You can look this stuff up as easily as I can. A great deal of information about what's normally in succession plans can be easily found. Since Apple has provided no information, anything is more. If you look back, you will see that my so-called "vague" responses are in reply to those who are spreading the red herring argument that names are being demanded.
So, someone posted above that they read your linked to "information" and there was really nothing there that would explain what you expect. So, why don't you just lay out in a few bullet points exactly what you think should be in a published succession plan from Apple. No need to be coy.
Wow. How old is the average member of this forum? Last time SJ left Apple things did not go well. .
And Apple was a far different company last time. Things at Apple are very different this time around.
Heck, the technology industry was night and day different back then - any comparisons to the 90's is just futile back then. One big difference for example was the massive infighting at Apple and the fact that Jobs was ousted by the board. That alone is enough to discount any comparisons. Things are day and night different from last time.
A Steve Jobs comes along maybe once in a lifetime. Whoever follows him will be less.
I don't agree. The problem is, regardless of how competent the next CEO is, it won't be Steve Jobs. The person may be smarter, more of a presence on stage, have a better understanding of technology, etc. but when Jobs is gone, he is gone and the worst thing Apple could do is to try and replace the person.
I've seen it happen in sports. A veteran coach leaves... and the next guy fails. It happens because the fans are trying to compare people, styles, etc. and not the position. It's also a wonderful time for a power grab from the 2nd tier individuals
I don't agree. The problem is, regardless of how competent the next CEO is, it won't be Steve Jobs. The person may be smarter, more of a presence on stage, have a better understanding of technology, etc. but when Jobs is gone, he is gone and the worst thing Apple could do is to try and replace the person.
I've seen it happen in sports. A veteran coach leaves... and the next guy fails. It happens because the fans are trying to compare people, styles, etc. and not the position. It's also a wonderful time for a power grab from the 2nd tier individuals
Rumor has it that Woz will return, take centerstage in a white caftan, and introduce the white iPhone4 next week.
Look, Steve Jobs, like every other human, has his good parts and his bad. Some parts, like his temper and his ego, can do a lot of harm. They can also be used to drive a product to exacting standards.
But others can do the same, and maybe create less havoc in the process.
And remember that Apple survived and grew even after Steve Jobs left back in the 80's. He came back to a company that had kept the secret flame burning all that time.
Now the flame is a roaring bonfire, growing by leaps and bounds. It's fast becoming the company he always wanted it to become.
Apple is Steve Jobs' progeny, originally conceived with Sreve Wozniak, nurtured by many, many others who shared the dream, and now, finally, grown into young adulthood. It's the apple of it's father's eye. Why would he want anything more than to see it stand on its own two feet, and why would he not be working very hard to accomplish that eventuality.
Once again, certain people severely underestimate both Steve Jobs and Apple. Others of us are content to let them play this out their way.
And are these other companies also far more successful than Apple? They must be, if you want Apple to emulate them. Names, please, of these phenomenally successful companies?
Let's try some relevant question instead. Are these other companies led by CEOs who are widely considered to be inseparable from the company's success, and who have also been on medical leave three times? Have these companies exposed themselves to competitive threats by disclosing something about their succession planning to shareholders?
Anyway, more debunking, posted in full for the click-disabled:
Quote:
Apple shareholder proposal to force reveal of Steve Jobs succession plan gains support
An Apple shareholder proposal to force the tech giant to publicly release a succession plan for Chief Executive Steve Jobs has been backed by Institutional Shareholder Services, a company considered to be one of the most highly influential of investor advisors.
The proposal was submitted by the Central Laborers Pension Fund in August, before Jobs announced his indefinite medical leave last month. Jobs handed most of his daily responsibilities over to Apple's Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook but retained his CEO title.
The Central Laborers Pension Fund fund owns about 11,500 shares in Apple, or about a thousandth of 1% of the Cupertino company's outstanding shares, according to the Associated Press.
ISS, a company that consults institutional investors on how to vote on such shareholder measures, also called for Apple's board to release such a plan to shareholders annually.
