|
Indeed it is. Same goes for other prominent figures, like Steve Jobs. People were/are convinced that the whole identity, all products and every choice was Jobs-bound and therefore without Jobs, what Apple does can't be just as good as it was when he was alive and running things. So past CEOs can make a lasting impact, and in many ways it works out badly because the negative comments get the most attention. Where Apple, according to some louder fans is not as good as it was under Jobs, for Microsoft under Nadella the inverse is true: according to the haters, just because it looks better now doesn't mean the (to them) bad years are gone. Generalising, no matter what direction a transition takes (good to bad or bad to good), it's always the loud messages pointing out the bad past or bad future that gets the most attention and influences choices the most. It's almost like trust between people: doing things right 99% of the time but doing one thing wrong once always makes that 99% of 'good' disappear and only the bad is taken as the 'true' value. In the extreme: lie once, and you are a liar. Even if you are 99 years old and have never lied before. That one time, once, will be what defines you as 'bad', and the rest does not outweigh it. Of course in reality that extreme example is not super likely, but nevertheless, it should carry the point I'm attempting to make ;-) It's not the sum, aggregate or balance that seems to count, only how 'bad' your 'badness' is. |