Steve Jobs took a medical leave from Apple a few weeks ago. Wild speculation that his pancreatic cancer -- widely considered deadly -- is back. No confirmation whatsoever.
What is his obligation to Apple stockholders? Should he have to disclose private medical information? How did Apple handle the situation? Did the strike the right balance between his privacy and others needs? Should they have been more forthcoming? What are the financial implications and do they matter?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Illness and a public face
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In a situation like Jobs', ethical rules go out the window. Money and stocks are not as important as a person's health. If maintaining some level of privacy is what Jobs needs to get well, there should be no question over whether he deserves it.
Yes, Jobs may require a certain level of privacy in order to get well, but that does not completely over rule his responsibility to Apple stockholders, and the economy. The article mentioned Apple's stockholder drop because people are assuming Jobs will not be returning. If Jobs was more clear about his current health and situation, then maybe stockholders would not be so apprehensive about the future of Apple. The economy is especially fragile right now, and Jobs has the responsibility to make sure his company avoids stock holders pulling out and a market slump.
It's hard to comment on the appropriateness of Apple disclosing Jobs' health. If Jobs plays an integral role in the company, and thus represents a significant piece of Apple's intellectual capital, it would seem fair that Apple keep stockholders better apprised. However, I can't believe the loss of a single individual--especially when his longtime second is taking command--should be serious public concern. The current economic atmosphere is one of fear. People look out solely for themselves, they don't have any trust in the economy, and inevitably the business climate worsens. Even if Jobs doesn't return, shareholders have little right to abandon ship. It's the prisoner's dilemma; too bad everyone is a rat.
If he admits he has it, people will bail. If he says he does not have it, like he has, people will panic anyway.
I don't think he has a moral obligation to do anything in particular.
Post a Comment