession' plan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
IMO, even if Steve didn't have health issues, he should be giving his senior execs more visibility. Steve should not be the only person inside Apple who can do a great presentation and get people excited. Steve should be the "moderator" at future presentations, but his execs should provide the details in an attempt to make the case that Apple can survive well without Steve.
What do you think has been happening over the last couple of years?
And for all those that have challenged my position, perhaps a little due diligence is in order. At least read my references.*,†,***
Keep in mind we are discussing CEOs and in particular Jobs.
Quote:
CEO Succession Planning Lags Badly Research Finds
More than half of companies today cannot immediately name a successor to their CEO should the need arise, according to new research conducted by Heidrick & Struggles and Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University. The survey of more than 140 CEOs and board directors of North American public and private companies reveals critical lapses in CEO succession planning.
The 2010 Survey on CEO Succession Planning, conducted this spring, surveyed CEOs and directors at large- and mid-cap public companies in the U.S. and Canada, with 10% of respondents also from large private firms. Key findings from the survey include:
While 69% of respondents think that a CEO successor needs to be "ready now" to step into the shoes of the departing CEO, only 54% are grooming an executive for this position. "This statistic, combined with the finding that more than half couldn’t name a new permanent CEO if the current chief became incapacitated tomorrow, is a total disconnect," says Mr. Miles. "It’s hard to imagine that the CEO would be ‘ready now’ if he or she is not being groomed today."
A full 39% of respondents cited that they have "zero" viable internal candidates. "This points to a lack of talent management and not paying enough attention to your ‘bench,’" says Mr. Miles.
On average, boards spend only 2 hours a year on CEO succession planning. "The full boards of respondents’ companies meet, on average, five times a year. Succession planning is discussed at only two of these meetings, at one hour apiece," says Professor Larcker. "The nominating and governance committee – who often take primary responsibility for succession planning – did not fare much better; respondents reported that only four hours of meeting time is typically devoted to this topic each year."
Only 50% have a written document detailing the skills required for the next CEO. Professor Larcker thinks this seems rather low: "If nothing is written down, how do we know that the board really understands what these skills should be?"
Seventy-one percent of internal candidates know they are in the formal talent development pool, but there is regular communication (typically yearly or bi-yearly) for only 50% of these internal candidates. "There is a large communication gap, which can cause retention issues," says Mr. Miles. "Executives who don’t know they are even in the running to be CEO might be easily lured elsewhere, where they believe they have room for advancement."
The majority of firms – 65% – have not asked internal candidates whether they want the CEO job, or, if offered, whether they would accept. "Many firms simply assume that their top choices want the job, but that is not always the case," says Mr. Miles. "More and more, we see executives who don’t want to be in the spotlight as the CEO, given the extreme public scrutiny associated with the position. Making this assumption without checking can cause real problems down the road."
Once viable internal candidates for the CEO job are identified, 38% of firms think that the external search should continue at the same pace. "This is a big mistake," Mr. Miles warns. "Companies lose strong candidates when they keep the outside search open too long even though they have perfectly capable internal talent."
While 48% of respondents think they have an extremely strong or very strong understanding of the capabilities of internal candidates, only 19% have extremely or very well established external benchmarks to measure their skills against. "It is another disconnect between perception and reality," says Professor Larcker. "How do you know that a candidate is strong unless you compare him or her against the marketplace?"
Only 50% of companies provide on-board or transition support for new CEOs. "This is the most important job at the company," Professor Larcker observes. "Not having the support in place for on-boarding the executive can put the entire organization on unstable ground."
I would suggest that if this survey were mandatory for every public traded company, the results would be even worse.
I would also suggest that if Apple announce a succession planned named a successor to Jobs today, there would be a flood of board members, management personnel and employees exercising their options, selling their stock and posting their resumes. And a hell of a lot of shareholders doing the same.
Whether because of illness, age or any other reason, all well-managed large companies, especially public companies, are expected to have succession plans.
Sure, but a fat lot of good it's been for many of them. I imagine there were succession plans for
Jack Welch
Bill Hewlett
Dave Packard
Bill Gates
Bill McGowan
Hank Greenberg
... even Alan Greenspan
A succession plan comforts investors, since markets are influenced more by an illusion of predictability than reality: Successful succession plans are the exception rather than the norm.
When I was about 10 years old, I remember saying how I wished that Christmas would come earlier. To which my father simply said, "So you wish to die sooner?"
