Whether you call the role Chief Supply Chain Officer (CSCO), Chief Operations Officer (COO), or some variation, someone needs to be responsible for leading all extended supply chain processes for any enterprise producing physical goods. Moreover, this person must be a full strategic partner with the CEO, CFO, and other members of the C-suite. They are responsible for the lion’s share of enterprise cost and capital spending. Historically, many organizations failed to recognize the need for a “strategic-minded” CSCO.
For the last several decades, manufacturing businesses and their supply chain leaders focused relentlessly on driving cost out of the system. This led to a massive shift in manufacturing and sourcing to lower cost regions, particularly China, in pursuit of lower production cost. It also led to consolidating vendor bases, including increased sole sourcing, in return for lower prices from suppliers and just-in-time production which drove down inventory investment requirements.
This drive for lower cost worked well when conditions were relatively stable. Customers received lower prices, shareholders owned a more profitable business with higher returns for their investment, and employees worked in a growing business with more career opportunities. What was not well recognized was the added risk the enterprise assumed. Sourcing and manufacturing in Asia lengthened supply chains and made them more vulnerable to transportation disruptions. Consolidating vendors increased exposure to supplier outages. Reliance on China increased political risk. Just-in-time manufacturing eliminated inventory which could serve as a buffer to absorb mismatches between supply and demand. Occasional disruptions in one or another of these dimensions occurred and companies scrambled to address them. Few had risk mitigation plans in place ready to deploy, and most were treated as one-off events. Then the covid pandemic hit, which clearly exposed the inherent risks companies had assumed in adopting the low-cost supply chain strategies of the last 40 years. While the drive to low cost was a “strategy” many pursued, companies did not think strategically about the potential unintended consequences.
Companies should not think of the pandemic as a once-in-a-century event and revert to business as usual. Disruptions have been, and will continue to be, a fact of life for manufacturers. The McKinsey Global Institute has studied the history of supply chain disruptions and their effect on business results. They estimate companies lose 45% of one year’s EBITDA to supply chain disruptions over the course of a decade. Historically, corporate responses to supply chain disruptions have been reactive. Recent disruptions have clearly illuminated the imperative for creating and maintaining operational resilience. What does this mean for the next generation of CSCOs?
Apart from the leadership and strategic skills required of any C-suite executive, perhaps the most important skill required of today’s CSCO is that of an underwriter. Underwriters, be they insurance, investment banking, commercial banking, or other, evaluate the risk involved in a particular activity, asset, or person and set a “price” appropriate to the risk. As we saw during the pandemic and its aftermath, most CSCOs failed as underwriters. They did not appreciate the risks they were bearing and had not taken necessary steps to “insure” against those risks. As a result, supply chains broke for extended periods—inventory did not arrive when needed, factories closed, customers did not receive their orders, and consumers saw bare shelves and empty lots.
As we have seen over the last three or four years, most companies were unprepared for pandemic risk, geopolitical risk, weather risk, et cetera, much less having the compounding effects of these risk occurring simultaneously. Insurance underwriters tend to think of risk along two dimensions: frequency (how often a loss is likely to occur) and severity (how expensive a loss is likely to be). Low frequency, high severity risks are the most difficult to predict and insure. To protect against these catastrophic events, insurers often purchase catastrophe coverage to protect themselves from existential losses. Manufacturers had not understood the extent of their exposure to “catastrophes.” Consequently, they did not have risk mitigation measures (insurance) in place and suffered greatly for it as suppliers in global markets shut down and transportation infrastructure became clogged.
To mitigate these very real but previously poorly perceived risks, many are now rethinking their global supply chain strategies with an emphasis on creating supply chain resilience. This has included reshoring and near shoring critical manufacturing infrastructure; deploying digital supply chain solutions to speed information flow and decision making; diversifying sourcing partnerships; and investing in critical inventory. Manufacturers are now actively assessing the broad range of integrated supply chain risks they face, quantifying the exposure they have to disruption, and making the necessary investments and other actions to mitigate these risks. This requires new skills on the part of the CSCO and full partnership in strategic decision making with the rest of the C-suite.
# # #
Don McMurchy is a senior member of the Industrial practice, driving execution across a broad range of senior leadership roles for clients ranging from start-ups to Fortune 50 enterprises. Based in Cleveland, his engagements are typically continental in scope with additional experience in Asia and Europe.
RSR Partners is a boutique professional services firm headquartered in Greenwich, CT, that specializes in helping Boards and CEOs with their most critical recruiting, selection, and succession needs. The firm was founded in 1994 by industry icon, Russell S. Reynolds, Jr. The firm has conducted thousands of projects for Boards and CEOs at public, private equity backed, and family-owned businesses across a range of industries including asset management, consumer goods and services, industrial, technology, and healthcare. To learn more about RSR Partners, click here.
Peter Drucker was a wise sage. Many companies and even some industries have evolved to greatness thanks to his contributions to management thought. Despite his gifted prescience, Drucker could never have imagined the current environment, nor the unexpected journey through which Covid has taken each and every business. Still, a quote from Drucker rings true: “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence. It is to act with yesterday’s logic.”
Every business leader seeks to understand the current environmental factors and the future of the marketplace. To that point, operating plans consistently open with a view of the present market conditions and a prediction of those to come. It took a pandemic to teach us that our clairvoyant skills are lacking. Even now, we have no idea if our economy is heading into hyper-inflation, recession, or a soft landing. In a time that Drucker refers to as “yesterday,” the conventional wisdom among the wise CEOs would have been to move to a phase of business preparation, anticipating the challenges of the market situation to come. Let’s call this “managing according to maintenance objectives:” optimizing the chances for retention of current state with plenty of emphasis on contingent planning.
In essence, lifeboat management.
I offer here my thoughts on a different prescription. Keeping with the nautical metaphor, I appreciate the words of Union Naval Admiral Farragut when he said, “Damn the torpedoes!” Are there any lessons to be applied from the fog of war to the current fog of business? I speculate that today’s CEO Farragut would state unequivocally that success is not about survival or maintenance management. Rather, he’d call it seizing greater initiative while expecting inevitable risk.
Having the good fortune to know many great CEOs who would emulate Farragut, I perceive a common denominator among them. It is an insatiable, often unassailable drive to achieve breakout growth for their business, environmental factors notwithstanding. Their passion is palpable, sometimes in visible relief and sometimes not, but always motivating them to find seams and ingredients and synergies for sustainable surges of growth. To many casual witnesses, the business aspirations are almost unimaginable. However, it’s precisely the CEO’s imaginings that seem to prompt the urge to break through the fog, to lead with abandon.
When was the last time you witnessed someone whom you’d describe as an executive who leads with abandon?
In observing these CEOs and their teams, I have come to recognize some common elements that I’ll call the “formula.” These include some leader qualities and some new items of process thinking. These include: a spirit of adventure; a fresh way of expressing vision; a continuous attitude of nimbleness; an approach to embedding strategy as “water cooler” conversation; and a more flexible way to think about organization structure to meet market needs and opportunities.
The Courage to Pioneer
Serving as a business leader in today’s environment is tricky. The most effective CEOs seem to exhibit a pioneering spirit, like Paul Bunyan’s courage to wield a mighty axe for cutting new paths ahead. And it isn’t just a market share strategy in the minds of these few, but a desire to drive demand, to expand markets, to capture much more than their fair share of growth in categories, markets, and channels. Despite the reality of tightening/high-interest money, markets full of ambiguity, and the sequential pressure of business targets that keep approaching at high speed, conservatism does not rule among the best in breed, often called “pacesetters” in today’s lingo.
I see new shoots of growth among many companies, largely because their CEOs are continuously acting in a contrarian fashion compared to competitors. This behavior often includes rapid refinements in market and channel strategies to secure fresh growth in adjacencies, digital initiative to reach new customers and find new supply chain efficiencies, a redirecting of investments from over-mined markets into new product and new market innovation, rethinking the diversity of the business model to capture new opportunities through added services and e-commerce, and even nimbly and rapidly partnering with other companies to gain resources needed to tackle previously inaccessible customer needs, or to create new needs that haven’t yet been articulated. Budgets in some of these progressive businesses are also being shifted from process improvements to commercial innovation.
These pioneer CEOs are taking advantage of market pressures that slow some competitors. As such, their enterprises can leapfrog to future state.
