Tim Cook's Approval Rating Slips, Loses Top Spot in CEO Rankings

[MacRumors]

Career site Glassdoor today released the results of its annual CEO approval rating survey, showing a four percentage-point drop for Apple CEO Tim Cook that resulted in a decline from the top spot 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.

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

[jonnysods]

This is meaningless. Just stick to making good stuff apple. Don't go backwards in arrogance.

[spyguy10709]

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]

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]

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

[ThunderSkunk]

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]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

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]

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]

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]

this ranking lost all credibility by putting zuckerberg on top...

[roadbloc]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ThunderSkunk

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]

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]

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]

Tiiiimmmmmbbbeeerrrrrr!

[Rodster]

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]

As long as Timmy trusts the troop do the product thing and he sticks with the business thing, Apple will be alright.

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

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]

Originally Posted by jonnysods

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

----------

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

. 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.

----------

Originally Posted by Rogifan

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.

----------

Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare

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]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

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.