Is Apple a cult or a religion?

A September 6 Wall Street Journal article, "Steve Jobs Should Address Options Scandals," has the following quotation.

Apple "has a whole mystique and iconic value," says Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School who studies star CEOs. "My first computer was an Apple II. My dad was unemployed and maxed out his credit cards because he thought it was the future."

The Apple board faces a classic conundrum. Companies strongly identified with their leaders need to become institutions independent of their leaders.

"The difference between a cult and a religion is one outlasts its founder. At what point do you make decisions that no single individual is above the values of the institution?" Mr. Khurana says. "This blemish on [Apple's] reputation should cause people to pause."

Whether or not Steve Jobs needs to address the options issue, Mr. Khurana raises an interesting question.  Can Apple become an institution independent of Steve Jobs?

So far the signs are not very positive.  Apple came close to dying without Steve at the helm.  Apple has yet to develop any other personalities that are well know outside the Mac faithful.

The perception that most people have is that Steve Jobs is Apple.  For a company, hoping to have a long run at success, that's probably not very healthy.  It's actually a really tough position for Apple.

Steve's involvement with Disney after the Pixar merger potentially spreads him even thinner.

I think  perhaps the biggest challenge may actually be Steve himself.  Though he has shared the spotlight somewhat in recent events, is he actually to the point of wanting to see Apple develop a life of its own through giving other employees real power?

The idea that the cultural structure of Apple could change enough to encourage Apple executives to actually try things without Steve's approval is pretty radical.

I haven't seen any indication that this is happening, but perhaps others have picked up some signs that Apple might be trying to change, and start down the road to becoming an institution.

Comments

[Gerald Buckley]

The ONLY companies I can think of with iconic leaders who've stepped aside and remained viable are GE (under Welch), Southwest Airlines (under Kelleher) and Wal-Mart (under Sam).

All of the others are sucking wind (HP, Sun, AOL, Chicago Bulls, etc). Lookit, I bet you can even name the personalities that fit with those brands...

Churches are institutions. Religions are a belief system. Apple is and I hope always will remain a religion by that definition and NOT an institution.

[Joe]

The only reason Apple almost tanked without SJ at the helm was dynamic Scully + Gasse who while keeping prices in the stratsphere, let the money go to the heads of the culture. Once they got used to the perks, the rest fell apart and Apple almost died.

Should the time come that SJ were to no longer be at Apple, the company needs a visionary with a strong enough will to make execution, from the first moment to the product being on the shelves happen in a timely manner, but with unrelenting focus and attention to the smallest, most seemingly insignificant details.

Apple would then continue to innovate and bring to market new ideas and products that look far better than the competitors in the marketplace.

[jbelkin]

Unlike sports teams, nearly every company wants you to hear only one voice - that of the CEO. That's not always possible for many reasons good or bad but Apple is pretty unique for a non-start up to really only have one voice and frankly, it's a pretty good voice- like many other great leaders, he has faults but the bottom line is Apple is a much more interesting company when he is leading the charge. Unlike some others who are just power hungry for the sake - Steve Jobs has earned the right - not only has he help to create a Pc industry but along the way, he has ignited a couple of other revolutions from design esthetic, desktop publishing, the portable mp3 market and even showing others that Super Bowl advertising can be a showcase ... that's quite a feat for just the last 20 years ... not a lot of other CEo's and founders who can say as much for 20 years.

I understand what you're saying in that Apple needs to have a transition to the next but frankly, Steve Jobs is not just another CEO - he might be the Leonardo DaVinci of technology ... who can be the next Leonardo?

So, you're asking a lot - especialy in a corporate environment - there can be no other voices right now because it would be confusing - people would wonder - who is this guy? Why isn't it coming from Steve?

Apple is a religion not a cult - you can leave it anytime but it stays with you.

[Mike]

Interesting article and questions about the future of Apple. I've wondered if Apple has what is takes to forge ahead without Steve at the helm. Since I can't bear the though of using Windows at home again, I can only pray that he'll find the right replacement to move Apple forward as Steve begins to plan for retirement.

Oh, and a quick note about the title of the article. In the sociology of religion, all religions are one of the following: 1) a cult (a mishmash of religious influences); 2) a sect (a subset of a religious group with its own identity); 3) a church (a religious government); or 4) a denomination (a destinct religious group that accept that other beliefs exist in society). A cult, then, is always a religion. Sorry, the religious studies major in me noticed the title and had to say something.

[tom]

What a silly question. Religions and cults are the same thing.

[Deja Vu]

Apple is a publicly traded corporation first and foremost but I can understand how a portion of its userbase looks at it as a religion with cult-like attributes. I guess Jobs planted that seed early on but you can probably credit Guy Kawasaki for really taking that whole evangelizing thing to the next level (and ultimately caused many to become polarized about Apple since there were plenty of knuckleheaded Mac zealots who took things too far). I was originally an OS/2 advocate in the early 90's so I was familar with rabid OS/2 zealots but some of the Mac ones at the time made some OS/2 stalwarts look mild by comparison. That was always a turn off for me but ironically a few years later, I ended up becoming a Mac user but never took part in the silly OS war thing. I do recall a bunch of class A morons who called themselves the Mac Marines and many of those folks really gave Mac users a bad reputation in the 90's as being a bunch of nutcases.

For a company, that can be exceptionally challenging to deal with because often times, those same people who tend to view Apple as a religion of sorts usually are the ones who have totally unrealistic expectations. They speculate endlessly about what gee-whizbang product Apple will come up with, how that thing will be the death of Microsoft, and ultimately end up setting themselves (and others) for disappointment. Back during the timeframe when Apple was still trying to climb that "hierarchy of skepticism" pyramid that Jobs talked about when he returned, the general press didn't care about the rumor mill at the time (you know with speculators like Mac The Knife, Robert K. Morgan of Apple Recon) and mainly enjoyed writing more negative slanted stories despite the fact that Apple was turning around at least financially. Compare that with the situation in recent times where they now feed on the same rumors as the rest of us. It's incredible the change from those days where skepticism about Apple's future prospects ran high to now where the press and analysts are also affected to some extent by the Steve Jobs RDF.

That I think can be both good and bad since it puts plenty pressure on one man to crack the whip so to speak to make sure that they can deliver. Equally, he is setting a high bar for anyone else and it won't be easy to fill because too many people are going to have unrealistically high expectations for that person. I think it was Gil Amelio who said that he was surprised at just how much the CEO position at Apple is unlike any other since it is akin to being looked at like a rock star and everyone has their eye on you.

[SuperLemonster]

Interesting toughts. Reading through I felt, unlike the first reviews, that Sun did well in that matter. Boosting the dynamic and relatively young Schwatrz seems like a good move. With Mc Nealy they're two visionary in their industry. Obviously nothing as fancy as Apple, and not targetting the same crowds.

McNealy can somehow nicely get out of the picture and still push Sun on its current way.

Regarding Apple, I have to agree that I don't see anyone that springs to mind when talking past SJ.

[Jim]

"Churches are institutions. Religions are a belief system. Apple is and I hope always will remain a religion by that definition and NOT an institution."

Apple *should* be neither to anyone. They are a company who makes a tools. Not a religion, on a cult or a institution. Their marketing will make you think otherwise, and for that they deserver kudos. Yet, at the end of the day they are only building tools. They have long stopped innovating and are comfortable to rely on thier loyal install base and snazzy marketing to keep them going. BTW - I am an Mac user.