The cult of visionary leadership flatters those who have the chutzpah to reach out and pull success from the air, but failure eventually and inevitably follows for all but a very few.

Apples stocks fell by 5% following CEO Steve Jobs announcement of his retirement for health reasons, Tim Cook has stepped up to take on the responsibilities. The problem for Cook is that he is destined to fail, at least in the eyes of some observers, because he isn't Steve Jobs.

He isn't a "rock star" CEO, a role played by Jobs to perfection. He isn't a visionary tech-head either, another role that Jobs filled admirably, and that will be Cook's undoing if Jobs stays away too long. Cook may have supervised a 60% share rise for Apple when Jobs was last absent in 2009 and may well have earned his $US59m pay packet for 2010, but that success rode on Jobs' singular technology and product vision.

Apple, like so many other corporations basking in the glory of a visionary CEO, has done little to shore up its leadership structure should Jobs part ways with the company. As he must inevitably do - nobody, not even Jobs, is immortal, which may come as a shock to some Apple devotees.

The careful leak of Jobs' departure on a public holiday shows that Apple is fully aware of Jobs' profile as a corporate deity. It also reveals the company has done little in the last two years to build a clear succession plan, and seems actively disinclined to build the next line of leadership to assist their leader: it recently resisted moves to outline its CEO succession planning process, with directors voting against shareholder proposals to do so.

Apple's approach demonstrates how the leadership theories of last century - individual heroes, hierarchical structures, top down communication - are now placing 21st century organisations at risk in an increasingly complex and challenging business environment.

In his article "The Misguided Mix-up of Celebrity and Leadership", Jim Collins put his finger on it when he wrote, "... our problem lies in the fact that our culture has fallen in love with the idea of the celebrity CEO. Charismatic egotists who swoop in to save companies grace the covers of major magazines because they are much more interesting to read and write about than people like Darwin Smith of Kimberly Clark and David Maxwell of Fannie Mae. This fuels the mistaken belief held by many directors that a high profile, larger than life leader is required to make a company great".

The risk is that organisations rest their company's success solely in the "chosen". But leaders are necessarily transient: they get other jobs, get sick, get tired and inevitably move on.

This risk materialises in two key ways.

The first problem is that the "rock star" approach sets up successors, and the companies themselves, to fail. Comparisons with a larger-than-life Jack Welch at GE, for example, were very difficult for an equally capable, but differently styled, Jeff Immelt to overcome.

The second problem is neatly summed up by the Country and Western song, "How can I miss you if you won't go away?". Very often these "rock star" CEOs cannot quite leave. Jobs (a notorious control freak) is the key decision maker on Apple's technology direction and products, and even in his absence will "continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for the company". Where does that leave Tim Cook? It is important to note that Jobs has not said he will "support Cook and continue to help him to build his considerable leadership capability". No, he will continue to make important decisions.

This 19th century thinking on leadership is, thankfully, beginning to change. In his article "The CEO's Real Legacy", in Harvard Business Review, November 2004, Kenneth W Freeman stated that CEOs cannot imagine anyone adequately replacing them, and this is a roadblock to timely succession. Freeman proposes a non-egoistic effort by CEOs to initiate and manage the selection and grooming of successors with effective board involvement.

Sounds simple, but there is a huge gulf between theory and reality, especially when egos are involved.

How can organisations manage this risk and build a depth of leadership capacity that ensures ongoing growth and performance? The sophisticated needs of today's businesses require a contemporary approach.

A CEO's role is to guide the business to success in the long term, which means beyond their term in the role. Some organisations now "ensure" for this outcome by delaying payment of bonuses to outgoing CEOs.

Part of this role also has to include building an enduring architecture of leadership, with successors strategically placed in the corporate hierarchy, and with a legacy of shared guiding principles and language that lead naturally to success.

The egotistical leadership of "a genius showman" should give way to the somewhat more prosaic, but more reliable, culture of contribution and collaboration.