“The departure of Steve Jobs as Apple’s CEO is likely to trigger some major changes for the company’s board,” Dena Aubin and Nick Carey report for Reuters.
“Rather than acting as mere advisers to one of the world’s great visionary leaders, the board may have to take more control, be less deferential to the new CEO Tim Cook than it was to Jobs, and meet more often,” Aubin and Carey report. “‘Over time that board is going to have to step up to greater responsibility and a more traditional role,’ said Jim Post, a professor of management at Boston University School of Management.”
Aubin and Carey report, “Initially at least, the board will be chaired by Jobs himself, though there are questions over whether he will be in that position long, or play a major role, given the state of his health.”
Read more in the full article here.
Uh oh…. I fear for Apple….
LOL! Says a professor of management from a university! No doubt the same professor who taught the management at RIM, Motorola, Microsoft, etc, everything they know.
/thread
If he is so smart, why isn’t his school turning out dozens or hundreds of Jobs per year, creating a similar number of Apples?
Why should anyone care what this professor thinks? Tim Cook needs to be allowed to succeed or fail on his own terms. The only one he should really listen to is Jobs, because he earned it and because Cook is smart enough to know that Jobs can help him. As for the rest of them, management by committee has a perfect track record of failure everywhere it’s been tried.
What part of “Apple won’t change” confuses these idiots.
It’s coming true, all the idiots are coming out, Tim Cook would have not been given the CEO’s position and most of all Steve would have never placed him in a position that would destroy Apple future.
Let’s all get ready for more sweeping “this is going to happen” by those that had no love for Apple but now are trying to disguise it as concern.
Oh, the world of ……
Chaos. Not a good thing.
Hmm. Wasn’t Steve both CEO and chairman simultaneously? And Tim Cook has been pretty much running the show for months/the last couple of years? And hasn’t Tim been kicking ass the whole time? So how are things changing that much that the board needs to supervise more? Methinks someone just wants page views… 😉
Looks like we have the Rob Enderle of academia:
“Media from around the world have sought out Boston University School of Management Jim Post, an expert in ethics and corporate governance, for his views about the growing scandal at Hewlett-Packard over the company’s “secret probe to catch directors leaking information to the media.” Just a sampling of how he’s explained the issues as they play out at HP to such media outlets as CNN Money, Bloomberg, The Sunday Times (London), and others:”
http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/news-cms/news/?dept=644&id=40513
One major thing that people are forgetting or overlooking during this transition period at Apple is what Steve Jobs did at PIXAR. After purchasing PIXAR, Steve, for the most part, let John Lasseter run the show there. Look at PIXAR’s track record with John Lasseter at the helm. Hit after hit after hit.
If Steve Jobs STRONGLY recommends that Tim Cook succeed him as Apple’s CEO. You can rest assured that Apple is now in good hands.
Jobs not only strongly recommended Cook, he is most probably personally behind offering $380 million worth of stock incentive for Cook if he will last at Apple for 10 years.
Jobs was personally present on the Board meeting three days ago: voted to accept his own resignation from CEO title, voted to assign Cook as new CEO, voted to grant him one million shares.
(Of course, he voted to assign himself from regular Board Director to Chairman of the Board, previously vacant position.)
I mean that since the Board voted for 10-year long plan to keep Cook worth almost $400 million (and probably much more with shares price worth), this means that the board trust in Jobs judgement about Cook, and they saw Cooks performance proven anyway.
The Board trusts Cook only slightly less than it trusted Jobs himself. The only way how a sane Board would decide to “butt-in” is when Cook will allow some serious business failure, will get delusional, or whatever else grossly wrong. Before that, Cook is almost as free to reign as Jobs was.
Academics are useful for theory but if recent history teaches us anything, academics often are disconnected from the real world.
Take the gulf oil spill for example. Obama filled the room with academics and they couldn’t figure out a solution while the oil still gushed out. Meanwhile, the engineers with hands-on experience had all kinds of ideas that were worth pursuing and probably could have solved the situation a lot sooner.
The same thing goes for our economics. Obamas economic teams are primarily professors (from the far left side of the equation) and while he has burned through several economists, the economy continues to tank. Business leaders have a consistent message but no-one is listening. At least not in the White House.
So while the opinion of an academic might be interesting and sometimes right, I much have a higher degree of trust for the people on the ground.
That said – Apple will do just fine.
You know, it was actually nice having almost a full week off from the political rhetoric and horseshit dogma spewed from the mouth of some douche in response to an article that had nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
You are worse than these hit-whores we always knock on this site. Your incessant need for attention and your overwillingness to preach your tired and needless message of hate and intolerance is worse than sad; it’s destructive. Even if there was some truth to it, and I can’t care anymore if there were, it has no place here, especially in this thread.
Go empty your self-righteous bowels somewhere else.
So the hedge fund gangsters now have found a new rumor for their campaign to get rich by trashing Apple stock!