Destiny and Destinational Planning
To many of these great executives, the most significant current question is not “how?” but “what?” That’s to say they often refine and sharpen their view of “what” the future looks like. They have full conviction in the capabilities of their teams and companies in determining their own destiny. Forget about incremental growth plans. Their thinking is not grounded in a cement mentality reflecting the business position of today. They formulate a vision of their business’s destination for tomorrow, more specifically, the overall objectives for two or four or even more years down the road. And they are not afraid to refine along the way or to think bigger if so inspired. Their process for planning and action is based on the “destinational” vision: a longer-term deliverable and a working backwards to define intermediate milestones as well as the related hurdles of consequence along the way.
Once that rock-strewn path is determined, then the focus of attention becomes about resourcing, i.e., what resources do we need to eliminate the obstacles? The tactics of execution spill out from there, and always with precision in mind.
Agility and Flexibility
I’ve alluded to the need for many businesses to undertake occasional refinement/continuous improvement. That’s probably a euphemism; most companies these days need much more than refinement, they need overhaul. Just ask a banker how their industry is prepared for challenges in 2023 and 2024. You may see some uneasy stares. Corporations and even small companies mired in entrenched systems, conventions, and processes rather than market foresight for the future, will likely begin to feel rapid decay over time.
Recently, I spoke at some length with two very senior operating partners at a successful and prominent middle market private equity shop in New York City. Their stature and growth suggest they are big thinkers and unusually thoughtful. That was quickly borne out in the conversation which was a by-exception dialogue, meaning we only discussed bold thinking for an hour. As we traded perspectives on the distinctions between today’s good CEOs and those who are truly great, we continued to circle back to their overriding hypothesis. The best CEOs at this moment in time are those who demonstrate “clear ability to pivot.” This needn’t be expanded upon at this juncture, as it is the fodder for another post, but ponder the point and consider how it applies to the strategy discussions around most of today’s boardroom tables which appear sleepy in contrast.
One last point on pivoting. I have a fervent view that companies today must have something called “organizational elasticity.” During the intensity of Covid, we all heard how business cultures need “resilience.” But I see resilience as an ingredient of foundation, namely, an ability to withstand unusual and extreme pressures.
“Elasticity,” on the other hand, is more about flexibility and the rubber-band stretch that a leadership contingent and their teams can withstand, bend with, and rebound as new space is explored and tested. The pioneering I have highlighted cannot be undertaken unless the organization has the mental preparedness and curiosity to peruse new forks in the road, to make some probes of reconnaissance, and to recover to a stable track if the diversions prove unproductive. Organizational elasticity requires all in a company to understand and agree to the attendant nimbleness of the journey. Change that finds a more open and faster-lane approach should be embraced. Rigidity should be institutionalized in mission-commitment, core values, and collaborative interest, not in growth initiatives, organizational dynamics, or processes.
The Compression of Strategy
The best CEOs are redefining strategy. In a classic sense, strategy has normally meant an articulation of direction for the long term, indicating dimensions of both azimuth and time. I’ve already addressed direction in the pioneering sense. But we now find highly successful CEOs and leadership teams who have compressed the strategic timeline into more tactical timelines. They ask questions like, why should this initiative take 3 years? Why can’t we achieve the same course correction in 3 months?
Incidentally, when was the last time the company reported upon the achievement of the long-term objectives that it set forth 5 years earlier? What’s the purpose of a long-range plan anyway, other than some vague hopes of where we seek to be in a few years? There’s nothing wrong with that, except it’s fictional when companies apply the metrics and objectives that they really don’t expect to discuss at the end of the journey. I’ve already addressed that topic in the explanation of destinational planning.
Organizational Implications
We all have seen a variety of corporate org charts that generally depict conventional details like seniority, pecking order, and lines of responsibility. Such mappings are not unimportant. “Org Charts” in my humble opinion are soon to be artifacts of past companies and cultures. Those leaders who are maneuvering through the fog these days are doing so with gusto, and most are thinking of their organizations as competitive teams, not silos and compartmentalized ownership and reporting lines. Great teams think about overall team objectives first, recognizing they have a variety of star players to carry the ball, and the teams make the distinction between who’s on the field (or the “floor”) and who’s on the bench, and sometimes the substituting happens at a moment’s notice depending upon the tenor and sway of the game’s score and the intuition and judgment of the coach.
Which makes you question: how do such companies keep straight their HR design and structure?
