PDA

View Full Version : Tim Cook's Approval Rating Slips, Loses Top Spot in CEO Rankings




MacRumors
Mar 15, 2013, 08:43 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/15/tim-cooks-approval-rating-slips-loses-top-spot-in-ceo-rankings/)


Career site Glassdoor today released the results of its annual CEO approval rating survey (http://www.glassdoor.com/50-Highest-Rated-CEOs.htm), showing a four percentage-point drop for Apple CEO Tim Cook that resulted in a decline from the top spot (http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/glassdoor-reveals-top-25-highest-rated-ceos-2012/) in last year's survey to 18th in this year's version. Glassdoor's results are based on over 500,000 company surveys submitted by employees over the past year that ask whether they approve of how their CEO is running the company. Based on an average of ratings over the past year, Cook dropped from a 97% approval rating in the 2012 survey to a 93% rating this year.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/03/glassdoor_ceo_approval_2013.jpg
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg surged to the top of this year's list, seeing a 14-point rise in his approval rating to 99%.

While Apple has continued to perform well financially since Cook's ascension to the CEO position in August 2011, the company's growth has been slowing in recent quarters and its stock price has declined by roughly 40% from its highs amid concerns over increasing competition and how well Apple will be able to tap new products and markets to drive future growth.

Article Link: Tim Cook's Approval Rating Slips, Loses Top Spot in CEO Rankings (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/15/tim-cooks-approval-rating-slips-loses-top-spot-in-ceo-rankings/)



jonnysods
Mar 15, 2013, 08:45 AM
This is meaningless. Just stick to making good stuff apple. Don't go backwards in arrogance.

spyguy10709
Mar 15, 2013, 08:47 AM
From an investor's standpoint - he's a terrible CEO.
He's not unlocking shareholder value - which was excused under Steve Jobs because -
He's not a visionary like Steve was.
He's not a product guy.

He's a business man - and he's not a good one at that. His job is to pay back shareholders in value - either in stock price or a good dividend. Some people here hate shareholders because Steve did - and that's fine - but you have to remember that shareholders own about 60% of Apple, and they're pissed that he isn't doing anything to cause the stock to reflect Apple's real value (either by buying companies, giving money back to the shareholders, or buying shares back)

Muscle Master
Mar 15, 2013, 08:50 AM
If apple doesn't get rid of its "rotten apples" The company is gonna start sipping on on that so called $80 billion reserve

Rogifan
Mar 15, 2013, 09:04 AM
Oh no Cook's rating slipped to 93%. Guess that's why the stock is up $7 so far today.

ThunderSkunk
Mar 15, 2013, 09:16 AM
Well, a popularity contest of the worlds richest and most conniving, awful people you'd never want to spend time with. Handy.

Perhaps they could make one for elected officials as well.

mikeorchard
Mar 15, 2013, 09:47 AM
If apple doesn't get rid of its "rotten apples" The company is gonna start sipping on on that so called $80 billion reserve

wut. It's still the most profitable technology company in history, regardless of who's at the helm and regardless of shareholder babbling.

Porco
Mar 15, 2013, 09:49 AM
It looks like Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of friends who like him a lot since they joined him on … whatever his company is called … ;)

Karma*Police
Mar 15, 2013, 09:53 AM
Not a surprise. Tim took over Apple at the worst possible time, when Apple's smartphone growth was nearing its peak and sentiment started to turn - not because of anything he did, but because success leads to envy and envy turns to hate. And there's clearly a lot of irrational Apple hate out there.

Competition is playing a part as well, but even Steve couldn't have done anything about desperate competitors giving away products at or near cost.

Where Tim screwed up IMO was with the iMac launch and maps. In both cases, the transition could've been smoother.

Winning takes care of everything, including employee sentiment, so a big quarter or a new hit product will catapult Apple's stock, drown out the haters and put Tim back near the top. Hopefully, for computer/gadget fans everywhere, he's up to the task.

M-O
Mar 15, 2013, 10:13 AM
this ranking lost all credibility by putting zuckerberg on top...

roadbloc
Mar 15, 2013, 11:06 AM
Is this CEO chart just as meaningless as the one I made at work this morning on my notepad? Because it seems that way to me. Does the winner even get a prize?

wigby
Mar 15, 2013, 11:09 AM
can someone explain zuckerberg's big leap? stock is trading at almost half its ipo. users have dropped. revenues haven't risen since they went public. cook dropping a few points is believable but his some of those jumping above him make no sense.

ArtOfWarfare
Mar 15, 2013, 11:27 AM
No duh any engineer would tell you that. Apple has never made products for engineers. Every Apple product ever has been an engineer's nightmare to design.

It's the customer Apple makes its products for. Johny Ives says "this looks aesthetically pleasing, can you work with it? No? Too bad. Bend reality, make it work." to the engineers.

