Apple lends us an interesting example of how good leadership is vital for the success of a corporation. Investors and consumers alike see Apple as a powerhouse, which makes it easy to forget the rocky history of leadership within the company. Apple was founded by Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs in 1976. In 1985 Jobs was ousted from the company he founded, and the company began a time of turbulence during which Jobs’ leadership may have been very effective. Apple was founded on a philosophy of being different and giving consumers the most excellent experience possible. When Jobs left, the strategy fell away from that core philosophy and the company began to function with cost and price in mind ahead of quality. After twelve years, Jobs returned to Apple as CEO.
Apple’s trouble without Jobs shows the importance of leadership, even for a company that seems infallible. Looking through the perspective of Organizational Behavior we can ask, “What was Apple’s leadership missing during Jobs’ absence?” For one, although charisma is not the only important part of leadership, Apple lacked the charisma that Jobs possessed. Jobs was certainly not perfect, but he was intelligent, ambitious, honest, confident, conscientious, and energetic. All of those qualities are imperative to good leadership and are present at Apple because of Jobs. Additionally, although Jobs was sometimes hard to work with, his emotional intelligence was very high in terms of his knowledge of his employee’s wide range of capabilities. Jobs was absolutely not a “country club” manager; but, his management was also not exactly “authority obedient”. Jobs and the rest of Apple leadership push their employees for production first while encouraging them to produce imaginative ideas that would not be possible if obedience was the primary management standard. Jobs was also able to lead by example and inspire his employees. This allowed trasformational rather than transactional leadership to take place. His passion and devotion to Apple lend a perfect example for how all Apple employees should work to meet expectations.
One way that Apple reaches success is through effective teamwork. Jobs recognizes that teams and collaboration are central to Apple’s success. He is also cognizant of the fact that teamwork is based on trust. He recognizes that the spirit of collaboration and teamwork starts at the top and trickles all the way down through the company.
The question still remains whether Apple will continue its dominance under the new leadership of CEO Tim Cook. In choosing Cook to replace himself, Jobs found a candidate that was certainly qualified and able as a leader. But, Cook has a very different personality, which begs the question, “Can Apple survive without Jobs’ leadership?” Cook is much less vocal and divisive than Jobs. Additionally Cook seems to be more focused on the satisfaction of employees at Apple. Differences aside, Cook has two key traits that mirror Jobs. First, he demands excellent results, and second, he leads by example. Like Jobs, Cook works extremely hard, always putting the company first, and is almost neurotic in his constant analysis of Apple and its performance. It is entirely unclear whether Apple’s poor stock performance lately is due to Cook or other factors. It would certainly be a counter-example to Organizational Behavior theories if the poor performance is due to Cook. Cook is outwardly focused on his employee satisfaction and Apple’s commitment to the greater community of which it is a part. Both factors that would typically lead to improved performance, but the results are not there. In the time since Jobs’ death, Apple has been at a crossroads of leadership and strategy and the primary concern should be, “What made Steve Jobs such a special leader and is it possible to replace his effective leadership?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackzenger/2013/08/22/the-big-lesson-about-leadership-from-steve-jobs/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304610404579405420617578250
OPERATION OB: Survival Edition 