In a statement on the Central Laborers proposal, the ISS said, "All companies should have succession planning policies and succession plans in place, and boards should periodically review and update them."
The measure will go up for an Apple shareholder vote at the company's annual meeting on Feb. 23.
In its 2011 Investor Proxy Statement, released on Jan. 7, Apple asked shareholders to vote against the measure.
"Not just the CEO, is critical to Apple's success," Apple's board of directors said in the proxy statement. "Accordingly, the Board already implements many of the proposed actions and maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."
In the proxy statement, Apple said it commits an annual review of succession planning for its senior management, including its chief executive.
"As part of this annual review, the Board has a formal evaluation process in which it identifies and recommends development of internal candidates for succession based on criteria that reflect Apple?s business strategy," Apple's proxy statement said.
Such a move would "undermine the Company's efforts to recruit and retain executives" and "invites competitors to recruit high-value executives away from Apple. Furthermore, executives who are not identified as potential successors may choose to voluntarily leave the Company," Apple said.
Aside from ISS, the Central Laborers proposition is also supported by the Laborers International Union of North America.
In a statement, Laborers International said: "We're concerned to hear the news about Steve Jobs' health and hope to see him return to full duties soon. However, this news demonstrates the need for Apple to do well by its shareholders, including our members' pension funds."
The group said it has successfully proposed similar CEO succession proposals to companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Verizon and American Express.
Laborers International also said Apple had misconstrued its proposal.
"We do not expect them to provide specific names of future executives, but merely demonstrate they have a plan in place for naming one," the group said. "This proposal would not only benefit our members' retirement savings, but also would give reassurance to other Apple shareholders and help the company."
Oh yes, I am sure that a company that is so loose in it's organization and business practices has no idea what will happen if their CEO who already has a life-threatening illness cannot continue.
Just because everybody and his dog doesn't know what the plan is, do you really think they haven't got one?
Oh yes, I am sure that a company that is so loose in it's organization and business practices has no idea what will happen if their CEO who already has a life-threatening illness cannot continue.
Just because everybody and his dog doesn't know what the plan is, do you really think they haven't got one?
Come on, a little common sense and less hysteria.
I don't get the "hysteria" charge, except as a cheap way to paint people who are asking for something very simple, reasonable and straight-forward, and easily achievable, as raving lunatics. And why, pray tell, would you want to do that?
..."We do not expect them to provide specific names of future executives, but merely demonstrate they have a plan in place for naming one," the group said....
So, what would they have to do to "demonstrate" to your satisfaction that they have one? Waive a piece of paper around and say, "We have a succession plan. I'm holding it here in my hand. I can't show it to you, but here it is, and it's a doozy!" Stop hiding behind the words of others and say what you mean.
I don't get the "hysteria" charge, except as a cheap way to paint people who are asking for something very simple, reasonable and straight-forward, and easily achievable, as raving lunatics. And why, pray tell, would you want to do that?
It IS raving lunacy, to demand any such information from Apple's board. They are under no obligation to offer that information, and asking for it, especially in this manner which is dangerously close to intimidation, is exactly that...lunacy.
It IS raving lunacy, to demand any such information from Apple's board. They are under no obligation to offer that information, and asking for it, especially in this manner which is dangerously close to intimidation, is exactly that...lunacy.
Well, Dr Millmoss has never been the same since the hippo incident.
Has anyone actually READ the shareholder proposal? It doesn't require Apple to name any names - merely to tell people what their plan would be for finding one among internal candidates. What's the problem with that? Tons of companies do that.
My question is why does the Central Laborers' Pension Fund and now the ISS want to undermine Apple? What are they being handed under the table and by whom to get them to try and influence an Apple stock price drop, and put the company at a competitive disadvantage? Someone somewhere either has a political motive or their palms are being greased, or both. I'd like to know the whos behind it.
By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?
RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (?Company?) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company?s Corporate Governance Guidelines (?Guidelines?) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:
The Board of Directors will review the plan annually;
The Board will develop criteria for the CEO position which will reflect the Company?s business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates;
The Board will identify and develop internal candidates;
The Board will begin non-emergency CEO succession planning at least 3 years before an expected transition and will maintain an emergency succession plan that is reviewed annually;
The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders.
My question is why does the Central Laborers' Pension Fund and now the ISS want to undermine Apple? What are they being handed under the table and by whom to get them to try and influence an Apple stock price drop, and put the company at a competitive disadvantage? Someone somewhere either has a political motive or their palms are being greased, or both. I'd like to know the whos behind it.
The pension fund owns Apple stock, which has shown to be pretty volatile when news comes out concerning the health of Steve Jobs. They probably think a succession plan would stabilize things and protect their investment.
And are these other companies also far more successful than Apple? They must be, if you want Apple to emulate them. Names, please, of these phenomenally successful companies?
You responded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Let's try some relevant question instead. Are these other companies led by CEOs who are widely considered to be inseparable from the company's success, and who have also been on medical leave three times? Have these companies exposed themselves to competitive threats by disclosing something about their succession planning to shareholders?
Anyway, more debunking, posted in full for the click-disabled....
I saw the names in the article. I just couldn't believe you were comparing them to Apple. If you had bought the stocks of your "superior" companies (American Express, Verizon, and HP) five yeaes ago, Amex and Verizon would have gained you zero. HP did a little better, gaining 42%.
And then there's Apple, gaining 527% over the last five years.
By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?
RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (“Company”) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:
The Board of Directors will review the plan annually;
The Board will develop criteria for the CEO position which will reflect the Company’s business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates;
The Board will identify and develop internal candidates;
The Board will begin non-emergency CEO succession planning at least 3 years before an expected transition and will maintain an emergency succession plan that is reviewed annually;
The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders.
There are at least a few things wrong with it.
1. What exactly is supposed to be in this annual report? That's really the whole crux of the issue, so, as is, the entire resolution is completely stupid.
2. While this reads like an HR Director's wet dream, the second item is just that, HR bullshit (redundant phrase, I know, but...) The third item is likewise just more HR bullshit-speak -- "identify and develop internal candidates", yeah, like Apple doesn't know who its top people already are. The rest, not surprisingly, smacks of more HR bullshit-speak.
What bunch of morons drew up this resolution? Oh, right, the idiots over at Institutional Shareholder Services. I think their shareholders ought to demand a succession plan that's implemented immediately.
Comments
You can look this stuff up as easily as I can. A great deal of information about what's normally in succession plans can be easily found. Since Apple has provided no information, anything is more. If you look back, you will see that my so-called "vague" responses are in reply to those who are spreading the red herring argument that names are being demanded.
So, someone posted above that they read your linked to "information" and there was really nothing there that would explain what you expect. So, why don't you just lay out in a few bullet points exactly what you think should be in a published succession plan from Apple. No need to be coy.
Wow. How old is the average member of this forum? Last time SJ left Apple things did not go well. .
And Apple was a far different company last time. Things at Apple are very different this time around.
Heck, the technology industry was night and day different back then - any comparisons to the 90's is just futile back then. One big difference for example was the massive infighting at Apple and the fact that Jobs was ousted by the board. That alone is enough to discount any comparisons. Things are day and night different from last time.
A Steve Jobs comes along maybe once in a lifetime. Whoever follows him will be less.
I don't agree. The problem is, regardless of how competent the next CEO is, it won't be Steve Jobs. The person may be smarter, more of a presence on stage, have a better understanding of technology, etc. but when Jobs is gone, he is gone and the worst thing Apple could do is to try and replace the person.
I've seen it happen in sports. A veteran coach leaves... and the next guy fails. It happens because the fans are trying to compare people, styles, etc. and not the position. It's also a wonderful time for a power grab from the 2nd tier individuals
I don't agree. The problem is, regardless of how competent the next CEO is, it won't be Steve Jobs. The person may be smarter, more of a presence on stage, have a better understanding of technology, etc. but when Jobs is gone, he is gone and the worst thing Apple could do is to try and replace the person.
