Steve Jobs’ Health Troubles Should Not Be Public Knowledge
By Loryn Wilson - Jan 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 amAccording to Bloomberg, the question of Steve Jobs’s health has raised interesting questions by the SEC about whether or not the public should be given more details about his illness:
Apple Inc. faces a government review of its disclosures about Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs’s health problems to ensure investors weren’t misled, a person familiar with the matter said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s review doesn’t mean investigators have seen evidence of wrongdoing, the person said, declining to be identified because the inquiry isn’t public. Bloomberg News reported last week that Jobs is considering a liver transplant as a result of complications after treatment for cancer, citing people who are monitoring his illness.
Granted, there is no evidence of foul play in this situation, but perhaps investors, and even consumers, do not have to know the full extent of Steve Jobs’ illness. Yes, Apple stocks plunged when it was announced that Jobs would be on medical leave for 6 months, and they rose again when it was reported that he had a hormonal imbalance. Maybe I am naive, but I doubt that this was part of an evil plot to screw investors over, mostly because Apple could possibly face sever consequences for a plot of that nature.
With Steve Jobs being the face of Apple, I can see how one can argue in support of a full disclosure about his health. This argument, for example, does make some sense:
“Steve Jobs himself thinks the Steve Jobs mystique is of value–otherwise, why not have other people introduce those products over the past 10 years?” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, associate dean of the Yale University School of Management. “Steve Jobs, Martha Stewart and Donald Trump have all made the boss the brand. The boss is the brand at Apple.”
With that said, the “boss as brand” model has severe flaws in the event that something does happen to the boss. Companies should have a contingency plan for re-branding, or perhaps shouldn’t lean so much on the CEO to be at the forefront of their branding and advertisement.
He’s a very public figure whose actions have a significant effect on MASSIVE amounts of money. If he wants his health to be private, he’s going to have to make the rest of his life private — that is, resign from his position (maybe take a role similar to Gates as he phased himself out of Microsoft?).
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 am