11-07-11 01:01 AM
31 12
tools
  1. anakin1979's Avatar
    Here's the link:

    RIM's CEO team needs to go - Business - News - ZDNet Australia

    The author does sound opinionated, but I have to agree with him on all his points.
    11-03-11 06:36 AM
  2. andyahs's Avatar
    "RIM's CEO Team Needs to Go"
    A novel idea that has not been suggested before.......
    11-03-11 06:44 AM
  3. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    Lets see how many threads we can start ya!
    11-03-11 06:44 AM
  4. Kekus's Avatar
    Show me one IT company where the original founders were removed from management that did better once they were removed. I'll show you 3 that still have the original players in that are doing well: Google, Microsoft & Apple (at least until recently - let's see what happens now). In case you have not noticed, the stock market is yo yo like in nature - if investors new what they were doing, this instability would not exist, the don't, it's about greed, not invention, not creation, not a vision, just greed.

    My challenge stands, show me one IT company that did better once the original founders were removed.
    kbz1960 and bquinney like this.
    11-03-11 06:50 AM
  5. Sith_Apprentice's Avatar
    Lest we all forget, the worlds most valuable (or second most cant keep up) company was near bankruptcy as well and turned it around. RIM needs radical change, but that doesnt necessarily mean new CEOs.

    Apple Overtakes Exxon Becoming World’s Most Valuable Company - Businessweek
    phonejunky and maddie1128 like this.
    11-03-11 07:02 AM
  6. brucep1's Avatar
    Since Apple came back from near bankruptcy, RIM will do the same..I love this logic.
    kingest_kong likes this.
    11-03-11 07:19 AM
  7. kbz1960's Avatar
    Since Apple came back from near bankruptcy, RIM will do the same..I love this logic.
    I guess they don't need a loan from MS yet.
    11-03-11 07:24 AM
  8. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    I guess they don't need a loan from MS yet.
    Well, office for Playbook a la Mac ...
    11-03-11 07:42 AM
  9. rdkempt's Avatar
    Show me one IT company where the original founders were removed from management that did better once they were removed. I'll show you 3 that still have the original players in that are doing well: Google, Microsoft & Apple (at least until recently - let's see what happens now). In case you have not noticed, the stock market is yo yo like in nature - if investors new what they were doing, this instability would not exist, the don't, it's about greed, not invention, not creation, not a vision, just greed.

    My challenge stands, show me one IT company that did better once the original founders were removed.
    I don't care enough to research the 3 companies you listed but if I am correct...
    Steve Jobs is no longer with Apple.
    Bill Gates is no longer with Microsoft.
    Google co-founders hired Eric Shmidt to be CEO of Google and they boomed when he came on board instead of 2 founders.

    All of these companies have been doing fine with different staff (yes, some of the "original players" are still with the company, likely cause the companies are so young). But this is not true with HP. David Packard and William Hewlett have both been dead for more than 10 years. The company is definitely stronger today than when the founders were CEOs in the 1950s and 60s. I can assume most of their original staff is also dead or retired seeing the company was founded in the 1930's and they've had nearly a dozen CEOs.
    11-03-11 07:42 AM
  10. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    I don't care enough to research the 3 companies you listed but if I am correct...
    Steve Jobs is no longer with Apple.
    Bill Gates is no longer with Microsoft.
    Google co-founders hired Eric Shmidt to be CEO of Google and they boomed when he came on board instead of 2 founders.

    All of these companies have been doing fine with different staff (yes, some of the "original players" are still with the company, likely cause the companies are so young). But this is not true with HP. David Packard and William Hewlett have both been dead for more than 10 years. The company is definitely stronger today than when the founders were CEOs in the 1950s and 60s. I can assume most of their original staff is also dead or retired seeing the company was founded in the 1930's and they've had nearly a dozen CEOs.
    Since you're historically correct, there's a slight difference.
    All of these CEO have been carefully preparing their followers and teams to a scheduled retirement. They did not either "disappear" from the scene; they still had behind the scene very active actions.
    Firing a CEO founder (edited thx to rdkempt) is a totally another matter.
    apple / Jobs (back in the 90's) is a good example. You can't cut a company "vision" ,"management" and "teams" within a snap. If done this way, the change likely goes to disaster. They had to call him back, to restore the DNA of the firm & vision.