I can't think of anything Apple has made since ~1999 that they did because consumer research or an engineer told them to. Maybe the iPad Mini... That seemed a bit reactive to me rather than proactive. And the 4" screens now that I think about it...

the8thark
Mar 15, 2013, 11:57 AM
From an investor's standpoint - he's a terrible CEO.
He's not unlocking shareholder value
He's not a visionary like Steve was.
He's not a product guy.
That describes pretty much every CEO on the list.

brogwalkerh
Mar 15, 2013, 12:04 PM
Haha. I have worked for Starbucks for years. How has our CEO made it on this list? I would not rate him so highly. I don't trust this list at all. I wonder where they get this information from! Smoke and mirrors...

somethingelsefl
Mar 15, 2013, 01:16 PM
I looked at the full list and it always amazes me that the US Navy has a "CEO". It's just very counter-intuitive. (and he's ranked BELOW Victoria's Secret!)

firewood
Mar 15, 2013, 01:39 PM
Well, a popularity contest of the worlds richest and most conniving, awful people you'd never want to spend time with.

Done by asking the people they pay (off). So unbiased.

mrxak
Mar 15, 2013, 03:51 PM
Zuckerberg, what a joke.

Whenever I want a quick laugh, I look up Facebook's stock price. I bet all the people who (stupidly) bought into the IPO would rank him a tad lower.

This poll seems fairly meaningless, anyway. The top CEOs are going to simply be the most popular CEOs with their employees, which could just as well be a result of a slacker boss who's running the company into the ground as somebody who is a great leader bringing the company to greatness.

IamCanadian
Mar 15, 2013, 05:46 PM
Looking at the chart, Carlos Rodriguez (ADP) had a 98% approval rating in 2012 vs Tim Cook's 97%. So how could Cook have held the top spot? These idjits can't even get their table facts right. Meanwhile Zuckerberg seems to need everyone to "like" him.

LaDirection
Mar 15, 2013, 07:16 PM
Tiiiimmmmmbbbeeerrrrrr!

Rodster
Mar 15, 2013, 07:37 PM
Hoodie is the top CEO? LMAO what a joke of a list. Look Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs in dreaming up cool stuff but he's shown he's a damn good CEO that any company would love to have. ;)

Mrbobb
Mar 15, 2013, 08:14 PM
As long as Timmy trusts the troop do the product thing and he sticks with the business thing, Apple will be alright.

iGrip
Mar 15, 2013, 09:53 PM
remember that shareholders own about 60% of Apple,

I was under the impression that shareholders owned 100% of apple. Who are the owners of the missing 40% of Apple if they are not shareholders?

And if shareholders own only 60%, why does Google Finance say that 67% of apple stock is institutionally owned?

Very curious.

charlituna
Mar 16, 2013, 11:13 AM
This is meaningless. Just stick to making good stuff apple. Don't go backwards in arrogance.

Their method is BS and creates BS numbers. Respondents come to them for one thing. That always makes skewed numbers

----------

. His job is to pay back shareholders in value - either in stock price or a good dividend.

Under Tim it went up to $700 and if the analysts etc would shut up it wouldn't have dropped as much.

And last I checked no company has a legal or moral obligation to offer splits, dividends etc. especially when they didn't for decades and investors should know is walking in. Investing in the stock market should be viewed as going to a casino. It's a gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and sometimes you get lucky and turn up during free drinks night.

----------

Oh no Cook's rating slipped to 93%. Guess that's why the stock is up $7 so far today.

The stock likely went up because Samsung's so called iPhone killer is getting crap reviews.

----------

Johny Ives says "this looks aesthetically pleasing, can you work with it? No? Too bad. Bend reality, make it work." to the engineers.


Hard to take you completely serious when you don't bother to get the man's name right. It's Sir Jony Ive.

As for your comments, Apple Engineers know that their job is to serve the customer needs, or at least perceived needs. If they have issue with that then they can get another job. And you are correct that they don't do focus groups etc. Apple is smart enough to know that they would get little consensus even among smaller groups. So they picked what they felt was right to serve, left ways to expand in some cases (plug in support in pro apps, App Store in iOS etc) and went for it. If someone doesn't like their choices, go buy from someone else.

MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 16, 2013, 03:17 PM
From an investor's standpoint - he's a terrible CEO.
He's not unlocking shareholder value - which was excused under Steve Jobs because -
He's not a visionary like Steve was.
He's not a product guy.

He's a business man - and he's not a good one at that. His job is to pay back shareholders in value - either in stock price or a good dividend. Some people here hate shareholders because Steve did - and that's fine - but you have to remember that shareholders own about 60% of Apple, and they're pissed that he isn't doing anything to cause the stock to reflect Apple's real value (either by buying companies, giving money back to the shareholders, or buying shares back)

This is precisely why I don't like publicly traded companies in general. Instead of doing their job and doing it properly, they have to constantly and I mean constantly answer to whiny shareholders that demand instant gratification at every quarter rather than developing a strategy for the long haul. It gets businesses into trouble all the time since they cannot invest for several years in advance but instead have to constantly come up with some magic trick to get the stock to rise for the next quarter lest the shareholders punish the company by selling off and causing the value of the company to drop like a freaking stone. This is exactly what caused the Japanese to wipe out America in the 70's and '80s as they had a good long term strategy. Now they've kow towed to the usual demands like everyone else and the cheapest labor wins (i.e. China but soon to be someone else as their wages go up).

