Founder’s Syndrome at Apple
This blogger-that-could would like to point you to a post originally written back in January 2009 about Apple’s succession planning—or rather, the lack of it. Here’s a relevant excerpt:
“…It’s a little better in iPod land from a performance point of view. But not necessarily at the board level. Apple has been forced into the public eye recently due to Steve Jobs’ hormone imbalance announcement, which only intensified speculation about his potential need to step down. For a board packed with big names—Gore, Wexler, Jung, Schmidt—you’d expect a stronger approach to succession planning. And yet, the silence is telling.
Succession is arguably a board’s first or second most important responsibility. Yes, Jobs is a legend, and maybe only he—or God—will decide his fate. But that doesn’t eliminate the board’s duty to show investors what life after Jobs might look like. Every day they avoid this conversation, they lose credibility. And with that, Founder’s Syndrome digs in deeper…”
Bottom Line:
Apple is Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs is Apple. The personal brand and business brand are one and the same. And while Apple’s commercial success has been staggering—arguably shielding it from traditional governance scrutiny—that only works until something goes wrong with the brand. In this case, the brand is Jobs himself, whose well-known health issues have long loomed over the company.
So why hasn’t the board taken meaningful steps to reduce its dependence on him? That hesitation says a lot about where corporate governance is in the so-called “New Normal.” In a world demanding transparency and accountability, Apple’s board seems stuck in hero worship mode.
If you’re unfamiliar with Founder’s Syndrome, here’s a useful resource that breaks it down:
👉 Curing the Founder’s Syndrome
Thank you,
JG