Hoping that Apple's Board would be planning Job's successor "given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life," is morbid to say the least. And "plan(s) to publicize it,' even more so.
I can't recall any company doing so. Or anybody of high moral grounds wishing such. Why should Apple be any different?
Do we really need to get into "the next CEO of Apple?"
Imagine coming home from work and finding your spouse and kids planning your funeral. What a great incentive to live.
This is complete bullshit.
Every company has succession plan discussions. Every company has employee backup plans. Yes, it's morbid, but we're all human and hopefully adult enough to understand it needs to be done.
I can't count how many times I've heard the "... just in case so-and-so gets run over by a bus or gets in an accident" phrase at work. You always make sure there is someone to back you up and you should also have succession plan for important people.
Publicising it may be a good idea in a couple of years. In fact I believe Apple already made a statement on succession planning, which referenced a couple people at Apple.
This is potentially problematic for Tim Cook. It's the second major flub during his six months of leadership at Apple (the other being the ill-advised deal in China with the non-wifi phone that few people bought, millions of which probably just had to be trashed).
It also reinforces the market's belief that Apple is Jobs and Jobs, Apple. Given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life, the Jobs 'put' will now be back in a big way in Apple's share price. Hope Apple's Board is getting on board by putting in place a succession plan, and will plan to publicize it.
It was interesting to watch Apple handle Antennagate without Jobs. IMO it did not go very well. I would speculate that the letter (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010...terstitialskip) in which Apple said they were "stunned" about the bars was written while Jobs was in Hawaii and presumably out of the loop. The letter sounded stupid and sophomoric and did nothing to quell the storm of media coverage. If true, that does not bode well for Apple without Jobs.
Otherwise worded, even top officers are basically no more, than technical workers. Were we not technology enthusiasts specialized in Apple solutions, we would be LOAOROFL.
Or we'd be saying "so THAT'S how the most successful company in America operates. What can we learn from that."
Every company has succession plan discussions. Every company has employee backup plans. Yes, it's morbid, but we're all human and hopefully adult enough to understand it needs to be done.
I can't count how many times I've heard the "... just in case so-and-so gets run over by a bus or gets in an accident" phrase at work. You always make sure there is someone to back you up and you should also have succession plan for important people.
Same here. I've noticed a trend lately of trying to phrase it as "in case so-and-so wins the lottery" but yes it's a fundamental business concern.
Again, why would somebody like Papermaster who had been with IBM for 26 years in Texas and was a trusted VP would go with Apple. He was already rich anyway. His expertise was microprocessors and was used to dealing in structured environment. Apple is the opposite of IBM... SJ is talented, but it takes a special personality to work with him, regardless of talent.
Anyway, Papermaster must have made a ton on Apple stock plus what he got from IBM. There a lot of fun things to do in life besides work. {lay with kids/grandkids, go to Toysrus, fishing, etc. No point waiting till the joints creak, BP goes up, etc. Most people who I see at the end of their lives never say, they should have made more money... they wish they played with their kids more, travelled and done other fun stuff when they were young.
Every company has succession plan discussions. Every company has employee backup plans. Yes, it's morbid, but we're all human and hopefully adult enough to understand it needs to be done.
I can't count how many times I've heard the "... just in case so-and-so gets run over by a bus or gets in an accident" phrase at work. You always make sure there is someone to back you up and you should also have succession plan for important people.
Publicising it may be a good idea in a couple of years. In fact I believe Apple already made a statement on succession planning, which referenced a couple people at Apple.
Where the hell have you been?
Did you bother to read the thread and look at the references. (In your case, the Globe & Mail and The Financial Post links in the reference above)
Nobody said anything about having discussions. We are talking about senior management and in particular, Jobs.
And if you are so sure, supply a reference. Not a bloggers comment.
Comments
I don't at all mean to be morbid, not in the least. Apple is a quarter-trillion public company, and CEOs of entities like that live in a bubble. The job comes with certain expectations and responsibilities, not the least of which is having a succession plan in place. That's life. I am simply being realistic.
Everyone here knows that I have nothing but the most phenomenal respect and admiration for Jobs, and I hope he lives forever!
I had no other thoughts that you didn't.
But for Apple to buck the norm, so to speak, preparing a succession plan and publicizing it at this time would basically tank the stock.
