Reprint: R0701F
When a CEO leaves because of performance problems, the company typically recruits someone thought to be better equipped to fix what the departing executive couldn’t—or wouldn’t. The board places its confidence in the new person because of the present dilemma’s similarity to some previous challenge that he or she dealt with successfully. But familiar problems are inevitably succeeded by less familiar ones, for which the specially selected CEO is not quite so qualified. More often than not, the experiences, skills, and temperament that yielded triumph in Act I turn out to be unequal to Act II’s difficulties. In fact, the approaches that worked so brilliantly in Act I may be the very opposite of what is needed in Act II.
The CEO has four choices: refuse to change, in which case he or she will be replaced; realize that the next act requires new skills and learn them; downsize or circumscribe his or her role to compensate for deficiencies; or line up a successor who is qualified to fill a role to which the incumbent’s skills and interests are no longer suited. Hewlett-Packard’s Carly Fiorina exemplifies the first alternative; Merrill Lynch’s Stanley O’Neal the second; Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page the third; and Quest Diagnostics’ Ken Freeman the fourth. All but the first option are reasonable responses to the challenges presented in the second acts of most CEOs’ tenures. And all but the first require a power of observation, a propensity for introspection, and a strain of humility that are rare in the ranks of the very people who need those qualities most.
There are four essential steps executives can take to discern that they have entered new territory and to respond accordingly: recognition that their leadership style and approach are no longer working; acceptance of others’ advice on why performance is faltering; analysis and understanding of the nature of the Act II shift; and, finally, decision and action.
