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 first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS