Anyone watching the news recently cannot have failed to have seen the strong reactions to the news of Steve Jobs medical leave from Apple. The reaction, both in terms of stock price and media speculation shows how strongly the Brand is coupled with Steve Jobs in people’s minds.
On one hand this is good, because it makes the company more personable and identifiable to its customers. Steve has capitalized on this by always being at the front and centre of each new product launch. The downside is that the company appears to live and die by the strength of one leader. That creates a hugely leveraged brand identity, that can suddenly change if that leader unexpectedly disappears from view.
We have spoken before on the issues of a maverick leader and their impact on the banking sector. For technology and innovation firms such as Apple and Microsoft the danger is how to reassure investors and customers that the company has developed beyond the vision and skills of the original founder.
Valuing successors and developing talent within an organisation may not be the top priority for these hugely successful founders, but as people like Richard Branson has proven, it is only by surrounding yourself with talented and credible leaders can you expand a brand beyond one core concept or one individual. We know however, that the succession from a Founder CEO can be notoriously difficult.
“Past research has also indicated that Founder-CEO succession maybe the most critical succession event in the life of most firms” Wasserman.
Companies wishing to avoid the Apple trap need to consider:
- How is the limelight shared between the leader and his immediate team? Having only one shining star undersells the value of the team;
- How robust and transparent are your succession plans? This is particularly important in the top 3 tiers of your organisation where much of the external interface occurs. It is important to signal successors early and get them ready and in position before the handover date. That way the transition is as smooth as possible and does not allow the market or major shareholders to get nervous about the organisation’s future.
- How are roles & accountabilities re-drawn based on the successor’s accession? Many companies fail to review and re-draw the line of accountability following a transition, yet without this review, out-dated lines of reporting or priorities can still be applied, sometimes to the detriment of the new leader. It is important to consider the transition not merely from the perspective of one key change, but as an opportunity to re-draw the executive landscape and set new boundaries and expectations for all.
Got a comment? Please share it here or email us on feedback@agents2change.com
Comments