    This is why I stated in other threads that they must stay ... behind the scene, and that RIM must find an "evangelist representative" to spread RIM's vision.
    Last edited by Superfly_FR; 11-03-11 at 08:15 AM. Reason: founder for CEO correction
    11-03-11 07:53 AM
  11. rdkempt's Avatar
    Since you're historically correct, there's a slight difference.
    All of these CEO have been carefully preparing their followers and teams to a scheduled retirement. They did not either "disappear" from the scene; they still had behind the scene very active actions.
    Firing a CEO is a totally another matter.
    apple / Jobs (back in the 90's) is a good example. You can't cut a company "vision" ,"management" and "teams" within a snap. If done this way, the change likely goes to disaster. They had to call him back, to restore the DNA of the firm & vision.
    This is why I stated in other threads that they must stay ... behind the scene, and that RIM must find an "evangelist representative" to spread RIM's vision.
    Just to be clear I'm not against the two monkeys running the company. I could spend some time and find some companies that fired their CEOs and have boomed since (I know this is true with the most recent HP CEO as well, but he was not a founder, Leo Apotheker or w/e his name was), but I don't think it's necessary with RIM, they just need a sense of direction cause they're all over the map right now.
    Superfly_FR likes this.
    11-03-11 08:05 AM
  12. Sith_Apprentice's Avatar
    Since Apple came back from near bankruptcy, RIM will do the same..I love this logic.
    Never said they WILL, just that they can. RIM has a great deal of value in the products they have, the industries they cater to, and the patents they have. Not everything is about market share. (not to mention while their profits are lower than previous, they are still making money) The CEOs are necessarily the issue, or the board, or the devices, etc. Its a great many things that need to change at RIM, personnel being the least of the concerns.
    11-03-11 08:09 AM
  13. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    Just to be clear I'm not against the two monkeys running the company. I could spend some time and find some companies that fired their CEOs and have boomed since (I know this is true with the most recent HP CEO as well, but he was not a founder, Leo Apotheker or w/e his name was), but I don't think it's necessary with RIM, they just need a sense of direction cause they're all over the map right now.
    Yes, I think the "founder" and "CEO" distinction is essential here.
    I'll edit to P.S this.
    rdkempt likes this.
    11-03-11 08:13 AM
  14. EchoTango's Avatar
    I have to agree, we've come to a place where something must be done.

    I think one or both should be moved to the board and a new dynamic leader should be brought in. RIM needs to be seen as taking decisive action in the 3rd ecosystem war because its doubtful the market will support a fourth. RIM is staking everything on BBX and it's still not certain it will be successful, given RIM's recent product delivery performance. Other confidence building actions must be undertaken.

    In short, optics counts in the situation RIM finds itself today and unfortunately the top leadership must be "reconfigured" or the company sold off.
    11-03-11 08:26 AM
  15. brucep1's Avatar
    Never said they WILL, just that they can. RIM has a great deal of value in the products they have, the industries they cater to, and the patents they have. Not everything is about market share. (not to mention while their profits are lower than previous, they are still making money) The CEOs are necessarily the issue, or the board, or the devices, etc. Its a great many things that need to change at RIM, personnel being the least of the concerns.

