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.
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS