The unexpected passing of a senior executive or key contributor can rock the foundation of any organization.  Those who remain often struggle to communicate how they will extend the vision and persona of their fallen comrade while injecting confidence into the sustainability of the business. 

Nowhere was this effect more apparent then the false rumors of Steve Jobs’ recent demise.  On Wednesday, August 24th, Bloomberg News erroneously published Mr. Jobs’ obituary.  Jobs had battled pancreatic cancer four years prior and appeared gaunt and ill at recent events.  Like most news organizations, Bloomberg had pre-authored the obit to get the jump on the competition should his untimely death come to pass.  (More on how this occurred and other press obit practices can be found here.)  As the image above shows, Jobs is alive and more than happy to poke those who predicted his passing right in the eye.

This incident did trigger much conversation regarding the fate of Apple post-Jobs.  Even Bloomberg’s false obit included an “If the Stock Drops…” insert:

“The decline is no surprise to investors and analysts, many of whom considered Jobs irreplaceable. Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray & Co. in Minneapolis had said if Jobs left the company for any reason, Apple’s stock might plummet as much as 25 percent.  Jobs never named a successor, instead telling shareholders in March 2008 that the board would have a variety of executives to choose from were he to step down for any reason.”

Many feel that stockholders deserve to know who will step in should a leader fall.  Larry Ellison is another example, with ZDNet Australia authoring a piece in 2003 following Ellison’s near-death experience on his yacht.  Said the article:

“Oracle stakeholders are at the mercy of a nearing-60 CEO who indulges in high-risk behaviour and whose interest in his company are fitful.” 

Ellison and Jobs represent theoretical examples, but what happens in the real world?  On June 14th, Tim Russert, NBC’s Washington bureau chief and moderator of “Meet the Press”,  died of a sudden heart attack at the DC bureau.  At age 58 and at the height of his career, Russert’s death was completely unexpected and the network initially reeled in his absence.  Quickly taking stock, NBC moved to fill this unfortunate void with the credible and highly respected voice of retired anchor Tom Brokaw.  (Let me disclose that I am a huge fan of both Russert and Brokaw, having met Tom during a brief foray into broadcasting many years ago.)    

Tuesday’s New York Times included a very interesting article on Brokaw and NBC’s succession plan, concluding that:

“Mr. Brokaw has been given an unexpected encore. Since taking over for his close friend Mr. Russert following his death, Mr. Brokaw has lent on-camera stability to “Meet the Press,” which continues to be the most watched of the network Sunday public-affairs programs.”

The article goes on to chronicle how Brokaw has crossed political divides and ensured NBC’s future via MSNBC anchor restructuring and moderation of the October 7th presidential debate.  As a result, Brokaw is helping to shape the ultimate succession plan and ensure that Russert’s legacy continues unabated. 

We all know the importance of succession planning.  However, the reality is that strong personalities such as Jobs and Ellison are unlikely to contemplate their passing and prematurely designate their successor.  Apple and Oracle are their babies and the thought of abandoning their children is not something we should reasonably expect them to address.  Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect a bridge strategy such as that employed by NBC.

The lesson to be learned is this - in times of instability, it often helps to look to the past as a proxy to the future.  Organizations must have a ready made stable of highly credible executives who can lend their critical voice to a time of flux and ensure that intelligent decisions supersede the impetus to act impulsively.  These executives will serve as a bridge and buy time to perform appropriate due diligence on a properly vetted successor.  Let’s continue to be pragmatic and keep the conversation going.  

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 am and is filed under Human Capital/Human Resources. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.