    Anything can happen. Using company turnaround stories, while inspirational, provides little or no value at this point.
    blemoon42 likes this.
    11-03-11 08:30 AM
  16. Sith_Apprentice's Avatar
    Anything can happen. Using company turnaround stories, while inspirational, provides little or no value at this point.
    Well unfortunately RIM needs inspiration and to inspire. While my example may not seem relevant, i did it to show that CEOs arent necessarily what need to be changed. You think getting rid of the CEOs will change anything short term? The main players in the company are the same, they are just the figureheads in charge. They do need changes, but it has to start the product and services level.
    11-03-11 08:32 AM
  17. brucep1's Avatar
    Well unfortunately RIM needs inspiration and to inspire. While my example may not seem relevant, i did it to show that CEOs arent necessarily what need to be changed. You think getting rid of the CEOs will change anything short term? The main players in the company are the same, they are just the figureheads in charge. They do need changes, but it has to start the product and services level.
    Short-term? probably not

    But these 2 CEO's have stood by and watched as the company has been lapped over and over. When a company fails to innovate, the responsibility falls on their heads. Whether or not its their faults is an entirely different discussion.

    Look at sports for a comparison. While responsibility may not fall on the coach's head, (heck the coach might have been the one to turn them into a contender), when the team performs poorly, they are often the ones who take the blame. Not saying these scenarios are similar, but the way the decisions are structured are.
    11-03-11 08:50 AM
  18. Lead_Express's Avatar
    I think the two Co-CEOs need to be broken up into two independent positions like Mike is CEO and Jim is Chairman of toiletries and housekeeping...
    Shlooky likes this.
    11-03-11 08:56 AM
  19. Sith_Apprentice's Avatar
    Short-term? probably not

    But these 2 CEO's have stood by and watched as the company has been lapped over and over. When a company fails to innovate, the responsibility falls on their heads. Whether or not its their faults is an entirely different discussion.

    Look at sports for a comparison. While responsibility may not fall on the coach's head, (heck the coach might have been the one to turn them into a contender), when the team performs poorly, they are often the ones who take the blame. Not saying these scenarios are similar, but the way the decisions are structured are.
    If that is the case, then the entire board should be excised and new individuals brought in. I think too many people blame the CEOs when the board wields a great deal of power.

    As i said, i am not arguing the need for change (in fact i support a drastic change). But where the change needs to occur is my question.
    11-03-11 09:05 AM
  20. psufan32's Avatar
    Never said they WILL, just that they can. RIM has a great deal of value in the products they have, the industries they cater to, and the patents they have. Not everything is about market share. (not to mention while their profits are lower than previous, they are still making money) The CEOs are necessarily the issue, or the board, or the devices, etc. Its a great many things that need to change at RIM, personnel being the least of the concerns.
    First, yes, RIM can become the world's most valuable company by the end of December. Anything is possible. What is likely is an entirely different matter altogether.

    Secondly, RIM has three main assets right now. Their name, their patents, and their security apparatus. They can't monetize the last two, and have failed to capitalize on their name.

    If the people aren't the issue, and the products aren't the issue, what and/or who is?

    Lets be honest, RIM has been a two trick pony. They put e-mail on a mobile phone (and revolutionized the technology world by doing so) and they created BBM. After that, they've not only missed the boat, but they've been adamant the boat was leaving at a different time from a different place. They deemed cameras on phones worthless, they laughed at the idea of apps, they thought that the iPhone was successful simply because it had a touchscreen and they thought the iPad was successful simply because it's a tablet.

    If Mike and Jim hadn't been and weren't so stubborn, and if they hadn't been and weren't so defensive, RIM would probably be a bigger company right now than Google or Apple. They have, however, missed opportunity after opportunity for years now (both hardware and software wise, consumers and corporate users).

    I am squarely in the camp that believes that the only way that RIM can turn things around is if the culture of complacency and the defensive attitude are purged from the company. And, the two most complacent and defensive people within that company are Mike and Jim. They have shown us absolutely nothing technology wise over the last 5 years that should make us think otherwise. They have shown us absolutely nothing as a company over the last 5 years that should make us think otherwise.
    11-03-11 09:13 AM
  21. Shlooky's Avatar
    The stock will drop below 18 today.

