Leadership Transition Archives

When It’s Time to Replace a CEO

During a moment in recruiting history when most executive search professionals are suffering, our practice in for-profit education has been thriving. Part of the reason is what I call ” board fatigue”–PE or VC partners and other board members who’ve grown impatient with the CEO of a portfolio company. In some cases their dissatisfaction is known to the CEO; in others, for various reasons (such as accreditation issues in the postsecondary education market), the board has chosen to conceal its desire for change, even from the sitting CEO.

The call to me typically begins, “We’re thinking of replacing a CEO. But we need this to be done in confidence. Can you do it and still be effective?” The answer, of course, is, “Yes, but first give me one good reason why you don’t sit down with your CEO and discuss why the change is needed.”

Answers vary, but the most common is, “We don’t want to lose momentum or cause uncertainly within the company,” i.e., “We’re afraid that news the CEO is being replaced might affect morale and revenues.”

This may be true, of course, but before embarking on a sub rosa search for a replacement, consider these issues–

•    Are you sure the situation cannot be resolved without the CEO being deposed? Have you tried everything to turn him/her around? Is the problem focused on a few concerns–work ethic, slow decision making, failure to address a single overriding market challenge, etc.–or is it overall leadership?

•    Are there intermediate steps you might take to at least put the CEO on notice? “Probation”? Come to Jesus? Sabbatical? Revisiting compensation?

•    Could the problem be resolved by bringing in the right support, e.g., a COO or new CFO?

•   Could the CEO be moved into a different to position, allowing you to bring someone in above him/her? Would your CEO accept demotion to President and COO, for example? Could the CEO be moved into a Chairman role?

•    How can you present the decision to replace in such a way that the CEO sees the wisdom in your decision? Obviously the CEO has a financial stake in the company’s success. Might it be that he or she will be relieved? See this as a win-win?

•    How valuable could the CEO be in the process to find the replacement? Do you want him/her to play an active role, and would s/he be effective in this role, if properly motivated?

•    What are the risks if word gets back that a search is being conducted for a new CEO?

•    What are the risks that a disgruntled CEO could sabotage the search process? Agree to participate in interviewing, then blow candidates out of the water?

•    What effect will conducting the search in confidence have on the overall quantity and quality of candidates? On your ability to secure the best among these?

•    How and when do you expect to inform the CEO what’s going on?

•    What role will the departed CEO have in the transition process once the new CEO is named?

click here for more More…

After quite a bit of discussion was sparked on an earlier blog post in March around the 7 Reasons why early and growth-stage CEOs fail (http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/7-reasons-ceos-fail/ )in technology-driven innovation-stage companies, we thought we’d get the venture capital perspective.  Below are the results.  The two biggest reasons behind CEO failure revolved around a CEO’s inability to balance revenues and burn-rate (23%), tied with the CEO’s inability to hire well at the VP level, with repeat VP-level failure/turnover (also ~23%).  The balance of forced ranking of CEO failure include categories such as–

- New CEO didn’t integrate with rest of incumbent team

- Business model changed (different horses for different courses)

- Leadership fatigue (plateauing company for too long a period)

- CEO “Peter Principle,” and

- CEO getting sideways with Board of Director(s)/ board chemistry

From the venture investor’s perspective, what are the top reasons CEOs fail in venture-backed early and growth-stage companies?

Below is a poll aggregating responses.  For VCs taking the poll for the first time, check out prior blog post at http://blog.bostonsearchgroup.com/7-reasons-ceos-fail/  for further detail on some of the possible reasons short-handed below.

Feel free to forward to other qualified investors.  [Please note, it's the honor system on investors only.  In other words, please resist the temptation to stack the deck or share "opinion."  Experience only.]

For summary of Harvard Business Review article written a few years back around “Why Entrepreneurs Don’t Scale” see below poll.

[Poll closed. See blog post at http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/common-reasons-ceos-fail-venture-capitals-perspective/ for for results.]

Founder “Peter principle.” This has been well-documented by others, most notably by John Hamm, venture capitalist at VSP Capital and leadership development coach who authored a Harvard Business Review article a few years back, titled “Why Entrepreneurs Don’t Scale.” To set up John’s observations, most of our time as executive recruiters, we focus on helping early-stage companies jump the leadership chasm from entrepreneurial to professional leadership. More often than not, there is absolute certainty that a casualty will occur- the only question is whether that casualty will be the founder(s), or the company. Where venture capital or private equity is involved, all is done to avoid the latter in favor of the former. Regardless, it is too rare an occurrence when this collision between founder CEO, growth mandate, and outside investors ends positively, and if the company survives, it has to deal with the emotional baggage of shedding this first founder layer and all the pain this brings with it. John outlines four management tendencies that work for smaller-company environments but become Achilles’ heels as these CEOs try to scale their companies. The first tendency is loyalty to founding team mates. In entrepreneurial mode, you need to lead as though you’re in charge of a combat unit on the wrong side of enemy lines where anyone on your team is a keeper. However, in larger company growth mode, blind loyalty can become a liability. At some point, it may be required that the rest of the team that started the company with the CEO may need to be changed out for an executive team with experience at the “growth-stage” versus just the “start-up” stage. The second tendency, task orientation, is critical in driving toward a big initial product launch, but excessive attention to detail can cause a growing organization to either suffocate under such leadership-one that can’t generate creative ideas or momentum without being instructed by the CEO-or lose sight of its long-term goals. The third tendency, single-mindedness, is important in a visionary CEO who is unleashing a revolutionary product or service on the world. However, this can limit the company’s potential as it grows, as all good ideas aren’t always born from one person. In addition, often a lack of self-awareness or “emotional intelligence” can create a large blind spot around what isn’t working with the original idea, and instead of an ability to iterate to a better but related idea for the marketplace, the founder CEO can become caught up in the initial “vision” and stick to it regardless of external market input that would indicate changes to the initial value proposition are needed to capture broader market adoption. The fourth tendency, working in isolation, is fine for the brilliant scientist focused on an ingenious idea, technology or science. But it’s a non-starter for a leader whose expanding organization increasingly relies on people other than the CEO. There is also a significant difference in skill set required when the company grows beyond a single layer of management, requiring, VPs who manage directors, who may manage managers. Managing through a multi-layer management system requires a very different managerial toolbox. As the summary for the article outlines, “Leaders who scale deal honestly with problems and quickly weed out nonperformers. They see past distractions and establish strategic priorities. They learn how to deal effectively with diverse employees, customers, and external constituencies. And, most important, they make the company’s continuing health and welfare their top concern.”