Former CEOs Advise on Successful CEO Transitions

Published by

Patrick R. Dailey

The succession work boards oversee is more complex than it once was. Oversight of the internal talent pipeline has grown beyond a narrow focus on CEO successors to include other internal and external talent. This relatively new role for the board or governance committee demands the hands-on ability to assess upper-management aptitude and readiness for the top job.

On September 21, the NACD Atlanta Chapter invited three exemplary former CEOs who serve on public boards to advise Atlanta-area directors on how to navigate this more demanding process. The panel, moderated by NACD President Peter R. Gleason, was comprised of Richard Anderson, previously CEO of Delta Airlines, and member of the Cargill and Medtronic boards; Martha Brooks, former CEO of Alcan, and director of Bombardier and Jabil Circuit; and Frank Blake, former CEO and chair of Home Depot, and currently a director at Delta Airlines.

For context, CEO turnover within the world’s largest 2,500 companies has increased in recent years, according to a 2016 study by PwC titled 2015 CEO Success that analyzed CEO turnover data from 2015 in the U.S. and around the globe. Among the study’s findings were the following data:

  • CEO turnover around the globe reached a record rate of 16.6 percent.
  • In North America, the rate of CEO turnover was 14.3 percent.
  • Planned turnover accounted for 10.9 percent of all turnover indicated in the study.
  • Force-outs were reported at 3 percent.
  • CEO turnover triggered by mergers and acquisitions occurred at a rate of 2.8 percent globally and in the U.S.
  • Looking specifically at U.S. turnover data, of all CEO turnovers, 4.4 percent were planned and 2.2 percent of the CEOs were forced out.

The traditional tactic when seeking new CEO talent has been to “go inside” for the most qualified internal candidate, but boards are now deliberately bringing in external CEO candidates. When the same PwC study compared statistics from 2004 to 2015, the percentage of outsiders hired as CEO increased from 14 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2015—a 50 percent increase in external hires in 10 years.

Hiring an outsider to serve as CEO was once seen as a last resort—something that typically only happened when a board had to force out the incumbent CEO suddenly, had failed to groom a suitable successor, or both. In recent years, however, more companies have chosen an outsider CEO, and frequently as part of a planned succession.

The stakes are higher. The process is more transparent and invites activist investors, pundits, and media to scrutinize a company’s process and its decision. Often the current CEO is left somewhat in the dark about the progress and the remaining leadership team may just not know status, which leads to uncertainty and process dysfunction.

The distinguished panel offered these nine valuable lessons learned about successfully navigating this board responsibility.

  • Succession must be a CEO-driven process. The panelists urged that a board place the CEO in the middle of the succession process but not as a direct party to the final decision process. They argued that the current CEO brings unique knowledge and passion for the future of the business, and that he or she wants a leadership legacy that includes a smooth and smart transition to a new CEO. The CEO also knows the internal talent pipeline better than any director, which could be an asset to the board. The panel added that with the board’s involvement and perhaps that of external resources, the risk of the “favored son” effect could be mitigated.
  • Succession is a full-board endeavor. Ownership of the process, knowledge of internal candidate development, insight into what could potentially derail the process, external benchmarking, and strategic issues that await the new CEO are matters for the full board to address. Committees can execute on specific tasks but the work, insight, and decision-making process related to CEO succession must be owned by the full board.
    One committee member urged every board member to meet and assess final candidates against a written success and impact profile during lengthy one-on-one interviews. The panel expressed their belief that the successful candidate would develop a sound, unique relationship with each director. Panelists also perceive interviews as the gateway to relationship building and ultimately to the CEO being accepted into the board’s inner circle.
  • The lead director plays an integral role as mentor. The board’s succession method needs a quality control focal point, or someone who will manage group processes among directors so that the “loudest voices” around the boardroom table are not those that necessarily carry the most weight. The panel suggested that the board could task the lead director with this quality-control leadership.
  • Remember that the board’s loyalty belongs to the company—not the current CEO or internal candidates. The board needs and values input from the CEO and there may be internal candidates who are highly regarded. But decisions must be based single-mindedly upon duty-of-care philosophies—the company’s future.
  • Competition among internal candidates must be monitored and managed by the CEO and board. Internal candidates should be explicitly informed or they are likely to figure out whether or not they are a candidate for the CEO role. With that information or suspicion, a competitive “horse race” may begin and performance may peak. There is also the inevitable dysfunction that can occur between the contenders as well as their organizations as they “bid up” their candidacy. CEOs and lead directors may intervene to manage negative behavior, and reinforce that senior-level performance is a collective effort. Compensation schemes for these candidates should be aligned in the spirit that “we all row the boat together.”
  • Get a written exit report from the outgoing CEO. Have the CEO personally develop a lengthy perspective about the future focus of the business and the CEO’s most critical areas of personal attention. Develop an “issues list” of those matters that the new CEO will likely bump into in the market, inside the company, and with regulators. Ensure the list is heavy on issues and light on recommendations. Finally, ask the outgoing CEO to list what strategic items and enabling matters must be done by the incoming CEO.
  • Develop a plan for easing out a reluctant CEO. The chair or lead director must have a “personal legacy” discussion with the CEO, and the CEO will inevitably get the message that it’s time to transition, and yet the panel emphasized that this should be a clear—not a nuanced—discussion. Have a plan for how and when the cord will be cut and communicate that plan clearly.
  • Define how unsuccessful transition candidates will be treated. If these executives can see a good path forward, embrace them. If not, help them leave, and do so quickly.
  • With a C-suite succession event, corporate strategy is likely to change. The board should endeavor to ensure that a sound corporate culture makes it through the transition.

NACD offers research and expert commentary on the executive succession process. Review Success at the Top: CEO Evaluation and Succession, which is part of our Directors Handbook Series, and a succession guide authored by Korn Ferry executives for the September/October edition of NACD Directorship magazine.

Patrick R. Dailey is a partner in BoardQuest, a consultancy specializing in C-Suite and board performance matters, and a member of the NACD Atlanta Chapter advisory board.

Competing Stakeholder Expectations Raise Personal Risks for Directors

Published by

Corporate directors are confronted with a variety of recently proposed governance standards, while activist investor campaigns are challenging both board composition and board effectiveness by targeting individual directors. Given the high level of personal reputational risk and the associated long-term financial consequences now faced by directors, a hard look at the adequacy of company-sponsored director and officer (D&O) risk mitigation and board compensation strategies is timely.

The Bedrock of Certainty Shifts


Nir Kossovsky


Paul Liebman

Shifting stakeholder expectations are codified in the frequently conflicting governance standards published in recent years. Following the National Association of Corporate Director’s own 2011 Key Agreed Principles, there are now draft voting guidelines from Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis & Co.; standards from groups such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (regulator), CalSTRS (investor), the G20, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (influencer); and, most recently, the Commonsense Corporate Governance Principles from a group of CEOs led by JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon.

This proliferation of standards reflects differing stakeholder expectations and gives direct rise to new risks for directors. With these new risks and expectations emerge associated questions about the adequacy of current governance strategies, company-sponsored reputation-risk-mitigation packages, and director compensation.

Governance Implications

Because the board is the legal structure administering governance, the standards that boards choose to guide their oversight have legal force. Furthermore, detailed, prescriptive standards have instrumental force.

For instance, ISS and CalSTRS are promoting highly prescriptive standards. ISS is exploring specific “warning signs” of impaired governance, including monitoring boards that have not appointed a new director in five years, where the average tenure of directors exceeds 10 or 15 years, or where more than 75 percent of directors have served 10 years or longer. CalSTRS expects two-thirds of a board to be comprised of independent directors, and defines director independence specifically as having held no managerial role in the company during the past five years, equity ownership of less than 20 percent equity, and having a commercial relationship with the company valued at no more than $120,000 per year.

