Last Friday night around midnight, The Wall Street Journal broke the news of Steve Jobs’s liver transplant last April. The story raised more questions than it answered. Here’s a round-up of the week’s most interesting commentary, and how to think about it all.

The Wall Street Journal story was unusual on two counts. First, they offer no source for the information — not even an “according to sources familiar with the matter”. Deputy Managing Editor Allan Murray, asked about the lack of sourcing, simply says “Trust us. We’re the Wall Street Journal.” Apparently, everyone does, as all the other news outlets have picked up the story only by sourcing the Journal itself.

Second, as blog Daring Fireball notes, the fact that this news broke months after the transplant, at midnight on the day of what seems to be the most successful new product launch in Apple history, appears to be beyond coincidence. The leak came from Apple itself, because someone wanted it told that way, and on that day.

The New York Times followed by saying that Apple’s obsession with secrecy is nothing new. To enter their offices, employees working on secret projects must repeatedly swipe their badges and enter numeric codes. But even by Apple’s standards, the story notes, the company’s handling of the news of Jobs’s health has been unparalleled.

Times business columnist Joe Nocera wonders what it really mean that Jobs now is back at work. Is he part-time? To what extent will his health continue to impinge on his ability to function as CEO?

Forget about all the good-hearted but misguided people who say we should  respect the privacy of Steve Jobs. If this were, say, Cirque du Soleil, I’d agree that we should simply shut up and enjoy being enchanted. That’s because Cirque is privately-owned and controlled by its largest shareholder, its wildly-creative founder and chairman, Guy Laliberte.

Apple, on the other hand, is public, and thus has responsibilities to be transparent and avoid lying. Remember in January, when Apple claimed that Job’s condition was nothing more than a hormonal imbalance? We’ll see what the SEC has to say about that.

All this puts Apple’s board in a bind. Steve Jobs is not allowing them to do what I’d argue is the most important job of any company board of directors: to put in place a succession plan. In fact, he has a history of actively cutting off at the knees anyone who does get named his successor. As technology pundit Rob Enderle puts it:

His health has made his dependability questionable and his ability to actually do the job as he has defined it nearly impossible. He appears to tie his own mortality, as many do, to retaining the job which actually means he likely feels the only way he is leaving is if is no longer living and the stress of the job coupled with his weakened health makes that more likely.

The Apple board can’t back-fill him without Steve acting to protect his job and forcing out the person the board selects, and the board can’t fire him because that will result in the very problem they are trying to avoid near term. They are seriously stuck with a problem they can’t fix and yet will be held accountable for. Watch for any drama between Jobs and anyone seemingly positioned as his heir. The last true Jobs heir was Jon Rubenstein, and he was driven out of Apple some time ago and currently runs Palm.

I’ll give the last word to business writer Bill Taylor, who advises, if you admire the leadership of Steve Jobs – and there’s so much to admire in what he’s achieved – do not try this at home:

Jobs, for all of his virtues, clings to the Great Man Theory of Leadership — a CEO-centric model of executive power that is outmoded, unsustainable, and, for most of us mere mortals, ineffective in a world of non-stop change. A Wired magazine cover story from last year made the point well. The article begins with a memorable anecdote — the CEO, in search of a space in the company’s crowded parking lot, regularly leaves his Mercedes in a handicapped space, sometimes taking up two spaces. The pattern became so noticeable that employees, according to the article, put notes on his windshield that read, Park Different.

Humility is not part of the Steve Jobs leadership repertoire — and that’s worked out fine for him. But humility has become a crucial part of the job description for leaders who aren’t Steve Jobs. So marvel at his products, applaud his feel for design, wonder at his capacity to cast such a large shadow over so many industries — and, by all means, pray for his speedy recovery and long health.

This week marks the 25th birthday of Cirque du Soleil, the extraordinary circus for adults, whose mission is to invoke the imagination, provoke the senses and evoke the emotions of people around the world.

If you’re not among the 90 million who’ve been, what are you waiting for?

I’ve got a clip for you, from the show Alegría. Alegría is Spanish for Joy, but I chose this clip because the theme of this show is the abuse of power and the subsequent struggle for freedom. It’s a story of hope and perseverance, and a haunting elegy in light of the bloodshed unfolding this week in Iran.

Cirque was founded in June 1984 by college dropout, folk musician and fire-eater Guy Laliberté. In the quarter century since, Laliberté has built his troupe of stilt-walkers into an $800 million empire with 4,000 employees from 40 countries. He’s now one of Canada’s richest men, and a regular on the Forbes billionaire lists.

Along the way, he bought out his co-founder and has rejected numerous buyout offers in favor of keeping control over his singular vision. The company remains independent and privately owned today.  That has meant scrapes with bankruptcy and risk-taking that would make most investors quiver. He remains the company’s controlling shareholder, reportedly still owning 95% of the shares.

Now only 49, Laliberté remains the guiding visionary in charge of every show. As he puts it:

“I am blessed for what I have, but I believed in it from the beginning. Today, the dream is the same: I still want to travel, I still want to entertain, and I most certainly still want to have fun.”

Laliberté’s reign at Cirque someday will come to an end. He’ll decide to sell, or he’ll just plain get tired. That juncture will be a true test for the company.

Meanwhile, we’ll continue to revel in the magic, shouting, Vive le Cirque!

I recently came across an old Psychology Today article with a definition of creative individuals. It’s worth the read, here.

The paradox for large companies is that, to stay large and grow in an economy where change is increasingly accelerating, they need to behave like creative individuals, who as the article states are “remarkable for their ability to adapt to almost any situation and to make do with whatever is at hand to reach their goals.”

I used to do a lot of work with Fortune 500 companies, since they were the bread-and-butter of my former search firm, Heidrick & Struggles. But while I worked with a lot of terrific people at the big companies, by and large, the most creative people I’ve met have been at the small- and medium-size companies we work with now at Chen Partners.

I wonder: Is scale a natural enemy of creativity? Is creativity truly an individual trait – as in “We’d better hang on to our creative individuals?” Or can it be developed company-wide: “Here, we’re all rewarded for being creative”? Which large companies successfully foster a culture of creativity? (I’d like to headhunt from them!)

Does creativity naturally leach out of companies as they grow, and is this process what “creative destruction” is really all about?

I’d love to know your thoughts.