    As a result, people think the company is being mismanaged and I agree that the two CEO's must be removed.
    Last edited by Shlooky; 11-03-11 at 09:27 AM.
    11-03-11 09:17 AM
  22. olblueyez's Avatar
    How about we change the word removed to "relegated" to the board of directors so they can still have the visionary input and at the same time have someone to replace them as CEO(s) who can organize and direct the fragmented technologies they own/sell/develop and then market said technologies so the untapped customers/revenue can be acquired to bring RIM up to speed and raise their competitive presence in the market place to a point where people do consider them technological leaders.

    They have all the tools to travel this path but the various parts of RIM will need to be integrated into one well oiled unit and they must acquire a reputation worthy of the technologies they bring to the table. Playbook has been a missed opportunity of sorts but with OS7 and QNX added to the Playbook or a Playbook successor the opportunity to make these changes and put them to work now exist in the present and should not be squandered if the stockholders are serious about raising the stock values.

    Maybe Mike and Jim see a need to be defensive but I seriously doubt they would see things that way if RIM was put back on the players map here in the US and any other world markets where they are considered small potatoes by the public and the investors.

    Its all about the management. And I don't see how any of this would be stripping Jim and Mike of their triumphs in the smart phone business. No one can manage forever. Ford, Chrysler, and Harley are examples of this and I don't see a lot of talk about their past failures, all I see are companies that had to change with the times and were better because of those changes.

    Technology moved slower when Jim and Mike started this thing and it only makes sense that they are no longer as quick to grasp and implement technology in the later years of their leadership. If you had a time machine and used it to take Henry Ford to the Management and Development headquarters for FoMoCo do you think he would have much more to offer than instinct and vision?

    I don't.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by olblueyez; 11-03-11 at 10:05 AM.
    Rickroller and Laura Knotek like this.
    11-03-11 09:56 AM
  23. Darlaten's Avatar
    Secondly, RIM has three main assets right now. Their name, their patents, and their security apparatus. They can't monetize the last two, and have failed to capitalize on their name.

    If the people aren't the issue, and the products aren't the issue, what and/or who is?
    I don't believe that RIM's name, at least as far as North America is concerned, carries any weight these days. If anything, RIM's name has become synonomous with the words/phrases: incompetence, arrogance, overpromising and underdelivering, obselete products, out of touch with reality, antiquated, embarassing, laughable, and in general, simply boring.

    Case in point, I used my Playbook in front of a class of college students last night for a lecture I was giving; more than half of the students indicated that they felt sorry for me for having bought a Playbook with others then commenting that Blackberry has fallen apart and still others, the Iphone users, made fun of the outage that occurred recently. Of course, some of the Blackberry users then retorted that at least their phones make calls and they dont have to hold their phones a certain way which got a good laugh from anyone.

    But still, just a few years ago, this would not have happened. You didn't find people
    who would openly criticize, laugh, or express their sympathy at people who have chosen a RIM product. Something has changed. And the only thing I can think of is that the name RIM or perhaps better stated the brand of RIM has become damaged. And it is this damage that RIM will have a very difficult time overcoming. Is it impossible? Of course not. But it certainly is an uphill battle.
    mustangv8 likes this.
    11-03-11 11:37 AM
  24. Mystic205's Avatar
    RIM needs a COO period. Somebody needs to roll their sleeves up and fix the systemic issues in product development.

    Customers are no longer interested in battery pulls, o.s. versions of the week, or having products announced early and delivered late.. all fixable systemic issues.. but its work for a COO rather than the CEO fun of preening yourself over powerpoint slides.
    11-03-11 03:58 PM
  25. TGR1's Avatar
    RIM needs a COO period. Somebody needs to roll their sleeves up and fix the systemic issues in product development.

    Customers are no longer interested in battery pulls, o.s. versions of the week, or having products announced early and delivered late.. all fixable systemic issues.. but its work for a COO rather than the CEO fun of preening yourself over powerpoint slides.
    Unfortunately, RIMM already has plenty of those *three

    I am actually a little concerned at the number of higher level executives leaving recently. While I do think RIM needs a corporate overhaul I am afraid it's a little too much too fast.
    11-03-11 10:20 PM
31 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD