Weekend Question 3: Are There Any Ironies in Steve Jobs’ Troubles?
ANSWER: Ironies galore.
____________________________
BizzyBlog readers know that I’m a Mac enthusiast, “bordering” on fanatic (admitting to “bordering” probably means that you really “are”). So I’m not going to pretend to be objective about Steve Jobs’ possibly imminent troubles over stock-options backdating. I’d rather be looking forward to the rumored iPod phone (latest rumor: not gonna happen) and other wonders that may be announced at MacWorld Expo this week when Jobs gives another one of his now-legendary keynote speeches.
Biz Weak Online, in a story carried at MSNBC (irony noted), makes two points about the situation that, for better or worse, are true, and are destined to converge on each other in some way.
First, Jobs is in some potentially serious trouble:
A report issued on Dec. 29 by a two-member special committee, composed of no less than former Vice-President Al Gore and tough-minded finance veteran Jerome B. York, “found no misconduct” by Jobs or other managers.
Yet it acknowledged that he knew about some of the 6,428 option grants handed out between late 1996 and early 2003–roughly 15% of the total in that time–that were improperly dated to give employees an artificially low price. On some occasions, Jobs even recommended the dates.
….. “It looks like Apple’s board is trying to whitewash the situation because they like him so much,” says Willem P. Roelandts, CEO of chipmaker Xilinx Inc.
OK, there’s an obvious conflict WITHIN this first item that needs to be resolved. What’s in the second para sounds like misconduct. Al Gore “et al” can’t just wave it away by saying “No it’s not” without proving it, which hasn’t been done (i.e., the world of publicly-held companies is not the Clinton White House).
(Aside: If Gore is serious about contending for the presidency, isn’t there a little “no guts, no glory” here? When faced with potential corporate malfeasance of the type that is the staple of the standard liberal stump speech, it appears that he’s blinking. Opponents will notice.)
The article later notes Apple’s contention that Jobs didn’t benefit financially from the backdating; but because the options, which went “underwater,” were later swapped for restricted stock, the truth of that contention is not clear.
Second:
No big company has more of its success wrapped up in one person. Jobs is a master marketer whose 30 years of experience have sharpened his skill at creating stylish, breakthrough products. He combines not just hardware and software smarts but a sense for how all that technology must fit together with the music, movies, and other content consumers want.
So there’s your quandary. If Jobs is guilty of a firing offense (and, again, it’s not clear that he is) that others, including some at Apple, have already been fired or pushed out over, how can you defend carving out an exception for him on something other than business grounds (i.e., “we can’t afford to fire him”)? You can’t. But Apple’s board has, and, as the article indicates, it will most likely continue to, “even if the government does move against him.”
The ultimate irony is that here we have a company with fantastic products, an overbearing swagger, leftist sympathies, and a vocal legion of very liberal fans (Apple knows its demographics, which is why it won’t allow itself to be associated with its arguably most famous fanatic). It is faced with a decision that, if almost any other “capitalist pig” company were involved, would be a “Mac Community” no-brainer: Throw him out, shoot first, ask questions later.
Apple’s liberal legion, and the business press, which has bent over backwards to portray the company and its culture heroically for years, ought to at least be asking itself if the looming hypocrisy over Jobs’ situation (because, as noted in the article, he’ll most likely survive this, even if guilty as sin) should make them less inclined to assume the worst and ignore the business implications in less hip, but otherwise quite analogous, situations.
