What I find surprising is that investors react so strongly to a single case, just because it's high-profile. Investors can never know everything about how a co

What I find surprising is that investors react so strongly to a single case, just because it's high-profile. Investors can never know everything about how a company works. Despite efforts to minimize risk, there are "hit by a truck" hazards all over the place. Arguably, losing a lowly engineer with critical knowledge can do more damage than changing the CEO, but companies aren't digging up and disclosing all of those cases. It's also important to realize that many of Steve Jobs' contributions are already sufficient: radically changing management, refocusing product lines, pushing into new markets. Apple can survive on those decisions alone. You have to believe that Steve doesn't change managers unless he's appointing someone that he trusts to do the job. In the case of Apple, I suspect that constant leadership isn't as important as a few key decisions. Only by working at a company for a few years, can you begin to understand how that company works. Investors claim a lot more insight than they could ever have, which probably explains the volatility of the stock market.