There would be no hope in hell that the announced successor would satisfy the invested interests, i.e., the shareholders/analysts/brokers, and in particular after the assholes who so frequently post here have their say.
Immediately after the posting, the media and the trolls would be announcing that Jobs is dying.
Equally concerning, there would be a deluge of comments, like, this is the end of the Mac.
And as they say, perception is reality.
I don't at all mean to be morbid, not in the least. Apple is a quarter-trillion public company, and CEOs of entities like that live in a bubble. The job comes with certain expectations and responsibilities, not the least of which is having a succession plan in place. That's life. I am simply being realistic.
Everyone here knows that I have nothing but the most phenomenal respect and admiration for Jobs, and I hope he lives forever!
Interesting.
Planning in general on how a successor will be chosen is one thing. Planning because someone could die on the job is another. And there is no law or obligation under effect that requires a company to do so either due to morbidity or mortality concerns. The only thing a company is required by law to do is to fulfill its board member list as stipulated in their corporate charter.
At the end of the day, we have someone over 50 in charge of one of the planet's most prominent companies. Who has been through cancer and has had an organ transplant. Who has taken two long periods of medical leave of absence.
Common sense would dictate somewhere in Cupertino, every now and then succession plans come up, and as shareholders or the board of directors, they surely must expect that any corporation has some processes of grooming successors to the top brass.
I can't recall any company doing so. Or anybody of high moral grounds wishing such. Why should Apple be any different?
That's not correct. Whether because of illness, age or any other reason, all well-managed large companies, especially public companies, are expected to have succession plans. Stockholders expect stability and they don't like surprises - that's why the stock of companies sometimes falls when they have a far better than expected quarter - even though it's better, Wall Street doesn't like to be surprised because it indicates that the company wasn't managing their "guidance" properly.
While it may seem morbid, some years ago I worked for a large media company that didn't permit more than X execs to fly on the same plane.
The perception that Jobs is Apple plus the health factors combine to set up a situation where the stock will crash big time when Steve leaves the company. We all know that Apple has some great talent - Tim Cook and Jonathan Ive, just to name two. And the reality is that Steve couldn't have been managing every little detail at Apple, especially when he was also managing Pixar (although perhaps that's why he was willing to let Pixar go to Disney.)
IMO, even if Steve didn't have health issues, he should be giving his senior execs more visibility. Steve should not be the only person inside Apple who can do a great presentation and get people excited. Steve should be the "moderator" at future presentations, but his execs should provide the details in an attempt to make the case that Apple can survive well without Steve.
I had no other thoughts that you didn't.
But for Apple to buck the norm, so to speak, preparing a succession plan and publicizing it at this time would basically tank the stock.
There would be no hope in hell that the announced successor would satisfy the invested interests, i.e., the shareholders/analysts/brokers, and in particular after the assholes who so frequently post here have their say.
Immediately after the posting, the media and the trolls would be announcing that Jobs is dying.
Equally concerning, there would be a deluge of comments, like, this is the end of the Mac.
And as they say, perception is reality.
They don't have to publicise it, of course. I imagine though that the succession plans are discussed from time to time.
I of course wish Steve all the best, but, the universe is...
Unless and until Steve Jobs announces, "I'll be retiring at the end of the year," which is unlikely to happen any year soon, it's not even possible to have a credible succession plan. Jobs could easily be running Apple for another 20 years, and there's no real reason to think otherwise at this point, but, even if he announced that he'd be retiring in, say, 5 years, you couldn't have a succession plan worth the paper it could be printed on. Who knows what sort of person the next head of Apple should be in 5, 10, 20 years, if it isn't Steve Jobs? Who knows who would even be available, internally or externally? So, they are supposed to lock themselves into some particular "plan" when no one knows what circumstances might exist when it came time to execute that plan?
I mean, really, this is just the worst idea ever, for any company.
Hoping that Apple's Board would be planning Job's successor "given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life," is morbid to say the least. And "plan(s) to publicize it,' even more so.
No competent board would allow its company not to have a succession plan in place for tragic events, e.g. if the CEO dies in a plane crash or of sudden cancer. If the CEO is liked and successful, he or she should be deeply involved in succession planning. That's not morbid; that's life. Bad things happen unexpectedly.
That said, some are holding Apple to a higher standard about making such details public because of Steve Jobs' influence over the company. Were I an Apple employee (and apparently they all have to be pretty creative!), I'd be a little insulted that my talents were held in such low regard by the investment community.
