Apple Only Considering Outside Candidates for Senior VP of Retail Position

[Reason077]

Ask Steve Jobs. I mean, NEXT wasn't exactly a wild success.

Financially, no. But he did build a very innovative company that developed some awesome technologies which you can still find in use today as the core of Mac OS X and iOS.

In some ways, both technically and culturally, NeXT was the prototype for what Apple would become after Steve returned.

 

[foobarbaz]

This must be the easiest job. The Stores are immensely successful, even by Apple's standards. All you need to do is keep them running and maybe push improvements to service.

This must be the hardest job. The Stores are immensely successful, even by Apple's standards. There's literally nothing you can do to make a huge improvement and make a name for yourself.

The problem is that most managers at that level got to where they are by ambition. That's where statements like "believing it would be hard to change Apple's culture as an outsider" come from. But Apple Stores don't need a saviour, they need a good steward.

Maybe they should just hire the biggest fanboy they can find.

 

[mrmac007]

Sad to see

"At Apple, our most important resource, our soul, is our people.

We value dynamic, intelligent and interesting people who are passionate about Apple."

These are the opening lines to their credo for all retail employees. Yet I'm wondering if the guys at the top believe this, actually what Apple do from an employee perspective is crush your soul. All those guys there working hard and doing the best for the compony,giving your all going the extra mile living the hope that you can aspire and move on up in a compony. Apple has slapped you in the face and dissed your work and effort. This goes right through the compony. From a specialist wanting to move on up to management a near impossible task. They say own you own career path but with no management training structure or help or guidance, there's not much hope. To see managers come in from outside that are no more better than yourself, with out that love for Apple and to see many good people and I mean really good people leave Apple really hurts. It's about that time of year when many staff will be getting there yealy review. To be told you sold 500k's worth of product, you've created X amount of owners, basically you get to keep your job for another year,and a salary you can't raise a family on which is why I left,(it's demobilising going to the council saying you need help with your bill they ask you if your working you say yes, they say who for you say Apple they look at you kind of wierd). No bonuses no, profit share, come Christmas not even a staff meal out of Christmas hamper.If your going to work a dead end job for life at leat pay a Christmas bonus. Yet to see Browett come in with a golden hand shake and offered free shares,that I have to pay for out of my wages if I want shares. The way Apple reward there employees leave a lot to be desired from an employees perspective, Apple my win awards as the most admired compony in the world, I have no idea who votes in these things but I assume they've never worked or Apple. But as generation after generation of people geeky cue up to work there get disappointed with the rewards for working hard. Apple will find it hard to find good staff willing to work for them. I would not recommend Apple as a job career to anyone if your a school, collage or university leaver and need a job to tie you over then fine but not a vocation. So if they guys at the top are feeling put out by looking else where for another chief of Apple retail job the club and think about the guys at the bottom of the ladder. Let Apple bring another guy in that wants to turn the compony upside down.

 

[Smigit]

"A CEO of a privately held retailer in France spurned Apple's overtures, believing it would be hard to change Apple's culture"

Therein lies the problem. Why in the world should anyone wants to change something that brings immense satisfaction to the end users? By turning it into a generic Best-Buy style experience in order to squeeze profits, you undermine the entire notion of "Think Different." ALL that a new retail chief should worry about it making the place something consumers flock to because they KNOW they will love it.

The "think different" catch phase could also be used to illustrate changes that would be positive for both Apple and consumers. Doing things differently doesn't mean you have to destroy the culture or atmosphere that is there, on the contrary Apple probably wants someone to come on board that can offer ideas and directions they haven't yet considered that will further improve the shopping experience.

As an outside, coming into one of the most successful retail chains in the US and arguably the world would be a very daunting task. The article I believe was stating that Apple probably doesn't want someone that will veer to the side of caution...if they wanted to go with what they have then they probably could fill the role with a current employee since the day to day operations anyway.