The Commonsense Corporate Governance Principles released this summer was an effort to share the thoughts of the 5,000 or so public companies “responsible for one-third of all private sector employment and one-half of all business capital spending.” Certain background facts may lead some stakeholders to discount the Principles. For example, in addition to Dimon, the list of signatories was comprised mostly of executives who hold the dual company roles of chair and CEO. Also, according to the Financial Times, eyebrows have been raised by CEO performance-linked bonuses of about 24 to 27 times base pay at BlackRock and T. Rowe Price, two asset manager companies with executives who were signatories. Coincidentally, these asset manager companies were ranked among the most lenient investors with respect to the executive pay of their investee companies, according to the research firm Proxy Insight.

These standards can be deployed by checklist, and boards can be audited for compliance to the specifics of the adopted standards. But, more importantly, the very existence of these standards lends them authority through expressive force. What they express—or signal, in behavioral economic parlance—is intent, goodwill, and values. Signaling is valuable in the court of public opinion.

Personal Protection Strategies

As reported in NACD Directorship magazine earlier this year, activists often wage battle in the court of public opinion to garner public support when mounting an attack against a company. Emphasizing the personal risks, the Financial Times reported in August that “Corporate names are resilient: when their images get damaged, a change of management or strategy will often revive their fortunes. But personal reputations are fragile: mess with them and it can be fatal.”

Make no mistake: this risk is personal. A director’s damaged personal reputation comes with material costs. Risk Management reported in September that the opportunity costs to the average corporate director arising from public humiliation were estimated at more than $2 million.

Among the many governance standards, pay issues are the third rail of personal reputation risks. “If companies don’t use common sense to control pay outcomes, [shareholders have to question] what else is going on at the organization and the dynamic between the chief executive and the board,” an asset manager with Railpen Investments told the Financial Times recently. Clawbacks may be the most disconcerting pay issue because the tactic places directors personally between both the investment community and regulators.

Governance standards just over the horizon may give boards succor, and reputation-risk-transfer solutions may have immediate benefits. Since 2014, the American Law Institute (ALI) has been developing a framework titled, “Compliance, Enforcement, and Risk Management for Corporations, Nonprofits, and Other Organizations.” Members of the project’s advisory committee include representatives from Goldman Sachs & Co., HSBC, Google, Clorox, and Avon Products; diverse law firms offering governance advisory services; law schools; regulators including the Department of Justice; and representatives from a number of prominent courts. According to the ALI, the project is likely to hold an authority close to that accorded to judicial decisions.

The ALI work product remains a well-protected secret, but the project is expected to recommend standards and best practices on compliance, enforcement, risk management, and governance. It can be expected that the ALI standards will reflect the legal community’s newly acquired recognition of the interactions between the traditional issues of compliance, director and officer liabilities, and economics; and the newer issues of cognitive and behavioral sciences. Such governance standards will likely speak to the fact that while director and officer liability will be adjudicated in the courts of law, director and officer culpability will be adjudicated in the courts of public opinion.

Insurance Solutions Available Now

Boards that qualify for reputational insurances and their expressive force can mitigate risks in the court of public opinion. An NACD Directorship article noted earlier this year, “ . . . these reputation-based indemnification instruments, structured like a performance bond or warranty with indexed triggers, communicate the quality of governance, essentially absolving board members of damaging insinuations by activists.”

Given the increased personal reputational risks facing directors and the long-term financial consequences arising, it may be time for an omnibus revisit of the adequacy of both director compensation and company-sponsored D&O risk mitigation strategies in the context of an enhanced, board-driven approach to governance, compliance, and risk management.

Following the guidelines of the ALI’s project once they are published is a rational strategy. After all, the work product will be one that will have already been “tested” informally in the community comprising the courts of law, and will be designed to account for the reality of the courts of public opinion. And no firm today has natural immunity to reputation damage—even Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway appears to be in the ISS crosshairs. Reputational insurances which, like vaccines, boost immunity, are available to qualified boards to counter all that is certain to come at them in this upcoming proxy season. And for those who insist on both belts and suspenders, hazardous duty pay may seal the deal.