Imagine coming home from work and finding your spouse and kids planning your funeral.
I would be quite upset: I'll plan my own, thank you very much.
Since Cutting Edge (as quoted in Insala) is a pharma research and marketing analysis firm -those numbers are for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. We don't know if they are reflective of the other market segments as there isn't (again, according to the Insala article you linked) any direct correlation nor enough data to be able to quantify this. Most BODs I've worked on or for have at least a rudimentary plan of succession in place for short-term impacts. Insala of course is marketing their services for
Outplacement and Transition
Succession Planning
Career Development
Performance Management
Leadership Development
Employee Surveys
Mentoring
which may color how they present the data they are reporting.
Apple has an aggressively flat org structure, which is very dynamic and a far cry from hierarchical org structures like IBM, Microsoft and other traditional companies and very unusual for a company of its valuation and consumer impact. You can see the results of an hierarchical structure in how slow companies like Msoft and IBM are to react to market pressures and other impacts. Apple on the other hand and by Steve Jobs' design is more like a start-up and requires an entrepeneurial internal ownership attitude among it's managers and divisions for each project/product. I would have been very surprised that Papermaster would have been comfortable with that. You don't join Apple to do "business as usual" in the classic hierarchical sense, and Papermaster was probably unable to make the transition.
The hierarchical model allows for some very bad business practices to flourish, and supports a culture of mediocracy and deflection rather than direct ownership. In fact, after years involved with large corporations I coined the following analogy:
Large organizations are successful in exactly the same way avalanches are successful - once critical mass overcomes resistance, there is so much momentum that large amounts of chaos and dysfunction can occur without slowing down the effective "success" of the organization. But just like the avalanche, once a significant obstacle (the bottom of the slope, or a significant market impact) is encountered, the internal dysfunction will make it impossible for the organization to adjust and re-acquire the order and functionality it needs to continue.
It is this dysfunction which Steve Jobs seems to want to avoid, and has replaced it with the other dysfunctions of the flatter, "personal accountability" model of the entrepeneurial management model. It takes a certain kind of personality to manage in that kind of environment and accept full ownership of the decisions made.
…Stockholders expect stability and they don't like surprises - that's why the stock of companies sometimes falls when they have a far better than expected quarter - even though it's better, Wall Street doesn't like to be surprised because it indicates that the company wasn't managing their "guidance" properly.
The only time stockholders want to hear about a 'successor' is when the company is in trouble.
While it may seem morbid, some years ago I worked for a large media company that didn't permit more than X execs to fly on the same plane.
And I am sure Apple has the same conditions.
The perception that Jobs is Apple plus the health factors combine to set up a situation where the stock will crash big time when Steve leaves the company. We all know that Apple has some great talent - Tim Cook and Jonathan Ive, just to name two. And the reality is that Steve couldn't have been managing every little detail at Apple, especially when he was also managing Pixar (although perhaps that's why he was willing to let Pixar go to Disney.)
And how does that affect a 'succession' plan?
IMO, even if Steve didn't have health issues, he should be giving his senior execs more visibility. Steve should not be the only person inside Apple who can do a great presentation and get people excited. Steve should be the "moderator" at future presentations, but his execs should provide the details in an attempt to make the case that Apple can survive well without Steve.
What do you think has been happening over the last couple of years?
And for all those that have challenged my position, perhaps a little due diligence is in order. At least read my references.*,†,***
Keep in mind we are discussing CEOs and in particular Jobs. I would suggest that if this survey were mandatory for every public traded company, the results would be even worse.
I would also suggest that if Apple announce a succession planned named a successor to Jobs today, there would be a flood of board members, management personnel and employees exercising their options, selling their stock and posting their resumes. And a hell of a lot of shareholders doing the same.
*http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/hea...-planning.html
†http://www.insala.com/Articles/succe...ent-trends.asp
**http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&cl...=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Whether because of illness, age or any other reason, all well-managed large companies, especially public companies, are expected to have succession plans.
Sure, but a fat lot of good it's been for many of them. I imagine there were succession plans for
Jack Welch
Bill Hewlett
Dave Packard
Bill Gates
Bill McGowan
Hank Greenberg
... even Alan Greenspan
A succession plan comforts investors, since markets are influenced more by an illusion of predictability than reality: Successful succession plans are the exception rather than the norm.