 

[Smutchings]

Hint: don't go for the head of Curry's (now pretty much the only remaining tech shop chain in the UK - Dixon's, run by Browett, was once a competitor). Go for someone from a cool retail chain; doesn't matter whether they sell clothes, food or fast food as long as they get the Apple approach. Browett never did.

Curry's is owned by DSGi, now known as Dixons Retail PLC. Currys and Dixons weren't competitors, they were the same company.

 

[gnasher729]

Because Apple has a legal obligation to the shareholders to maximize profit; and before someone chimes in that Apple's way leads to maximized profit, let us recall that Apple's stock just took a heavy dive. I'm not saying the capitalistic system is perfect, far from it, but it does explain some things.

I personally don't like the direction Apple is heading; sure they take care of the whole package, but sometimes I'd prefer not handing over so much control.

Apple has that legal obligation. They have no legal obligation to do stupid things because the stock market is run by idiots.

 

[everything-i]

Possibly. Johnson built Apple Retail from the ground up but was dealt a different hand at JCP, a company with over 100 years of history and hundreds of stores. Change comes slowly to big, old companies -- but that doesn't necessarily mean they are dying, or that nobody can reposition JCP for the future. It only means that Johnston wasn't that person. JCP has been counted out before, the last time was in the late '90s. They seem to be survivors.

Incidentally, you could say the same about Browett. He tried to make changes to Apple Retail, upper management panicked, etc.

Browett did try to make changes but each one seemed to be a clumsy disaster so I would say in his case they were right to panic and give him the boot. Essentially they figured out what everyone in the UK already knew

 

[rdlink]

I think it's pretty obvious that the board and the CEO wanted to make the retail operation more profitable and efficient, and they hired someone they thought could do it. The strategic decisions I am certain did not come from Browett, and there is certainly no point in Browett taking a job and not doing what he was hired to do. When it didn't come off well, he was thrown overboard. Happens all the time, but not much at well-run companies. This is one of the issues that has me less than totally thrilled with Cook's leadership.

Not sure how you think it's obvious that was how it happened. Do you have the board minutes from the meetings you attended?

Fact is, Apple only replaced Johnson because he left. They weren't out actively looking for Retail VPs. He took the job with JCP, and they had to replace him. That's all we in the public know. Apple was already the most profitable per square foot retail operation in the world before Browett was hired. Cook does not have the vision that Jobs did, (not many people ever have) but I think that management in this company would have had to be certifiable to want much about their retail operations changed.

For my money, I believe that Browett was disingenuous during the courting period. You see that far more in upper management hiring than in any other place. Even managers with bad vision didn't get where they are without being able to baffle with their BS.

But again, you and I neither one know how it really all went down in the background. It's just that, IMO Apple hiring someone who openly said he was going to change a ridiculously successful formula would have been crazy stupid. I have a hard time believing it went down that way.

 

[jonnyb]

Ask Steve Jobs. I mean, NEXT wasn't exactly a wild success.

I just called Apple and asked to speak to Steve Jobs. They told me he was dead. I felt like a complete idiot. Thanks a bunch.

 

[Four oF NINE]

Word on the tweet is that Steve Balmer may be a free agent soon...

Why do you hate Apple?

 

[AdonisSMU]

That's the way you reward your hard working employees...don't consider them for higher positions. What is Apple thinking? If you can't find anyone within to fill the role then that means there are larger problems....or it means they don't need anyone else to fill that position at all. The answer is probably both.

 

[britboyj]

Is there a possibility of Ron Johnson returning?

Considering he was outright fired from JCP, I doubt it.

----------

That's the way you reward your hard working employees...don't consider them for higher positions. What is Apple thinking? If you can't find anyone within to fill the role then that means there are larger problems....or it means they don't need anyone else to fill that position at all. The answer is probably both.

Depending on the position, this is a very good and healthy thing for companies to do. People who've experienced everything at one company their entire lives tend to make smaller, more insular and less risky or rewarding decisions than those who've seen how other companies do business.

