CEO Succession: Making The Choices: Right
CEO Succession: Making The Choices: Right
CEO Succession: Making The Choices: Right
Ever since the Cadbury Report advocated the separation of powers at the top of UK companies, the role and influence of the chairman has been steadily growing. One of the most important tasks for the chairman is deciding when, and how, to replace the CEO. More often than not the board chairman also chairs the nomination committee, which is responsible for managing the CEO succession process on behalf of the board.
Boards have long recognised the value that a robust succession planning process brings to the continuity and long-term health of the business. But for succession planning to be truly effective, chairmen need a more sophisticated understanding about the age-old question of whether to go for an insider or bring someone in from outside the organisation. Commentators, and indeed boards themselves, are inclined to generalise about the value of outsiders or the benefits of internal succession. Thinking seems to go in cycles and whichever preference is being advanced at the time, a few examples are usually provided to illustrate the prevailing point of view. We felt that more evidence-based research was needed. In order to give boards proper guidance, we also sought to identify some key principles (based on this evidence) that should underpin any thoughtful and objective leadership succession process. We conducted a detailed study of the CEO transitions occurring within the current list of FTSE 150 companies between 2004 and 2008. Over the five-year period of our study, 60 per cent of the CEO appointments were insiders and 30 per cent were outsiders. The rest were mostly former executives or board members. The results of our UK research contain a number of surprises. Most significantly, they show that a blanket declaration that either insiders or outsiders as a group are the best way forward is no longer sufficient a more specific approach is needed. Our analysis shows that there is no clear performance advantage between insiders and outsiders performers in the highest and lowest quartiles came from each category. That is not to say, however, that it did not matter whether a company chose a CEO from the inside or outside. The health, stability and competitive position of the company at the time of transition were the critical factors in determining whether an insider or an outsider was the best choice.
Our study found that insiders were appointed more frequently than outsiders to stable or rapidly growing companies. In these instances, 29 per cent achieved outstanding performance, 52 per cent performed solidly and only 19 per cent of CEOs could be classified as performing poorly. By contrast, the performance of outsiders coming in to lead healthy companies is far more polarised: 40 per cent achieved outstanding results a higher proportion than insiders but 60 per cent performed poorly. Although some outsiders do succeed when coming in to lead healthy companies, plenty do not.
The risks attached to appointing an outsider to a stable and growing company appear, therefore, to be significant, as the chart below shows.
Although insiders were just as likely as outsiders to be appointed to challenged companies, the evidence shows that outsiders have out-performed their insider counterparts when taking over the reins of a troubled company (see chart below). Why do insiders perform better at healthy companies? A number of factors are at play. For internal succession to be effective, there must be a strong pipeline of talent in the organisation. Healthy companies are more likely to attract first-rate talent, providing the board with a broader choice of quality candidates with the potential to become CEO. More resources are often available for the development of senior management and greater effort is sometimes given to fasttracking high-potential executives. Likewise, the board will have more time to focus on the development of likely CEO successors if they are not in crisis mode. One of the most valuable aspects of a contenders development is gaining experience as a non-executive director on the board of another company; boards should be encouraging this whenever possible. The strong culture of a healthy company may be an impediment for an outsider who will need to spend time carefully getting the measure of the organization before having the chance to make an impact. Besides, if there is no burning platform for change, outsiders may encounter organisational resistance to change and a lack of enthusiasm for the incoming CEOs agenda. The leadership challenges facing troubled or challenged companies are quite different. The data clearly shows that outsiders are more likely to excel and outperform insiders at companies that are in crisis; their risk of failure is also lower. Whereas insiders are more likely to be locked in to a problem culture, outsiders have more freedom to impose change on the organisation; indeed they are expected to do so. Whats more, internal candidates have developed relationships throughout the organisation over many years and this can make it extremely difficult for them to make unpopular decisions and drive the transformation that is needed when they become CEO.
Our methodology
We examined CEO transitions at FTSE 150 companies over the fiveyear period from 2004 to 2008. During this time, 97 new CEOs were appointed. We excluded 20 transitions, either because the company went public during the period in question, there was an interim appointment, or there was a change in governance structure (for example, the roles of chairman and CEO splitting). We then completed a detailed case study for each of the remaining 77 transitions. We evaluated each CEO transition using a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures. We looked at more than 25 variables, including the condition of the company at the time of hire; the industry sector; whether the new leader had any previous experience as a CEO; his or her functional experience; exposure to a listed company board; and the number of direct reports replaced by the CEO in the first year. We chose several quantitative measures for evaluating the companys performance during the new CEOs tenure: shareholder returns compared with peer-group companies and the market as a whole, revenue growth, and profit growth. On the qualitative side, we used a combination of publicly available information and interviews to ascertain other aspects of company performance, such as the companys reputation, achievements in innovation, and how the board assessed the CEOs performance. We then ranked each CEO, whose performance fell into one of four quartiles: the top quartile of CEOs were outstanding, the middle two were solid, and the bottom-quartile CEOs were poor. Earlier in 2010, Spencer Stuart had conducted a similar study in the US, which examined the 300 CEO appointments at S&P 500 companies during the same period. Interestingly, the average annual turnover of CEOs during the period was similar: 12 per cent of the S&P 500 and 13 per cent of the FTSE 150. The results of our US study were published in the November edition of the Harvard Business Review as an article by James M. Citrin and Dayton Ogden titled Succeeding at Succession.
