????2004年，史蒂夫?喬布斯身患胰腺癌的消息曝光，此后，媒體一直在熱議，萬一蘋果公司（Apple）失去喬布斯，公司能否繼續保持高速增長。今年八月，喬布斯宣布辭職，并于近期逝世，蘋果公司員工和全世界的科技愛好者都萬分沉痛。

????公司高層的權力更迭本不足為奇，但研究表明，與周密策劃的繼任方案等平穩過渡相比，領導者突然離職將給公司帶來非同尋常的影響。公司權力層遭遇劇變，員工往往深受打擊，但是總有解決的辦法。

????事實上，蘋果為這種過渡期做了相當一段時間的鋪墊：喬布斯生前就已經開始著手培養前首席運營官蒂姆?庫克為繼任者。“庫克是史蒂夫?喬布斯欽點的接班人，并且在喬布斯的提攜下，他的角色也逐漸被外界所接受，”美國馬里蘭大學（the University of Maryland）組織與管理學教授吉拉德?陳說，“這種安排使蘋果比毫無準備的公司更加平穩地實現過渡。”

????美國心理協會（the American Psychological Association）工作場所健康項目主管大衛?巴拉德說，就算公司暫時沒有大的領導層變動計劃，也要隨時做好準備。因為說不準哪天，公司CEO就可能會因病缺席或者另謀高就，也有可能像惠普（HP）前CEO馬克?赫德那樣，因卷入丑聞而被迫辭職。遺憾的是，大部分公司都沒有預防性的緊急繼任計劃。

????CEO顏面掃地，公司不得不臨時將其掃地出門，由此帶來的高層巨變有可能會導致格外困難的局面。公司員工可能從此喪失對留任領導層成員的信任，特別是如果這些管理層成員曾對當事人表示過支持，或公司的公眾形象過分依賴于當事人個人。

????但事實上，管理層完全可以將違規領導者造成的損失轉變為積極的影響，休斯頓大學（the University of Houston）工業與組織心理學教授麗莎?佩妮說。留任的高層成員可以借機強化公司的價值標準。解雇位高權重但卻表現不合格的人物可以傳遞出這樣一個信息：CEO與普通員工享受平等待遇，公司行為準則不容破壞。

????專家認為，公司應該盡可能地引導管理層與員工進行對話，向員工清楚地解釋為什么CEO離職也有好的一面。尤其在今天的經濟形勢下，領導層的任何變動都會讓公司上下草木皆兵。

????“人們極端渴望穩定，”德克薩斯基督教大學（Texas Christian University）尼利（Neely）商學院的管理學教授比爾?貝克爾說，“大的變動一旦發生，就會觸發危險信號。一般而言，往往會觸發負面情緒。”

????如果已經預見到重大變故，盡早分配領導權能夠提供最佳的緩沖效果。軍隊和大部分政府部門正是如此，陳說：“在這種體制里，職位必須定期更換，并確保隨時有繼任者前來接替。”也正是因為如此，軍隊和政府組織不能過于依賴某一個人。

????國際貨幣基金組織（International Monetary Fund）也同樣如此，多米尼克?斯特勞斯-卡恩被控對酒店女員工實施性騷擾而卸任，其后IMF在克里斯丁娜?拉加德總裁的帶領下實現了平穩過渡。在IMF這樣的組織，領導人只能在固定任期內任職；而對于公司來說，要想建立一個領導人職位更替機制，則實屬不易。

????即便如此，最高行政官在高管層分配權力總是一件好事。“分享權力需要領導人具備強大的自信，”陳說道，“愿意權力共享的領導者往往更信賴集體領導，而非個人專政。”

????事先實施權力分配的公司往往能夠更有效地應對突然地劇變。即使主要領導者因丑聞而名譽掃地，或者身患疾病，甚至不幸亡故，導致公司整體遭遇重創，但其核心領導體系可以毫發無損。

