Steve Jobs' sudden decision to take a break from Apple has stirred up the debate on the impact a charismatic leader can have on a company.

When Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced that he would be taking a break from leading the company to get treatment for an illness whose details he refused to divulge, the company's stock fell abruptly, even though it was on the verge of announcing new products. There are many observers who feel that Apple's biggest challenge at the moment is not new products and technologies to keep its competitors at bay, but to find a successor to the charismatic Steve Jobs. And of course, this, in turn, has opened up the debate on one of the oldest issues in business-is a charismatic leader an asset or a liability?

Charisma does help
On the surface, a high-profile CEO does seem to be a huge asset to a company. Being a celebrity CEO gives the enterprise more exposure and also provides a ‘face' to a company. Jobs' presentations at Apple's shows were arguably the most eagerly awaited events in the tech world and his presence at even non-tech events attracted attention, getting more footage for the company. Similarly, Bill Gates attained almost mythic status at Microsoft. He was not just the CEO of a great company but also the world's richest man and played a major role in keeping his company in the spotlight. Similarly, Scott McNealy played a major role in making Sun Microsystems a household name in tech circles, not just with the company's products but also because of his brash pronouncements (criticising Microsoft and Bill Gates) and his love for ice hockey. This is not a phenomenon restricted to tech enterprises either-think of what Richard Branson has done for Virgin, and you will get an idea of just how much difference a charismatic leader can make to a company.

Having a high-profile leader can be an asset particularly for a start-up as it helps it get not only media attention but also goes a long way in ensuring it gets financial backing and attracts quality talent. Let's face it, would Pixar Animation Studios have been half as successful if Steve Jobs had not played a role in it, especially after he had left Apple for a while. It may sound unfair but there's no denying that financial institutions and venture capitalists feel more at ease while dealing with a well-known figure. In fact, sometimes they even feel proud of being associated with them. That is one of the reasons why enterprises started by high-profile figures after they quit a job inevitably attract attention. It is not fair, but it is the way of the world.

Too much of a good thing?
But having a celebrity CEO is not all a bed of roses. While there is no doubt that the enterprise benefits from their high profile, the firm can also suffer from their shortcomings. Take Apple's case, for instance. The company's products are as good as ever, and yet the market is worried about it, purely because its CEO happens to be ill. Such a scenario sees a company suffer in spite of all the business fundamentals being in place. Similarly, there are many people who blame Steve Ballmer for Microsoft's recent problems, claiming that Bill Gates would have handled things more subtly. There are also those who blame Carly Fiona for all of HP's ills. Again, this is hardly fair, but that is the way people think when they associate a person too strongly with an enterprise. Contrast this with Andy Grove's relatively quiet departure from Intel or Lou Gerstner's farewell from IBM. Both men did wonders for their companies but their personalities never seemed to overshadow their firm. The result: both companies have been doing relatively well, even after their departure. Similarly, one doubts if Amazon.com will collapse if Jeff Bezos leaves or if Google will flounder without Sergey Brin or Larry Page. High profile CEOs are always handy but Lord help the company when they go missing. The lesson for start-ups is simple: no person, however important, can be bigger than an enterprise.