It's the organization that succeeds, not the CEO or COO or any individual.
It's like a few years ago when steve jobs died, some people were claiming Apple was doomed. The "great man or woman" theory has been debunked enough that we know it is nonsense.
But as you noted, a successful company needs a stellar COO. So why is this news?
That's just absolute BS.
That was in reference to a particular CEO ro COO. It doesn't matter if Steve Jobs or Tim Cook is running Apple as long as they are competent and the organization is solid. As I said, I was referring to the "great man or woman" theory. Of course a successful organization requires "stellar" employees at every level.
> "But as you noted, a successful company needs a stellar COO." in the same paragraph, the obvious contradiction really weakens your argument.
That remark was in reference to the "news" cycle. If every successful company has a stellar COO ( just like they have stellar janitors, mid level managers, etc ), why is it news? Could it be just because she is a woman? That was what I was implying.
The only reason this is a story is because the media had to push out another woman story.
As he noted, every successful company has a stellar COO. Wonder why they aren't getting articles in large newspapers?
But, at least at a smaller/newer company, the CEO/COO has created the organization. It's not some thing that exists independently of the CEO/COO.
Didn't Apple suffer for many years, before Jobs was brought back?
What? No it hasn't.