I've seen it happen in sports. A veteran coach leaves... and the next guy fails. It happens because the fans are trying to compare people, styles, etc. and not the position. It's also a wonderful time for a power grab from the 2nd tier individuals
Rumor has it that Woz will return, take centerstage in a white caftan, and introduce the white iPhone4 next week.
Steve Jobs is Apple; Apple is Steve Jobs.
Not even wrong.
Look, Steve Jobs, like every other human, has his good parts and his bad. Some parts, like his temper and his ego, can do a lot of harm. They can also be used to drive a product to exacting standards.
But others can do the same, and maybe create less havoc in the process.
And remember that Apple survived and grew even after Steve Jobs left back in the 80's. He came back to a company that had kept the secret flame burning all that time.
Now the flame is a roaring bonfire, growing by leaps and bounds. It's fast becoming the company he always wanted it to become.
Apple is Steve Jobs' progeny, originally conceived with Sreve Wozniak, nurtured by many, many others who shared the dream, and now, finally, grown into young adulthood. It's the apple of it's father's eye. Why would he want anything more than to see it stand on its own two feet, and why would he not be working very hard to accomplish that eventuality.
Once again, certain people severely underestimate both Steve Jobs and Apple. Others of us are content to let them play this out their way.
And are these other companies also far more successful than Apple? They must be, if you want Apple to emulate them. Names, please, of these phenomenally successful companies?
Let's try some relevant question instead. Are these other companies led by CEOs who are widely considered to be inseparable from the company's success, and who have also been on medical leave three times? Have these companies exposed themselves to competitive threats by disclosing something about their succession planning to shareholders?
Anyway, more debunking, posted in full for the click-disabled:
Apple shareholder proposal to force reveal of Steve Jobs succession plan gains support
An Apple shareholder proposal to force the tech giant to publicly release a succession plan for Chief Executive Steve Jobs has been backed by Institutional Shareholder Services, a company considered to be one of the most highly influential of investor advisors.
The proposal was submitted by the Central Laborers Pension Fund in August, before Jobs announced his indefinite medical leave last month. Jobs handed most of his daily responsibilities over to Apple's Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook but retained his CEO title.
The Central Laborers Pension Fund fund owns about 11,500 shares in Apple, or about a thousandth of 1% of the Cupertino company's outstanding shares, according to the Associated Press.
ISS, a company that consults institutional investors on how to vote on such shareholder measures, also called for Apple's board to release such a plan to shareholders annually.
In a statement on the Central Laborers proposal, the ISS said, "All companies should have succession planning policies and succession plans in place, and boards should periodically review and update them."
The measure will go up for an Apple shareholder vote at the company's annual meeting on Feb. 23.
In its 2011 Investor Proxy Statement, released on Jan. 7, Apple asked shareholders to vote against the measure.
"Not just the CEO, is critical to Apple's success," Apple's board of directors said in the proxy statement. "Accordingly, the Board already implements many of the proposed actions and maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."
In the proxy statement, Apple said it commits an annual review of succession planning for its senior management, including its chief executive.
"As part of this annual review, the Board has a formal evaluation process in which it identifies and recommends development of internal candidates for succession based on criteria that reflect Apple?s business strategy," Apple's proxy statement said.
Such a move would "undermine the Company's efforts to recruit and retain executives" and "invites competitors to recruit high-value executives away from Apple. Furthermore, executives who are not identified as potential successors may choose to voluntarily leave the Company," Apple said.
Aside from ISS, the Central Laborers proposition is also supported by the Laborers International Union of North America.
In a statement, Laborers International said: "We're concerned to hear the news about Steve Jobs' health and hope to see him return to full duties soon. However, this news demonstrates the need for Apple to do well by its shareholders, including our members' pension funds."
The group said it has successfully proposed similar CEO succession proposals to companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Verizon and American Express.
Laborers International also said Apple had misconstrued its proposal.