If people would stop treating the stock market like it's a flipping CASINO and invest for the long term, this wouldn't be such a massive problem. But people want to get rich overnight and that leads to massive fluctuations in the market place, making it increasingly unstable for both investor and company alike. I'm starting to think a new market with different rules for investing is needed. Most private companies only go public so the owners can become uber-rich overnight anyway or to inject large amounts of capital to expand in a big way. The latter would make sense with better rules. But having to answer to gamblers anonymous every quarter is bad news, IMO. I'm sure the get-rich-quick types would disagree, but long term investments just aren't easy to manage with the current system where the CEO's head is demanded the moment gamblers panic and start selling off at the slightest rumor or news story.

marsmissions
Mar 17, 2013, 12:39 AM
Haha. I have worked for Starbucks for years. How has our CEO made it on this list? I would not rate him so highly. I don't trust this list at all. I wonder where they get this information from! Smoke and mirrors...

Starbucks is one of the best companies to work for in the food industry. The benefits are good and the employees are generally happy—you guys also have a really relaxed dress code which can't be said for other companies on this list. I would rank your CEO pretty highly.

k995
Mar 18, 2013, 12:33 AM
Oh no Cook's rating slipped to 93%. Guess that's why the stock is up $7 so far today.

And only 36% down the last 6 months .

spyguy10709
Mar 18, 2013, 05:32 PM
I was under the impression that shareholders owned 100% of apple. Who are the owners of the missing 40% of Apple if they are not shareholders?

And if shareholders own only 60%, why does Google Finance say that 67% of apple stock is institutionally owned?

Very curious.

That 67% includes treasury stocks and stocks owned by employees/former employees. IE- Jobs' family and Cook.

bluebayou
Mar 19, 2013, 07:21 PM
Man ..I feel like Apple's gonna slowly tank without Job's brilliance. The company was like the precious baby spawn of a narcissistically brilliant megalomaniac. Without Him at the helm, Apple is just a husk of abused meat suffering from PTSD. Perhaps Cook is fatherly and patient enough to regrow Job's abandoned love-child, but who knows?

MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 19, 2013, 09:49 PM
Man ..I feel like Apple's gonna slowly tank without Job's brilliance. The company was like the precious baby spawn of a narcissistically brilliant megalomaniac. Without Him at the helm, Apple is just a husk of abused meat suffering from PTSD. Perhaps Cook is fatherly and patient enough to regrow Job's abandoned love-child, but who knows?

I think the market seems to think Apple is going to revolutionize the world every year or something. The iPad is just an outgrowth of the iPhone and the iPhone took Apple over half a decade to come out with after Steve Jobs took back over Apple so even when Mr. Creative himself was at the helm, these things didn't happen overnight. It just seemed that way AFTER the world took notice of Apple again. They act like Steve did it overnight or something. I think the market just over inflated Apple's stock and now they're disappointed that it's returning to a more reasonable number. OTOH, this is why I've always said Apple should not abandon their core Mac environment or delay it technologically just to work on the iPhone. You need a broad base of products to stay viable in the long run, not just depending on ONE thing (look at how RIM, now Blackberry turned upside so quickly by thinking it could just slide in that sector forever).

bluebayou
Mar 20, 2013, 03:57 PM
I think the market seems to think Apple is going to revolutionize the world every year or something. The iPad is just an outgrowth of the iPhone and the iPhone took Apple over half a decade to come out with after Steve Jobs took back over Apple so even when Mr. Creative himself was at the helm, these things didn't happen overnight. It just seemed that way AFTER the world took notice of Apple again. They act like Steve did it overnight or something. I think the market just over inflated Apple's stock and now they're disappointed that it's returning to a more reasonable number. OTOH, this is why I've always said Apple should not abandon their core Mac environment or delay it technologically just to work on the iPhone. You need a broad base of products to stay viable in the long run, not just depending on ONE thing (look at how RIM, now Blackberry turned upside so quickly by thinking it could just slide in that sector forever).

It's not so much the speed of revolutionizing the world that I'm talking about. I'm commenting more on Job's hyper-linear business model which doesn't branch out in terms of /talent/ and /visionaries/ ..he pretty much strong-armed the whole business, leaving it to rust away after his passing. Really short-sighted and selfish, in my opinion. He needs more teamwork, more collaboration, give employees more freedom to run off and do their own little projects instead of just boxing them in like iPhone's UI. iPhone's streamlined UI is great, but as a company structure in an ever-changing tech field? Not so much. (Don't make me mention all the ways Google expands its business through multi-visionary-expansion)

Anywho, I just think Jobs was a brilliant, but incredibly selfish man (and he didn't even know it because he was too busy basking in his own greatness and vision). His mistreatment of Steve Wozniak is evidence enough of this.