Being CEO of a world-renown company like Apple naturally has its rewards, and accompanying pressures of course; yet ultimately, the glory only belongs to those who are prepared – to Conquer.
In the case of Tim Cook, he now treads the line from being the toast of Apple in his first year of office, to talks of getting fired as its CEO. Yes, these are possibilities even and specially to the best of companies – obviously, it’s all about expectations.
So how did Cook handle this? He announced a dividend and buyback increase over at Apple.
Well, this would only cool down but not put off the fire. If you are a shareholder of a leading tech company, would you just be satisfied with that move? That’s right – only until you get tired of looking at the zeros. But more so, if you don’t hear of the firm’s “losses” in terms of profits and innovation.
Would you hide the elephant then? That’s absurd. How and why would you?
Managing visionary shareholders takes more than just giving out “cash”. You got to let them know what you’re doing – your goals, plans, actions, and progress. Cook should have done this from the start, every Leader and Director should understand this aspect of their “relationship”. The thing is, he inherited an organization that is in good standing, so “continuity” was sort of neglected. Now, trouble’s brewing.
Ergo, is it fair to just blame Cook? For the large part. But if you think about it, the Board could have done something about it too. Turning over of the reins should unquestionably include “visionary” meetings among the Directors and the appointed CEO. That’s SOP. Lay down everything.
Should Cook then be given more time? Since “continuity” was overlooked, yes but “time” would depend on the company’s state versus its vision versus industry, competitors, and market status versus Cook’s blueprint.
What’s your take?