Nir Kossovsky is CEO of Steel City Re and an authority on business process risk and reputational value. He can be contacted at Paul Liebman is chief compliance officer and director of University Compliance Services at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be contacted at

Convergence Through Conscientious Governance

Published by

“The last several decades have proven that, more than ever, we are all interconnected and interdependent,” said NACD Chair Karen Horn. “We will rise—or fall—together, based on that trust.”

Karen Horn NACD Chair

NACD Board Chair Karen Horn

Horn’s opening speech at the recent 2016 NACD Global Board Leaders’ Summit revealed a compelling case for strong, conscientious corporate governance in light of recent political, economic, and social turbulence.

Horn’s governance experience is extensive and includes serving as a director at Simon Property Group, vice chair of the U.S. Russia Foundation, and vice chair of the National Bureau of Economic Research. She also previously served as chair of the audit committee at Norfolk Southern Corp., lead director and chair of the compensation committee at Eli Lilly & Co., and a director of T. Rowe Price Mutual Funds.

Horn began by thanking outgoing NACD chair Reatha Clark King for “her leadership and her positive influence on our organization’s growth,” and praised the audience for their own strength of leadership in the boardroom. She then turned to the guiding concept behind this Summit’s programming—convergence.

“Convergence is an important theme at a time when our world appears to be tearing itself apart,” Horn said.  She pointed out that hostility seems to be the prevailing sentiment of our time and that frustrations with the current domestic and geopolitical environments are the impetuses for growing division. “I feel we must focus on a wider, longer view—a more broadly encompassing perspective that leads us back toward convergence,” she said.

Horn—who previously served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and as an economist for the board of governors of the Federal Reserve—made several recommendations meant to address the evolving relationship between society and capitalism, using conscientious governance. (For more information on the roles of capitalism and corporations, view the NACD blog post “Re-Thinking Capitalism: Best-Selling Author Espouses Higher Calling for Boards.”)

Addressing Income Inequality

Directors can take a role in addressing social issues like income inequality, Karen said, adding that income inequality is an example of a challenge that “affects not only our immediate stakeholders, but everyone downstream who will be affected in the long term as well as the short term.”

Horn agrees that free trade is an excellent driver of economic value across the board, but that the path to growth can unintentionally leave some individuals behind. She suggested public, private, and government entities alike should develop programs that lift up those who are taken advantage of or otherwise harmed on the path to greater economic progress. “Looking at an issue like this from the perspective of those who will not benefit, or may even be hurt by it, is the first step toward finding compromises and solutions that will minimize negative fallout,” Horn said about the corporation’s role in growth as a greater good.

One such program that directors could collaborate with policy makers, social leaders, and other stakeholders on is how to address the controversial debate over minimum wage increases. “Everyone has an opinion, and it is clearly a divisive issue,” Horn conceded to the audience. “If we are to find a solution that works, again, we must become familiar with the divergent perspectives.”

The Imperative to Lead

Capitalism is being impacted by “globalism, social and demographic shifts, new technology, increased transparency and resource scarcity,” According to Horn. In the face of these paradigm shifts, directors have the opportunity to converge with stakeholders to build a better path forward for all, and have a unique opportunity to rebuild the public’s trust in the role of corporations.

“People are searching for leaders they can trust, leaders who are smart, confident and strong—who are understanding and compassionate,” Horn said. “This is a role sometimes filled by government, but trust in government is at an all-time low, so the leadership gap needs to be filled. I believe we are some of the leaders who can and should fill that gap.”

Horn’s address closed with a charge to directors that will resound through her term as chair of NACD and beyond.

“Corporate America has an immense amount of talent, and we need to step up before we are stepped over,” she entreated. “There is no question that we have the ability to take this leadership challenge, but only if we act responsibly, transparently, honestly and with careful regard for different perspectives. If we can do that, we can move our culture back toward civil discourse—toward convergence.”