You'd make a great corporate PR person. I guess it shouldn't matter either when executives of failing banks
[...]
Well considering they gave employees iPhones when they first came out.......and lets not forget Steve Jobs was greedy as hell. He rarely gave to charity. A far cry from Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg.
I'm assuming a few words got cut off there but I think I understand what you were trying to say. If I am mistaken, I apologize.
I'm not trying to apologize for them. My world is based on statistics - I have to be as dispassionate as possible when I look at comparisons because patient outcomes may be affected. Having said that, I was overly brief in my statement, so let me elaborate:
The comparators (MS, Google) are potentially unfair, for several reasons. One could make an argument that all Fortune 20/50/100/??? companies should be used, or that only the subset that have retail outlets, or perhaps the subset that have sales above a certain range (per store? per sq ft?) or perhaps those that have > 100K employees, or perhaps a combination of the above. This is where economists and statisticians and epidemiologists and such earn their keep.
Again - I wasn't defending Apple, only arguing that the comparisons may not be the appropriate ones. The same will hold for your comparison of SJ to the others. I would point out that in those situations, there are (reportedly) many data points that are not publicly accessible. In particular, SJ was known to be exceedingly secretive and private, arguably to a fault, and was also known to be an exceptional marketer - is it possible that giving out the iPhones at the time he did was done for marketing reasons rather than for charitable reasons?
To go back to your initial statement - a bank may fail [EDIT: or it may succeed] despite the executives doing an exceptional job. The failure may be a result of external forces, or a result of actions of their predecessors. They should each be judged on their actions, not the outcomes. This is actually a failing of the current system - it is so geared to judging outcomes that executives are paid based on quarterly results rather than whether they do what is in the long-term interest of the company. Again, be dispassionate in your assessment of the numbers/situation, then be human in applying the results of the analysis and in managing the people.