Rumors about health, surgery, and cancer recurrence aside, Steve Jobs looks to be ailing. Even the analysts, whose acute powers of observation found them missing most of the dot-com bust as well as the subprime air, raised the question during a recent conference call. Apple’s position is that health is a private matter. Analysts’ position is that if Jobs leaves then Apple’s stock drops 25%. The SEC’s position is that companies must disclose material information. And so we swirl. “None of your business,” is not the stuff that puts rumors to rest. Maybe a firm, “You can’t handle the truth,” would be less controversial. Or maybe Apple needs to escape the either/or conundrum. The either/or conundrum arises when we have two good values in conflicts. Here, one value is telling the truth about the health of a CEO. Another good value is preserving shareholder value. Apple assumes that by keeping mum about the health issue that it can walk a fine line and honor both conflicting values. But “mumness” can be deceptive. And Apple has been blinded by assumptions as well as by its failure to think along the lines of succession planning. If all Apple now has is tied directly to Jobs, the company has not done its work in terms of creating a culture founded on the Jobs’ principles. Jobs’ departure, for whatever reason, will be a death knell if all Apple has is Jobs. Perhaps, though, Apple could use a little self-confidence. Perhaps it could also begin communicating that part of the story to shareholders and the market , to wit — We really can sally forth without Jobs. Maybe Jobs could even lend his voice to acknowledge that Apple can and will go on, post-Jobs.Â
Rather than mucking about in the “health is a private matter and not material” arguments about its close-to-the-vest approach, Apple might try the release of information that is not private but is material. That information would be that the company has a succession plan in place, that its culture is strong, and that it will go on to preserve the Jobs’ legacy. The stock drop assumption exists not because Jobs would leave a void but, rather, because investors, shareholders, and analysts believe there is no “Carry on!” in place. Dispelling that rumor is the heart of the issue, not the “to disclose or not disclose” whether Jobs is ill. When we fall into the either/or conundrum, it is almost always because we have not addressed an underlying problem. The either/or conundrum is the symptom of being caught between a rock and a hard place, or, trying to preserve two good values by breaching another. Â
People who are astute already know that Jobs underwent surgery called a Whipple procedure for his pancreatic cancer. Nutrition can be a challenge afterwards, possibly for the duration of the patient’s life. Do a Google on “Whipple Procedure” and another on steve jobs whipple and gain knowledge. I’m sure Jobs is healthy, but fragile and has the best medical advice and stress relief wealth can buy. I don’t think he’s gonna topple anytime soon.
Or people who read the Fortune profile are aware of his health issues, astute or not. You have responded with a classic distraction methodology. The issue is: Should the company be more forthcoming? The answer is a simple yes. Vitriol and defensiveness do not help either the company folks or the shareholders.
How good Jobs’ medical advice is and predictions on his topple are irrelevant to this commentary. This is a site for company and individual behaviors — not a sounding board for Jobs’ fans and alternative medical procedures.
The issue is whether the company is prepared if, say, Jobs had an accident! The fact that it fears a stock price drop if Jobs even retires tells me, at a minimum, the company has not made the case that it is indeed prepared for a transition. The company needs a new strategy regardless of Jobs’ condition, treatment, status, weight,height,or Whipple. It might be a nice task for the Apple board to undertake such planning and then make the case to the public that, “We’re fine, with or without Jobs,” but, then again astute people know that the Apple board is not a bastion of action.
okay, this is the best commentary i’ve read on this entire affair. most of the comments have, as you noted in reference to the first poster, discussed all types of irrelevancies (if that’s a word) in defending apple. i’m no corporate governance expert but, given way news was released re: mr. jobs’ cancer, he/apple can’t really act as if people are focused on his health. i had not thought of this issue in terms of in-place-succession-plan-as-antidote-to-health-privacy-invasion, but i believe, fair lady, you have justly nailed the issue (but you don’t need me to tell you that). cheers.
From a corporate governance perspective there are two issues at play:
1. Officer’s right to health issues being a private matter (I certainly don’t want my health history aired in public).
2. Officer’s ability to fullfil her role. It is the board’s duty to determine if the officer’s health is interfering from performing her duties. If it the board needs to act by making an announcement. If it is not and the board is sufficiently satisfied then the officer continues to serve his role.
I think Apple addressed these in a cryptic manner. The terse note that Steve serves at the Board’s pleasure and that Steve’s health is a private manner. Implying that the board is not concerned that Steve’s health is interfering his work.
-S
Nope, once again, issue missed. Third one: corporate responsibility in relation to officer’s health. A cryptic note falls into the either/or. Either/or means you are balacning values in conflict: the officer’s right to privacy with the duty the officer owes to the company to perform (and the third duty just noted). Solving an either/or requires answering this question: is there a way to solve this problem without violating any of these values? Yes, there is, but I keep getting the either/or response was teh right thing to do.
The cryptic note is the symptom, not a solution. The problem is, and not to put too fine a point on this, but “Can Apple survive without Steve Jobs?” (for whatever reason, health, retirement, etc.) The board should be able to give an unequivocal and non-cryptic, “Yes.” Most companies can, which is why when an officer becomes ill we don’t have these well choreographed mambos filled with half-truths, impressions, and deflection. Because no one at Apple seems to be confident about that answer, they engage in deflection, “crypticism,” and condescending protection of shareholders who really need the simple assurance from a long-term perspective. Jobs’ health (good or bad; serious or simply a rough patch) may well be the least of their problems. It is time for a little bit of Plan B.