"We do not expect them to provide specific names of future executives, but merely demonstrate they have a plan in place for naming one," the group said. "This proposal would not only benefit our members' retirement savings, but also would give reassurance to other Apple shareholders and help the company."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...n-for-ceo.html
Just because everybody and his dog doesn't know what the plan is, do you really think they haven't got one?
Come on, a little common sense and less hysteria.
... Look, Steve Jobs, like every other human, has his good parts and his bad. Some parts, like his temper and his ego, can do a lot of harm. ...
I have to say, although I don't know him, from what I've seen publicly and read about SJ, I think the size of his ego is greatly exaggerated.
Oh yes, I am sure that a company that is so loose in it's organization and business practices has no idea what will happen if their CEO who already has a life-threatening illness cannot continue.
Just because everybody and his dog doesn't know what the plan is, do you really think they haven't got one?
Come on, a little common sense and less hysteria.
I don't get the "hysteria" charge, except as a cheap way to paint people who are asking for something very simple, reasonable and straight-forward, and easily achievable, as raving lunatics. And why, pray tell, would you want to do that?
..."We do not expect them to provide specific names of future executives, but merely demonstrate they have a plan in place for naming one," the group said....
So, what would they have to do to "demonstrate" to your satisfaction that they have one? Waive a piece of paper around and say, "We have a succession plan. I'm holding it here in my hand. I can't show it to you, but here it is, and it's a doozy!" Stop hiding behind the words of others and say what you mean.
I don't get the "hysteria" charge, except as a cheap way to paint people who are asking for something very simple, reasonable and straight-forward, and easily achievable, as raving lunatics. And why, pray tell, would you want to do that?
It IS raving lunacy, to demand any such information from Apple's board. They are under no obligation to offer that information, and asking for it, especially in this manner which is dangerously close to intimidation, is exactly that...lunacy.
It IS raving lunacy, to demand any such information from Apple's board. They are under no obligation to offer that information, and asking for it, especially in this manner which is dangerously close to intimidation, is exactly that...lunacy.
Well, Dr Millmoss has never been the same since the hippo incident.
RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (?Company?) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company?s Corporate Governance Guidelines (?Guidelines?) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:
My question is why does the Central Laborers' Pension Fund and now the ISS want to undermine Apple? What are they being handed under the table and by whom to get them to try and influence an Apple stock price drop, and put the company at a competitive disadvantage? Someone somewhere either has a political motive or their palms are being greased, or both. I'd like to know the whos behind it.
The pension fund owns Apple stock, which has shown to be pretty volatile when news comes out concerning the health of Steve Jobs. They probably think a succession plan would stabilize things and protect their investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
And are these other companies also far more successful than Apple? They must be, if you want Apple to emulate them. Names, please, of these phenomenally successful companies?
You responded:
Let's try some relevant question instead. Are these other companies led by CEOs who are widely considered to be inseparable from the company's success, and who have also been on medical leave three times? Have these companies exposed themselves to competitive threats by disclosing something about their succession planning to shareholders?
Anyway, more debunking, posted in full for the click-disabled....
I saw the names in the article. I just couldn't believe you were comparing them to Apple. If you had bought the stocks of your "superior" companies (American Express, Verizon, and HP) five yeaes ago, Amex and Verizon would have gained you zero. HP did a little better, gaining 42%.
And then there's Apple, gaining 527% over the last five years.
Pull the other one, "Doctor".
By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?
RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (“Company”) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:
There are at least a few things wrong with it.
1. What exactly is supposed to be in this annual report? That's really the whole crux of the issue, so, as is, the entire resolution is completely stupid.
2. While this reads like an HR Director's wet dream, the second item is just that, HR bullshit (redundant phrase, I know, but...) The third item is likewise just more HR bullshit-speak -- "identify and develop internal candidates", yeah, like Apple doesn't know who its top people already are. The rest, not surprisingly, smacks of more HR bullshit-speak.
What bunch of morons drew up this resolution? Oh, right, the idiots over at Institutional Shareholder Services. I think their shareholders ought to demand a succession plan that's implemented immediately.