strategy+business is published by PwC Strategy& Inc.
 
or, sign in with:
strategy and business
Published: June 10, 2008

 
 

CEO Succession 2007: The Performance Paradox

The Performance Disconnect
Each year, we add new features and analyses to the CEO turnover study. For our latest study, with 10 years’ worth of data for the world’s largest 2,500 companies, we performed an expanded analysis of the relationship between the total shareholder returns that CEOs produce and their likelihood of being terminated by their boards. Because our annual studies have shown that the rate of CEO dismissals shifted upward from the 1990s to the 2000s — at the same time that regulators and shareholders were becoming more activist and many nations were enacting governance reforms and legislation — we expected to find evidence that boards were increasingly using stock price as a factor in assessing CEO perfor­mance. The data, however, shows only the weakest of correlations.

Our basic methodology since we began studying CEO turnover has been to identify the chief executives at each company who left their positions during each calendar year, and to analyze their careers and the stock-price performance of their companies during their entire tenure. In effect, we have provided a look back at each year’s “departing class” of CEOs, and, in the aggregate, tried to determine factors contributing to the success of some and the failure of others. We have not, in previous years, compared the performance of companies that did not have a CEO succession. This year, we included all 2,500 companies and ran regression analyses for every year to determine which factors might increase the likelihood of a chief executive’s continuing in office for a given year, and which might increase the probability of termination.

We found that only the poorest shareholder returns increase a chief executive’s chance of being dismissed. For all CEOs, we found that the likelihood of being dismissed in a given year was 2.1 percent. The impact of performance was greatest for the CEOs of companies in the lowest decile of shareholder performance — those that had experienced an absolute loss of shareholder value over two years of 25 percent or more and that had underperformed their regional industry peers by 45 percent. The likelihood of dismissal for these CEOs was 5.7 percent. (See Exhibit 6.)

There is also no evidence that terminations have become more sensitive to performance over time: The likelihood of dismissal for poor performance was no higher in the last several years than it was in the 1990s. The data suggests that the likelihood of being termi­nated for poor performance does increase modestly with company size. This could be because the biggest companies are subject to greater scrutiny from financial analysts and institutional shareholders.

The implication of this analysis is that regardless of the fact that CEOs have been dismissed at a higher rate in the 2000s than in the 1990s, corporate boards are not forcing out CEOs who are delivering substandard performance for shareholders. Boards of directors may, in fact, be too focused on the next quarter’s performance, as the critics of “short-termism” maintain, but if they are, it is not reflected in the rate at which they are firing chief executives.

The Myth of the “Two-Year Rule”
The data on chief executive tenure also contradicts the contention that the pressure for short-term stock market performance has resulted in boards dismissing CEOs after two or three years. In the past, we have used mean tenure in our analysis, and mean tenure does show some decrease, from 8.8 years in 1995 to 7.2 years in 2007. But the decrease has been neither precipitous nor consistent. The record low tenure was in 2004 (6.8 years), but mean tenure then bounced back to 7.9 years in 2005 and 8.0 years in 2006. In 2007, the mean tenure was just below the 10-year average of 7.9 years. (See Exhibit 7.)

 
 
 
Follow Us 
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube RSS strategy+business Digital and Mobile products App Store

 

Resources

  1. Joseph L. Bower, The CEO Within: Why Inside-Outsiders Are the Key to Succession Planning (Harvard Business School Press, 2007): The Harvard Business School professor on how companies can groom “inside outsiders” to lead.
  2. Ram Charan, “Boardroom Supports,” s+b, Winter 2003: Describes how directors play a crucial role in selecting, training, and nurturing a new CEO.
  3. Rakesh Khurana and Katharina Pick, “The Social Nature of Boards,” Brooklyn Law Review, vol. 70, no. 4, Summer 2005: Unearths the relationship between board makeup and succession decisions.
  4. Chuck Lucier, Paul Kocourek, and Rolf Habbel, “CEO Succession 2005: The Crest of the Wave,” s+b, Summer 2006: The 2005 study heralded the end of the era of the imperial CEO.
  5. Chuck Lucier, Steven Wheeler, and Rolf Habbel, “CEO Succession 2006: The Era of the Inclusive Leader,” s+b, Summer 2007: As turnover leveled off, last year’s study revealed chief executives and their boards were adopting new survival strategies.
  6. Ira M. Millstein and Paul W. MacAvoy, The Recurrent Crisis in Corporate Governance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004): Makes the case for an active board of directors led by an independent chair to take responsibility for corporate management.
  7. Michael Schrage, “Ira M. Millstein: The Thought Leader Interview,” s+b, Spring 2005: A warning from a corporate governance doyen to reform board structures or accept more value destruction.
  8. For more business thought leadership, sign up for s+b’s RSS feeds.
 
Close
Sign up to receive s+b newsletters and get a FREE Strategy eBook

You will initially receive up to two newsletters/week. You can unsubscribe from any newsletter by using the link found in each newsletter.

Close