Outside experience is a very, very good thing.

Those who've come up from Apple's retail arm are very different people, with very different skillsets and almost certainly lack Executive experience. You don't want to give someone their first shot at an Executive role in a company like Apple.

 

[iLilana]

Me!

me me me MEMEMEMEMEM ME! pick ME!

 

[LordVic]

me me me MEMEMEMEMEM ME! pick ME!

I called it first!

I'm eagerly waiting for my phone to ring


annnnny moment now

 

[theBB]

Not really. Browett was hired to head a division, not run the company. In any case, if the board and management didn't understand Browett's plans for Apple Retail before he was hired, then they've got nobody but themselves to blame. Very likely they did and panicked when he actually did what he was hired to do. The same goes for Johnson at JCP. The story played out very similarly at two different companies. This is a very common scenario at big companies. They think they know what they want until they actually get it.

The management of an organization in need of streamlining and some cost control may get rid of its new boss, but still keep the same goals. It keeps looking for somebody who can implement the changes without turning off customers or creating staff revolts. JCP changed its mind about simple pricing and store within store concepts completely along the firing the new boss. It gave up once its existing customer base, which was not large enough to keep it afloat anyways, did not immediately took to the changes.

In both cases, upper management made a mistake. The difference is where the mistake is. In JCP, I think management may have made the right decision in hiring Johnson and I believe the mistake is in firing him and giving up on the transition that could secure the company's future. In Apple's case, the mistake was in hiring the guy who could not accomplish the goals, but if Browett is not equipped to handle the job, it is better to admit failure early and cut the cord sooner rather than later, without changing the overall strategy.

 

[unplugme71]

Apple is a control company. What that means is, they hire people to fill a spot. Steve, now Tim, pass on what needs to be done. Some people don't like to be told what to do without coming up with their own ideas. This is how I see Apple still years after I've been employed with them.

A lot of retail employees came up with some great stuff, me being one of them. No one was given the opportunity for a gig in corporate. Instead, my idea was used and no credit given, no thank you, no nothing. Things like this can piss off anyone in any level of a company.

 

[Ripmax2000]

I think it's pretty obvious that the board and the CEO wanted to make the retail operation more profitable and efficient, and they hired someone they thought could do it. The strategic decisions I am certain did not come from Browett, and there is certainly no point in Browett taking a job and not doing what he was hired to do. When it didn't come off well, he was thrown overboard. Happens all the time, but not much at well-run companies. This is one of the issues that has me less than totally thrilled with Cook's leadership.

On the stock price, investors look for growth in earnings and nothing else in the final analysis. Apple has delivered three straight quarters of declining earnings. Anybody who doesn't expect the stock price to go down in the face of those facts is just whistling in the dark.

----------



And in what alternate universe did that happen?

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/2...-1-billion-profit-on-54-5-billion-in-revenue/

 

[SeaFox]

The article does note that a focus on customer service has returned to the stores after, during Browett's tenure, the company began aggressively focusing on sales with a drop in customer satisfaction ratings reflecting that change.

Newsflash! Customers want to be sold to, not at!

Wish more companies realized that.

 

[ryansimmons323]

I'll do it!! I'm 'outside'!!

 

[IJ Reilly]

Browett did try to make changes but each one seemed to be a clumsy disaster so I would say in his case they were right to panic and give him the boot. Essentially they figured out what everyone in the UK already knew

So, you are saying that Apple made a big mistake by hiring Browett, but after that, anything that didn't go well was his fault?

Not sure how you think it's obvious that was how it happened. Do you have the board minutes from the meetings you attended?

Fact is, Apple only replaced Johnson because he left. They weren't out actively looking for Retail VPs. He took the job with JCP, and they had to replace him. That's all we in the public know. Apple was already the most profitable per square foot retail operation in the world before Browett was hired. Cook does not have the vision that Jobs did, (not many people ever have) but I think that management in this company would have had to be certifiable to want much about their retail operations changed.