What this bodes for
Warren Buffet
Jeff Bezos
Hugh Hefner
and Steve Jobs
remains to be seen.
When I was about 10 years old, I remember saying how I wished that Christmas would come earlier. To which my father simply said, "So you wish to die sooner?"
Hoping that Apple's Board would be planning Job's successor "given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life," is morbid to say the least. And "plan(s) to publicize it,' even more so.
I can't recall any company doing so. Or anybody of high moral grounds wishing such. Why should Apple be any different?
Do we really need to get into "the next CEO of Apple?"
Imagine coming home from work and finding your spouse and kids planning your funeral. What a great incentive to live.
This is complete bullshit.
Every company has succession plan discussions. Every company has employee backup plans. Yes, it's morbid, but we're all human and hopefully adult enough to understand it needs to be done.
I can't count how many times I've heard the "... just in case so-and-so gets run over by a bus or gets in an accident" phrase at work. You always make sure there is someone to back you up and you should also have succession plan for important people.
Publicising it may be a good idea in a couple of years. In fact I believe Apple already made a statement on succession planning, which referenced a couple people at Apple.
This is potentially problematic for Tim Cook. It's the second major flub during his six months of leadership at Apple (the other being the ill-advised deal in China with the non-wifi phone that few people bought, millions of which probably just had to be trashed).
It also reinforces the market's belief that Apple is Jobs and Jobs, Apple. Given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life, the Jobs 'put' will now be back in a big way in Apple's share price. Hope Apple's Board is getting on board by putting in place a succession plan, and will plan to publicize it.
It was interesting to watch Apple handle Antennagate without Jobs. IMO it did not go very well. I would speculate that the letter (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010...terstitialskip) in which Apple said they were "stunned" about the bars was written while Jobs was in Hawaii and presumably out of the loop. The letter sounded stupid and sophomoric and did nothing to quell the storm of media coverage. If true, that does not bode well for Apple without Jobs.
Otherwise worded, even top officers are basically no more, than technical workers. Were we not technology enthusiasts specialized in Apple solutions, we would be LOAOROFL.
Or we'd be saying "so THAT'S how the most successful company in America operates. What can we learn from that."
Everyone who adds part of the name of a hotel that was involved in a scandal over 30 years ago to an unrelated issue is an idiot.
Papermastergate?
This is complete bullshit.
Every company has succession plan discussions. Every company has employee backup plans. Yes, it's morbid, but we're all human and hopefully adult enough to understand it needs to be done.
I can't count how many times I've heard the "... just in case so-and-so gets run over by a bus or gets in an accident" phrase at work. You always make sure there is someone to back you up and you should also have succession plan for important people.
Same here. I've noticed a trend lately of trying to phrase it as "in case so-and-so wins the lottery" but yes it's a fundamental business concern.
Anyway, Papermaster must have made a ton on Apple stock plus what he got from IBM. There a lot of fun things to do in life besides work. {lay with kids/grandkids, go to Toysrus, fishing, etc. No point waiting till the joints creak, BP goes up, etc. Most people who I see at the end of their lives never say, they should have made more money... they wish they played with their kids more, travelled and done other fun stuff when they were young.
No reset button for the human timer.
Everyone who adds part of the name of a hotel that was involved in a scandal over 30 years ago to an unrelated issue is an idiot.
Like the time there was that incident by the entrance to the former Microsoft CEO's house, or Gatesgategate as it was known.
This is complete bullshit.
Every company has succession plan discussions. Every company has employee backup plans. Yes, it's morbid, but we're all human and hopefully adult enough to understand it needs to be done.
I can't count how many times I've heard the "... just in case so-and-so gets run over by a bus or gets in an accident" phrase at work. You always make sure there is someone to back you up and you should also have succession plan for important people.
Publicising it may be a good idea in a couple of years. In fact I believe Apple already made a statement on succession planning, which referenced a couple people at Apple.
Where the hell have you been?
Did you bother to read the thread and look at the references. (In your case, the Globe & Mail and The Financial Post links in the reference above)
Nobody said anything about having discussions. We are talking about senior management and in particular, Jobs.
And if you are so sure, supply a reference. Not a bloggers comment.
What this bodes for
Warren Buffet
......
remains to be seen.
Don't know about the others, but Buffett's succession planning is transparent, and well under way: http://www.heritageinstitute.com/gov...succession.htm