????蘋果公司是否具備這種可持續的領導架構還有待觀察。盡管它曾經制定了繼任計劃，但畢竟，在過去的三十年里，差不多都是喬布斯一個人在唱獨角戲。也許這并不是最可持續的領導戰略，但毫無疑問，喬布斯所反對的正是傳統的管理智慧。究竟是史蒂夫?喬布斯個人的管理藝術無人能及，還是蘋果公司的管理體系無與倫比？蘋果未來的表現將會告訴我們答案。

????譯者：富來細特/汪皓

????Since Steve Jobs was reported to have pancreatic cancer back in 2004, media outlets have carried a debate over whether or not Apple could maintain its breakneck growth path without him. Jobs resigned in August, and his recent death saddened Apple (AAPL) employees and tech appreciators everywhere.

????Companies shift power at the top all the time, but research suggests that the sudden loss of a leader affects a company differently than a smooth transition, such as a successfully orchestrated succession plan. Given that companies often experience fast, dramatic shifts in power, there are ways to ease the blow to employees, who often feel traumatized by the change.

????Actually, Apple has been preparing for this transition for some time. Jobs had been grooming Apple's former COO Tim Cook to take over. "Cook was hand-selected by Steve Jobs and socialized into the role," says Gilad Chen, a professor of management and organization at the University of Maryland. "That will hopefully allow Apple to experience a smoother transition than companies that didn't really expect a change."

????But even companies that aren't expecting a major leadership shift should prepare for one, says David Ballard, director of the American Psychological Association's healthy workplace program. CEOs fall ill or switch jobs, or, in the case of Mark Hurd at HP (HP), become embroiled in a scandal that ultimately leads to their departure. Most companies don't have an emergency succession plan in place, Ballard adds.

????A sudden shift such as the firing of a disgraced CEO can be especially difficult. Employees tend to mistrust surviving leadership after this kind of scandal, especially if those members of management supported the CEO or hinged the company's image on him or her.

????But managers can actually turn the loss of a rule-breaking leader into a positive, says Lisa Penney, a professor of industrial organizational psychology at the University of Houston. Remaining leaders can use the CEO's departure to reinforce the company's values. Firing powerful people who fail to uphold standards sends a message that no one is immune, that codes of conduct are set in stone.

????Experts agree that as much as possible, companies should guide the conversation about a CEO's departure and provide clear, valid explanations to employees why the change is good. Especially in this economy, any sort of shift in leadership causes employees to start hearing footsteps.

????"We're sort of wired for consistency," says Bill Becker, a management professor at Texas Christian University's Neely business school. "When there's significant change, that triggers a danger signal. In general, that's going to generate negative emotions."

????One of the best buffers to a perceived sea change is to distribute leadership early on. This happens in the military and with most government positions: "Those are systems where there's a regular shift on tap," Chen says, and therefore those organizations cannot depend too much on any one person.

????The same is true for the International Monetary Fund, which made a fairly smooth leadership transition under managing director Christine Lagarde after Dominique Strauss-Kahn resigned from the position amid accusations that he sexually assaulted a hotel housekeeper. Again, that's an organization where leaders only serve for a set term, and it may be tough for companies to build a management structure where leaders are as interchangeable.

????Still, it's a good sign when a top executive can distribute leadership opportunities across upper management. "It takes a strong, confident leader to share power," Chen says. "Leaders who are more likely to share power believe in the power of many versus the power of one."

????Companies with this kind of power distribution are much more resilient to changes that appear dramatic. Even though a primary leader may be disgraced, or the loss of a leader to sickness or death may come as an upsetting blow to the organization, the true leadership network stays intact.

????It remains to be seen whether or not Apple built this kind of sustainable leadership structure. While the company had a succession plan in place, it was very much a one-man show for decades. It may not have been the most sustainable leadership strategy, but of course, Steve Jobs bucked much of management conventional wisdom. Apple's performance, going forward, will illustrate whether it really is a one-in-a-million company, or if Steve Jobs was just a one-in-a-million executive.