Why writing off Apple’s Tim Cook could be a classic CEO succession mistake
As pressure mounts on Apple over its perceived lag in AI development and breakthrough products, a new narrative is gaining traction: Perhaps it’s time for CEO Tim Cook to step down. After all, the argument goes, Apple needs a product visionary, not an operational maestro, to navigate this next era of disruption.
Yet for fast-rising executives watching closely, a cautionary tale is unfolding—one that underscores how easy it is to undervalue a proven leader, especially during moments of upheaval.
Since taking over in 2011, Cook has transformed Apple’s market cap from $350 billion to over $3 trillion, expanding its dominance well beyond the iPhone into services, wearables, and new hardware categories. To dismiss that track record—especially with AI’s full impact still materializing—is shortsighted. A hasty leadership change risks severing the operational discipline and strategic patience that have kept Apple atop the Fortune 500 for over a decade.
Recent history offers a telling parallel. Just a few years ago, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon was written off as a corner office misfit, dogged by reports of internal discord and strategic blunders. His exit was assumed by some to be imminent. Instead, Solomon stayed, course-corrected, and led a meaningful turnaround, refocusing on core businesses like asset management while exiting failed bets. The bank’s rebound is a sharp reminder that ditching a promising leader mid-course can cost companies the payoff of a hard-earned comeback.
Some see internal successors as Apple’s answer, but that, too, carries its own risks. A new CEO would need to prove themselves both inside and outside the company while crafting an AI strategy from scratch. That’s a tall order even in stable conditions. At Apple, with its fiercely protective culture and sky-high investor expectations, it’s a recipe for internal friction and strategic drift.
The mark of great leadership isn’t the ability to navigate smooth markets; it’s recalibrating through disruption. Dismissing that ability too soon risks sabotaging a history of proven wins for an unproven promise of change.
As Solomon’s case at Goldman shows, leadership redemption is possible, and sometimes the savvier move is giving seasoned leadership the runway to adapt and deliver once again. While Cook’s stewardship will almost certainly need to evolve (and quickly), betting against a leader who has repeatedly outperformed expectations could be a costly mistake in the long run for Apple.
Ruth Umoh
ruth.umoh@fortune.com
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com