Chief People Officer leaves Apple after short 20 month tenure

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 16

Carol Surface joined Apple in early 2023 as the new Chief People Officer, but she is set to depart the role after less than two years on the job.

Carol Surface with shoulder-length blonde hair, wearing a green jacket and gold blouse, set against a light gray background.
Carol Surface. Image source: Apple



Chief People Officer is a role that was created by taking the human resources department originally under Deirdre O'Brien and forming its own unit. O'Brien had been senior vice president of People and Retail since 2019 until the role split.

According to report from Bloomberg, Carol Surface is departing Apple and the responsibilities Chief People Officer will once again fall under Deirdre O'Brien. The reason for the quick turnaround in the position is unknown.

Apple has seen several significant executive departures in recent years as long-time employees reach retirement. CFO Luca Maestri departs at the end of 2024, and Dan Riccio will soon retire as well.

While retiring after over 20 years at Apple is one thing, leaving after 20 months is another. Apple could have realized it didn't need the position, or Surface could be leaving for better prospects -- there's no way of knowing without an official statement.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 2 of 12
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 3,020member
    Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 
    edited October 16 jdwnubusdewmejbirdiikunpembrokewatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 12
    It's a computer science/ engineering/ hyper-tech firm filled with Lone Wolfs, narcissists, and the support/ managerial staff which herd and wrangle them. Being in HR or 'People' Manager must be one of the most difficult and unfulfilling jobs in such as an environment. What you do? Mother them? Let them fend for themselves? They are anti-thetical to community and forced socialization. An effective organizational chart for such places has yet to be designed.
    Oferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 12
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,439member
    DAalseth said:
    Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 
    I clicked Like on your post because until you told me in plain speech what that title actually is, I really wouldn't have known.

    We all know what "Human Resources" (aka HR) is about.  But Chief People Officer is a head scratcher!

    At the end of the day, I guess she left because she wasn't a people person after all. :-)

    But in the greater scheme of things, does it really matter?
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 12
    Wesley HilliardWesley Hilliard Posts: 259member, administrator, moderator, editor
    jdw said:
    DAalseth said:
    Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 
    I clicked Like on your post because until you told me in plain speech what that title actually is, I really wouldn't have known.

    We all know what "Human Resources" (aka HR) is about.  But Chief People Officer is a head scratcher!

    At the end of the day, I guess she left because she wasn't a people person after all. :-)

    But in the greater scheme of things, does it really matter?
    Second paragraph my dude lmao
    > "Chief People Officer is a role that was created by taking the human resources department"

    But to be fair it is a role much larger than just HR. She also managed projects like recruiting for Apple's college programs and such. She reported directly to Tim Cook. It is curious that she left, but not entirely crazy. Apple is a tough company and outsiders tend to not do well in those executive positions. Most of Apple's Leadership page are people that rose through the ranks over decades, not outside hires like Surface.
    Alex_VOferdewmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 12
    zeus423zeus423 Posts: 270member
    Some companies don't have Human Resources. They have Human Capital. Insert your own comment on that one.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 12
    Alex_VAlex_V Posts: 256member
    DAalseth said:
    Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 
    “Human Resources” is such a lovely candy apple. Why would anyone sugar-coat that?
    edited October 17 DAalsethwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 12
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,569member
    Alex_V said:
    DAalseth said:
    Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 
    “Human Resources” is such a lovely candy apple. Why would anyone sugar-coat that?
    And before HR I think companies called it ‘personnel’. 

    I think this is the kind of thing where they keep changing the name because whatever name you give it eventually becomes tainted by the reality of what it is.

    The job of HR is to manipulate and control people in order to exploit them to the fullest extent possible to enrich shareholders. Everything else is window dressing.
    muthuk_vanalingamnubusAlex_Vfreeassociate2watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 12
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,757member
    DAalseth said:
    Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 
    "I'm the Chief of Complicated Surgery at the Invasicare Clinic".
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 12
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,724member
    zeus423 said:
    Some companies don't have Human Resources. They have Human Capital. Insert your own comment on that one.
    Human Resources typically refers to the organizational and functional aspects of people management while Human Capital typically refers to the aggregate value, capability, skills, etc., that an organization has through its people. If HR is seen as a bank Human Capital is the money and assets the bank has at its disposal. 

    I don’t think Apple is unique in using the Chief People Officer title even though it still sounds strange to those of us who worked during the Human Resources era. I still remember when the title Human Resources sounded weird to me. The HR function used to be called “Personnel” and there were Chief Personnel Officers. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 12
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,232member
    Guys, whatever they call the department (personnel, HR, Human Capital, whatever) it's still the same. The corporate world likes to change the name every 10-15 years but it doesn't really matter.

    Let's remember that HR doesn't exist to protect the employee. It's exists to protect the company.

    Never ever forget that.
    jbirdiikunwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 12
    DAalseth said:
    Ngl, I always found the title Chief People Officer more than a little off-putting. She was in charge of Human Resources. No matter how you sugar coat it, that’s what that position was. Giving the job a cute, new agey name just struck me as weird, as trying too hard. 

    Agreed. I’d go further and call it Personnel. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.