While the decision to keep his health private may be Jobs' prerogative at this juncture, it would also make sense of him to take advantage of this crisis of faith to address the issue of succession, which will inevitably come up again at a later date, even if he is given a clean bill of health tomorrow.

Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor') did a recent post on his branding blog (http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv), asserting that Jobs and Apple are two separate brands--Jobs one that is irreplaceable but that can, at this juncture, help ensure Apple's longevity--and that, with the question of Jobs' health at least being raised, this is definitely the time to do so.

Full post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/24/brand-advisory.aspx

While the decision to keep his health private may be Jobs' prerogative at this juncture, it would also make sense of him to take advantage of this crisis of faith to address the issue of succession, which will inevitably come up again at a later date, even if he is given a clean bill of health tomorrow.

Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor') did a recent post on his branding blog (http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv), asserting that Jobs and Apple are two separate brands--Jobs one that is irreplaceable but that can, at this juncture, help ensure Apple's longevity--and that, with the question of Jobs' health at least being raised, this is definitely the time to do so.

Full post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/24/brand-advisory.aspx

Quote

Guest wrote:
While the decision to keep his health private may be Jobs' prerogative at this juncture, it would also make sense of him to take advantage of this crisis of faith to address the issue of succession, which will inevitably come up again at a later date, even if he is given a clean bill of health tomorrow.

I agree, despite the run-on sentence. [/snark]
It seems to me that much of the fear is generated by Apple's history of picking bad CEOs. Other than Jobs, can you name a CEO at Apple that did a good job? A defined successor would remove a good deal of the worry from the markets. Otherwise, if something happens to Jobs, it will be up to the Board to choose his successor.

But what if Mr. Jobs plans to be at Apple another 20 years?

How many times do we want to risk having the "No succession plan" press cycle run if/when the anointed successor gets tired of waiting in the wings, gets in a car accident, or decides that they've got enough money and don't need to work any more?

It's pretty idiotic for a 50-something CEO to appoint a CEO-in-waiting unless the CEO has already announced a departure date.

reinharden

That's exactly the point. Apple cannot be dependant on Jobs forever. He may PLAN to be at Apple for 10, 20, even 30 years, but he might not be. Having a clear successor or more likely pool of obvious successors at hand is a good idea. It makes the company appear more stable long term.

The possible successors would gain experience by running departments. As the years go by people may come and go but the pool would remain. Even if Jobs stays as CEO for another 40 years, there would still be a pool of people in the wings. The difference being that rather than being 10 or 15 years younger they would be 30 to 40 years younger. The important thing is that the markets would know that there willalways be someone ready to step in and maintain continuity at Apple.

Quote

geoduck wrote:
That's exactly the point. Apple cannot be dependant on Jobs forever. He may PLAN to be at Apple for 10, 20, even 30 years, but he might not be. Having a clear successor or more likely pool of obvious successors at hand is a good idea. It makes the company appear more stable long term.

I cannot think of any other company that is asked to do this.

Quote

geoduck wrote:
Other than Jobs, can you name a CEO at Apple that did a good job?

Scully.

Is naming a successor standard operating procedure for other companies similar to Apple? As an earlier posting suggests, it seems to me that naming a successor can cause more problems than it is worth.