When Unilever PLC made a surprise announcement last week that it would replace CEO Hein Schumacher, the board was about as blunt as boards tend to get in a corporate press release.
“While the Board is pleased with Unilever’s performance in 2024, there is much further to go to deliver best-in-class results,” Unilever chairman Ian Meakin said in the announcement.
Schumacher would be replaced by current Unilever chief financial officer Fernando Fernandez, who has the ability “to drive change at speed” and capitalize on the company’s growth plan “with urgency.”
It all came down to that one word, much beloved by Wall Street: urgency. In the end, the board decided that if Schumacher was not going to move fast enough, it would. Just 20 months into his tenure, Schumacher was out.
It is not fun for a board to replace a chief executive, which is why CEOs often hold onto their jobs longer than they should. Big transitions can open up a company to big risks, and a board never quite knows how chief executives would perform until they are in the chair.
However, in this age of urgency, driven by impatient shareholders, boards are giving their CEOs less time to execute their strategies or turn things around before deciding it is time to move on. I would diagnose it as a serious case of corporate fear of missing out (FOMO), or the fear that if they do not have the right leader in place, they would miss out on the opportunities that can come in rapid moments of change. While that risk might be real, boards need to balance that against pushing out talented executives before they have time to deliver results.
“More than I’ve ever seen, boards will say their companies are at a crossroads right now,” said Jim Citrin, partner and lead of the CEO practice at executive search firm Spencer Stuart. It is a critical moment to leverage technology such as artificial intelligence and changing consumer behavior such as personalization and e-commerce, but they realize “if we don’t capitalize on it, we’re going to be roadkill.”
An analysis of the Russell 3000 Index by exechange.com found that more CEOs were fired or forced out last year than at any point since the firm began tracking the metric in 2017. And overall, Spencer Stuart found that the tenure of departed CEOs of S&P 500 companies was 8.3 years last year, a low since 2017 and down by about three years since a 2021 high of 11.2 years.
In the past six months or so, a slew of high profile exits have clocked in under that average. Bernard Kim departed as CEO of Match Group Inc last month, after less than three years in the job, unable to stem a user exodus from its flagship dating app Tinder. In January, David Kimbell was gone from Ulta Beauty Inc after 3.5 years in the face of greater competition. Patrick Gelsinger in December last year was out as Intel Corp CEO after less than four years, having lost the confidence of the board in his turnaround plan, and two months earlier, Karen Lynch exited from CVS Health Corp after 3.5 years amid earnings misses. Laxman Narasimhan did not even make it a year and a half at Starbucks Corp before the board pushed him out in August last year, as activists circled and the stock price cratered. That same month, David Calhoun left Boeing Co after less than four years, the airplane maker’s safety crisis making his continuation in the job untenable.
Part of what is behind the decline is a shifting mindset among corporate directors, who are getting more hands-on and are unwilling to act as a rubber stamp for their CEOs. That move toward more “active management” started in 2002 with Sarbanes-Oxley and really ramped up during the COVID-19 pandemic, Citrin said.
That is particularly true of big companies; Spencer Stuart found that between 2010 and last year, there were significantly more forced exits at S&P 500 companies than S&P 600 — 15 percent versus 6 percent.
“The bigger the board, the more professional they are and the more they hold their CEO accountable,” said Claudius Hildebrand, a consultant at Spencer Stuart and coauthor of The Life Cycle of a CEO.
Yet boards should be wary about thinking that a CEO change is going to be some magical overnight cure for all of their problems. Look at Boeing, which is still burning through cash despite the CEO switch. Or Starbucks, where sales have continued to fall under new CEO Brian Niccol.
It is worth remembering that Starbucks hired Niccol in the first place, because he transformed a faltering Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc into one of the industry’s biggest success stories. That turnaround took time, as most do. The board did not give him a pass; it was just willing to be patient.
Beth Kowitt is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering corporate US. She was previously a senior writer and editor at Fortune Magazine.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS