Tim Cook's Approval Rating Slips, Loses Top Spot in CEO Rankings

this ranking lost all credibility by putting zuckerberg on top...

It looks like Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of friends who like him a lot since they joined him on … whatever his company is called … ;)

Oh no Cook's rating slipped to 93%. Guess that's why the stock is up $7 so far today.

Well, a popularity contest of the worlds richest and most conniving, awful people you'd never want to spend time with. Handy.

Perhaps they could make one for elected officials as well.

From an investor's standpoint - he's a terrible CEO.
He's not unlocking shareholder value - which was excused under Steve Jobs because -
He's not a visionary like Steve was.
He's not a product guy.

He's a business man - and he's not a good one at that. His job is to pay back shareholders in value - either in stock price or a good dividend. Some people here hate shareholders because Steve did - and that's fine - but you have to remember that shareholders own about 60% of Apple, and they're pissed that he isn't doing anything to cause the stock to reflect Apple's real value (either by buying companies, giving money back to the shareholders, or buying shares back)

This is meaningless. Just stick to making good stuff apple. Don't go backwards in arrogance.

Zuckerberg, what a joke.

Whenever I want a quick laugh, I look up Facebook's stock price. I bet all the people who (stupidly) bought into the IPO would rank him a tad lower.

This poll seems fairly meaningless, anyway. The top CEOs are going to simply be the most popular CEOs with their employees, which could just as well be a result of a slacker boss who's running the company into the ground as somebody who is a great leader bringing the company to greatness.

can someone explain zuckerberg's big leap? stock is trading at almost half its ipo. users have dropped. revenues haven't risen since they went public. cook dropping a few points is believable but his some of those jumping above him make no sense.

From an investor's standpoint - he's a terrible CEO.
He's not unlocking shareholder value - which was excused under Steve Jobs because -
He's not a visionary like Steve was.
He's not a product guy.

He's a business man - and he's not a good one at that. His job is to pay back shareholders in value - either in stock price or a good dividend. Some people here hate shareholders because Steve did - and that's fine - but you have to remember that shareholders own about 60% of Apple, and they're pissed that he isn't doing anything to cause the stock to reflect Apple's real value (either by buying companies, giving money back to the shareholders, or buying shares back)

This is precisely why I don't like publicly traded companies in general. Instead of doing their job and doing it properly, they have to constantly and I mean constantly answer to whiny shareholders that demand instant gratification at every quarter rather than developing a strategy for the long haul. It gets businesses into trouble all the time since they cannot invest for several years in advance but instead have to constantly come up with some magic trick to get the stock to rise for the next quarter lest the shareholders punish the company by selling off and causing the value of the company to drop like a freaking stone. This is exactly what caused the Japanese to wipe out America in the 70's and '80s as they had a good long term strategy. Now they've kow towed to the usual demands like everyone else and the cheapest labor wins (i.e. China but soon to be someone else as their wages go up).

If people would stop treating the stock market like it's a flipping CASINO and invest for the long term, this wouldn't be such a massive problem. But people want to get rich overnight and that leads to massive fluctuations in the market place, making it increasingly unstable for both investor and company alike. I'm starting to think a new market with different rules for investing is needed. Most private companies only go public so the owners can become uber-rich overnight anyway or to inject large amounts of capital to expand in a big way. The latter would make sense with better rules. But having to answer to gamblers anonymous every quarter is bad news, IMO. I'm sure the get-rich-quick types would disagree, but long term investments just aren't easy to manage with the current system where the CEO's head is demanded the moment gamblers panic and start selling off at the slightest rumor or news story.

From an investor's standpoint - he's a terrible CEO.
He's not unlocking shareholder value
He's not a visionary like Steve was.
He's not a product guy.

That describes pretty much every CEO on the list.