Apple Complaint #10: Al Gore
This last installment of my “Apple Complaints” series may be controversial, but it shouldn’t be. You see, I don’t think you have to be a member of any particular political party to appreciate how little Al Gore, who joined Apple’s board in March, brings to the table.
Before you castigate me for playing politics, I think some background is in order. Children of the dot-com boom probably don’t realize it, but corporate boards are supposed to be more than just hobbies for the rich, the famous, and buddies of the CEO. Boards are actually meant to play an import role in both strategy and corporate governance. It was an abdication of responsibility in the latter area, in particular, that paved the way for many of the worst excesses of the late 1990’s (including the spectacular misadventures of Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski).
Apple’s board isn’t nearly as bad as Tyco’s was, but it has taken more than its fair share of criticism. BusinessWeek, for example, named it one of the eight worst boards in the US, while Jerome York (who sat on the company’s compensation committee at the time Jobs was awarded his $90 million jet) found his association with the Apple board a liability when asked to join (ironically enough) the board of Tyco. Meanwhile, Larry Ellison was widely noted for his absenteeism from board meetings, and has stepped down as a result.
Which brings us to our former Vice President. It was certainly a wise idea for Ellison to step down, but Gore is, in my opinion, a poor replacement. You see, in the wake of scandals like Tyco and Enron, the role of corporate boards has come under a lot of scrutiny, and it is increasingly critical for companies to reassure investors by courting board members who are old industry hands and seasoned businesspeople—the kind of folks who aren’t likely to be asleep at the wheel. As Nell Minow of the Corporate Library told Business 2.0 this month:
There’s a difference in what describes a marquee name now…It’s not a former Cabinet member. It’s somebody who can read a balance sheet.
Gore is not a businessman or technologist, but rather a career public servant whose chief qualification is that he understands technology pretty well—for a politician. He does, as Jobs points out in a press release, do “his own video editing in Final Cut Pro,” but by that standard I would say most readers of this weblog are eminently qualified to be an Apple Director. I suppose his appointment might have made sense if Apple wanted to, say, pursue government contracts in a major way (hmm—I did hear recently that PowerPC processors were being used to guide smart bombs—iMissiles anyone?), but that seems unlikely. It is pretty clear to me that Gore brings little but a famous name to Apple.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m sure Gore is a smart guy (and, now that I think about it, I suppose he does have some experience in education). My concern is just that there has been a lot of hand-wringing lately about the oversight (or lack thereof) provided by corporate boards, and, given that Apple’s has been counted among the worst, I’m not sure bringing in a marquee name with weak qualifications is the best way to counter criticism and inspire investor confidence.
So there you have it Robb—if the last nine complaints didn’t ensure that I will never be hired by Apple, you can bet that this one will put the final nail in the coffin :-).