For my money, I believe that Browett was disingenuous during the courting period. You see that far more in upper management hiring than in any other place. Even managers with bad vision didn't get where they are without being able to baffle with their BS.

But again, you and I neither one know how it really all went down in the background. It's just that, IMO Apple hiring someone who openly said he was going to change a ridiculously successful formula would have been crazy stupid. I have a hard time believing it went down that way.

It's obvious because that's the way these things go down. A company doesn't hire a top management person on a lark, without knowing what kind of portfolio he brings to the job, or what they want him to do. If by some chance they have no clue who they are hiring, or what the person is going to do once hired, then it's hardly the hired's fault, it's the company's fault.

The management of an organization in need of streamlining and some cost control may get rid of its new boss, but still keep the same goals. It keeps looking for somebody who can implement the changes without turning off customers or creating staff revolts. JCP changed its mind about simple pricing and store within store concepts completely along the firing the new boss. It gave up once its existing customer base, which was not large enough to keep it afloat anyways, did not immediately took to the changes.

In both cases, upper management made a mistake. The difference is where the mistake is. In JCP, I think management may have made the right decision in hiring Johnson and I believe the mistake is in firing him and giving up on the transition that could secure the company's future. In Apple's case, the mistake was in hiring the guy who could not accomplish the goals, but if Browett is not equipped to handle the job, it is better to admit failure early and cut the cord sooner rather than later, without changing the overall strategy.

Again, you can try to make the argument that strategic decisions don't come from the top at Apple, but I'm probably never going to believe it.

What you and others are saying is that Apple made the wrong decision by hiring Browett, and that JCP made the wrong decision by firing Johnson. In essence: Apple, good; JCP, bad. Usually it isn't anything close to that simple. Far more often, top management makes poor strategic decisions, and then blames underlings for poor implementation when they fail. I see the same writing in the wall in both cases.

----------

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/2...-1-billion-profit-on-54-5-billion-in-revenue/

First of all, you seem to be redefining "recently" to mean three quarters ago. Second, you will note that earnings decreased YoY in that quarter too.

 

[GoldenJoe]

Why only outside candidates? I know that this a very common practice in large organizations, but it doesn't make sense. Unless you simply don't have the talent internally, why wouldn't you want to promote someone who's been with your company for fifteen years and knows the business inside and out?

 

[jonnysods]

Beg rollin Ronny to come back. Offer him some of the crazy money the top level execs have been getting at Apple (the term 'crazy' was not a shot at them, just that they seem to have the money to make it worth his while coming back).

 

[everything-i]

So, you are saying that Apple made a big mistake by hiring Browett, but after that, anything that didn't go well was his fault?

Apple made a huge mistake hiring Browett, all he knows is how to do is cut price with crap/no service. I don't think anyone watching this from the UK could quite believe he was given this role based on our experience of Dixon group stores that he was head of before this. All the things he did after taking over were true to type and it was obvious that he was trying to apply the same strategy that he had used at Dixons.

 

[the8thark]

Ask Steve Jobs. I mean, NEXT wasn't exactly a wild success.

It's a little hard to ask Jobs anything these days, well you now the whole being dead thing. But I agree with the point you make. If you learn from your failure you can have future successes.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple made a huge mistake hiring Browett, all he knows is how to do is cut price with crap/no service. I don't think anyone watching this from the UK could quite believe he was given this role based on our experience of Dixon group stores that he was head of before this. All the things he did after taking over were true to type and it was obvious that he was trying to apply the same strategy that he had used at Dixons.

Perhaps, but I don't buy the argument that Apple didn't know what they were getting when they hired him. The only hypothesis that makes any sense to me is that he was hired to make Apple's retail operation more efficient and profitable, which is not a surprising goal. This is why I say that strategic decisions come from the top, and it's the people who are hired to implement those decisions who get canned when the plan doesn't work out. Rarely does anyone at the top own up to a mistake.