Inevitably, if you work long enough, you will hear this phrase uttered in the context of some possible crisis. "We need to make sure we are covered in case Joe gets hit by a bus!" Everyone in the room nods their heads, furrows their brow, and thinks earnestly about the possibility of Joe coming to an untimely demise.
Of course, the possibility of Joe getting hit by a bus is probably infinitely small. What people really want to account for is insurance against Joe not being around anymore. Its much more likely that Joe walks in and quits tomorrow, but no one wants to say that. Joe is perceived to be irreplaceable.
The reality is, that with very, very few exceptions, no one is irreplaceable. You might miss some more than others, but life has gone on for either thousands or millions of years ( depending on your view of the beginning of time, which I do not intend to cover here ), and somehow we have managed to move forward throughout that time even though everyone has been replaced.
I have had several jobs where I thought "they just can't do this without me." It has kept me at positions longer than I wanted to be in them, and induced a certain amount of guilt when I finally did pull the plug. As I have gotten older, it has slowly dawned on me that, though I may be good at what I do, and some might even think I am great at what I do, if I am not around tomorrow life will still go on. People will find a way to get done what they need to get done.
I have been thinking about this in light of Fortune's new cover story on Steve Jobs. He was crowned "CEO of the Decade" by Fortune in their latest issue. I think Steve Jobs is probably one of the smarter people to show up in the last 30 years. His ideas are amazing, and his ability to bring great products to market is almost unrivaled. I would say the same thing about the guys at Google. They are tremendous and unique talents. The world is a more interesting place, at least in technology, because of their work.
But, what if they were not around? What would become of Apple or Google? Would they fade to black? More importantly, would someone else have eventually provided something just as good if they had not done it? We know from Apple's history that they languished in obscurity between Jobs' tenures as CEO. When he returned, they began a meteoric rise back to the top of the computing world. The question is, if Jobs were hit by a bus, who would take his place? I don't mean just at Apple. They may or may not survive and thrive as they do now. It is my sense that someone would emerge quickly as the successor, bringing a new wave of innovation to the marketplace. It may not be at Apple, but it would happen.
No one is irreplaceable. It's a good thing to remember. It keeps you humble, and it also keeps your thinking in perspective when you weigh decisions about what is best for you to do next.
1 comments:
In regards to Apple, I would think Tim Cook is the likely successor.
But more to your point, (and please forgive the ramble) to see the importance of personality, look at the companies currently failing here like Microsoft or Sony, both of which are largely rudderless at the moment. In Microsoft's case, Bill Gates could pretty much turn that company on a dime. I remember the three month period where suddenly every product in the Microsoft warehouse became Internet enabled. 3 months! But Bill is gone and now the place seems to exemplify lack of vision. Sony is in a similar boat. They seem to still think proprietary hardware is what people want. That all directly stems from the disappearance of a key personality.
I would argue that while the person at the top sets the overall trend and has by far the most influence, the various underlings make or break things to a lesser degree as well. So while you can recover from the loss of a great COO, for example, the distance that can be covered in the long run suffers. I'm not saying people are irreplaceable, just that measuring its true impact is difficult and usually underestimated.
Post a Comment