Worldwide Offices
Amsterdam
T 31 (0) 20.305.73.05 F 31 (0) 20.305.73.50
Frankfurt
T 49 (0) 69.61.09.27.0 F 49 (0) 69.61.09.27.50
Montreal
T 1.514.288.3377 F 1.514.288.4626
Shanghai
T +86 21.2326.2828 F +86 21.2326.2888
Atlanta
T 1.404.504.4400 F 1.404.504.4401
Geneva
T 41.22.312.36.38 F 41.22.312.36.39
Mumbai
T 91.22.6616.1414 F 91.22.6616.1444
Silicon Valley
T 1.650.356.5500 F 1.650.356.5501
Barcelona
T 34.93.487.23.36 F 34.93.487.09.44
Hong Kong
T 852.2521.8373 F 852.2810.5246
Munich
T 49 (0) 89.45.55.53.0 F 49 (0) 89.45.55.53.33
Singapore
T 65.6586.1186 F 65.6438.3136
Beijing
T 86.10.6535.2100 F 86.10.6505.1032
Houston
T 1.713.225.1621 F 1.713.658.8336
New Delhi
T 91. 124.469.6727
Stamford
T 1.203.324.6333 F 1.203.326.3737
Bogota
T 571.618.2488 F 571.618.2317
Johannesburg
T 27.11.557.5300 F 27.11.463.3371
New York
T 1.212.336.0200 F 1.212.336.0296
Stockholm
T 46.8.534.801.50 F 46.8.534.801.69
Boston
T 1.617.531.5731 F 1.617.531.5732
London
T 44 (0) 20 7298.3333 F 44 (0) 20 7298.3388
Orange County
T 1.949.930.8000 F 1.949.930.8001
Sydney
T 61.2.9240.0100 F 61.2.9240.0180
Brussels
T 32.2.732.26.25 F 32.2.732.19.39
Los Angeles
T 1.310.209.0610 F 1.310.209.0912
Paris
T 33 (0) 1.53.57.81.23 F 33 (0) 1.53.57.81.00
Tokyo
T 81.3.3238.8901 F 81.3.3238.8902
Budapest
T 36.1.200.08.50 F 36.1.394.10.97
Madrid
T 34.91.745.85.00 F 34.91.561.42.75
Philadelphia
T 1.215.814.1600 F 1.215.814.1681
Toronto
T 1.416.361.0311 F 1.416.361.6118
Buenos Aires
T 54.11.4310.9100 F 54.11.4313.2299
Melbourne
T 61.3.8661.0100 F 61.3.8661.0180
Prague
T 420.221.411.341 F 420.222.233.087
Vienna
T 43.1.36.88.700.0 F 43.1.36.88.777
Calgary
T 1.403.538.8658 F 1.403.538.8656
Mexico City
T 52.55.5002.4950 F 52.55.5281.4184
Rome
T 39.06.802071 F 39.06.80207200
Warsaw
T 48.22.321.02.00 F 48.22.321.02.01
Chicago
T 1.312.822.0080 F 1.312.822.0116
Miami
T 1.305.443.9911 F 1.305.443.2180
San Francisco
T 1.415.495.4141 F 1.415.495.7524
Washington, D.C.
T 1.202.639.8111 F 1.202.639.8222
Dallas
T 1.214.672.5200 F 1.214.672.5299
Milan
T 39.02.771251 F 39.02.782452
Santiago
T 56.2.940.2700 F 56.2.249.7883
Zurich
T 41.44.257.17.17 F 41.44.257.17.18
Dubai
T 971.4.426.6500 F 971.4.426.6501
Minneapolis/St. Paul
T 1.612.313.2000 F 1.612.313.2001
Sao Paulo
T 55.11.3759.7700 F 55.11.3759.7736
2010 Spencer Stuart. All rights reserved. For information about copying, distributing and displaying this work, contact [email protected]. Sign up to receive publications in your areas of interest via email or RSS by visiting www.spencerstuart.com.
www.spencerstuart.com
Amsterdam Atlanta Barcelona Beijing Bogota Boston Brussels Budapest Buenos Aires Calgary Chicago Dallas Dubai Frankfurt Geneva Hong Kong Houston Johannesburg London Los Angeles Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Miami Milan Minneapolis/St. Paul Montreal Mumbai Munich New Delhi New York Orange County Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Santiago Sao Paulo Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Stamford Stockholm Sydney Tokyo Toronto Vienna Warsaw Washington, D.C. Zurich