The future-leaning answer is they don’t, primarily because their teams are organized in a fluid fashion around the strategic growth issues of their company, not around units, functions, and roles. Think project and program management, for example, with constant asset deployment and redeployment. There’s a necessary fluidity required to stay ahead of market circumstances to achieve aspirational objectives. More to come on this very critical org piece in an upcoming post. Drucker was not only clairvoyant in realizing the danger of “yesterday’s logic,” but he was giving a clear warning to the hidebound CEOs who think that lifeboat or playbook management is the key to success. The very best of the pacesetters are making up some things as they go about the business of working to achieve the unimaginable. Managing a company in a dynamic foggy market is the “Wheaties” of today’s most athletic and most organizationally ambitious CEOs.
# # #
Alan Renne leads the firm’s Industrial practice and is a key member of the firm’s Board and CEO Services team. Alan specializes in helping companies build competence and effectiveness within their leadership teams and at the board level. He has advised numerous organizations and C-Suite executives on leadership development, succession planning, and organizational design and development.
RSR Partners is a boutique professional services firm headquartered in Greenwich, CT, that specializes in helping Boards and CEOs with their most critical recruiting, selection, and succession needs. The firm was founded in 1994 by industry icon, Russell S. Reynolds, Jr. The firm has conducted thousands of projects for Boards and CEOs at public, private equity backed, and family-owned businesses across a range of industries including asset management, consumer goods and services, industrial, technology, and healthcare. To learn more about RSR Partners, click here.
Much has been written and debated about CEO succession. The pandemic has taught most companies that succession is a heavy-lifting exercise when it comes to business continuity. Boards are increasingly concluding that the full weight of succession planning rests squarely on their shoulders, which leads to the critical question that every board must answer: promote from within or search externally? Executive search and consulting firms, including ours, are often engaged to help boards resolve this complex situation, but the inclination to conduct a search may sometimes be premature. Having completed over 1000+ assignments for Boards and CEOs over the past two decades, we wanted to share a few observations when planning for the selection of your next CEO.
Internal or External?
There is no solution that applies to all situations. Given the extraordinary dynamics of today’s marketplace, one might argue that finding a CEO with the needed agility calls for assembling the broadest internal and external group of candidates possible. However, our conversations with many seasoned Nominating & Governance and board Chairs (“Chairs”), who are at the center of CEO succession, have shown that this is not necessarily the case.
The consensus seems to be that knowledge of the business, people, and its culture trump almost every other consideration, and thus an internal candidate is strongly preferred, especially when the business is on an upward trajectory. Many feel that deep knowledge and intimacy of the business can provide quicker impact with reduced risk of failure and that consideration of outside candidates for calibration should only be done as a very last resort, and when the CEO succession planning process has failed.
Many reasons exist to recruit or vet outsiders, such as the need for strategic or cultural changes, a requirement for specific expertise in dealing with unanticipated market challenges, activists, or a merger. These occurrences notwithstanding, most boards realize an outsider will take extensive time to assimilate and consolidate as needed. Even proven successful CEOs who have already demonstrated great learning skills still take time to settle in before they create an appreciably positive impact.
Therefore, while it may seem counterintuitive to our own business model, we encourage our clients to go through the process of deep self-reflection and succession planning regularly. This preparation may avoid the need to launch a rushed CEO search later. The process itself is very revealing for most organizations, and boards are recognizing that preparation is the key to optionality.
Engagement
CEO succession is a passionate and delicate topic. It involves changes and sometimes challenges that affect leaders who are considered to be the very best in commanding complex organizations. But for the boards who assume this monumental responsibility, it need not be a cause for angst. With a commitment to diligent planning, extensive engagement with candidates, a high level of candor in discussion, and an enlightened view of the opportunities and resources that present themselves to the company, succession planning can be a smooth journey, and even stimulating. When boards come to the point of treating succession as a non-episodic issue that deserves constant reflection and attention, the organization will find a more secure position for the exciting future ahead.
In the past, boards have overly relied on the perspective of management to develop, manage, and provide solutions for succession planning. With CEO tenure trending towards 5-year terms, boards need to own the responsibility and develop a perspective that is integrated but independent from management. One of the best ways to subdue unease around the topic is to make CEO succession planning a board priority and a regular topic of discussion. Most public company boards keep CEO succession as a standing agenda item but at private equity backed or family-owned companies, there is certainly room for improvement. By continual engagement on the topic on a formal level, and even under less formal conditions, boards can avoid being overwhelmed by the planning and enactment of succession plans. It is critical that Chairs start the conversation and be frank and open. Once they start the conversation, others on the board will engage.
It also helps to acknowledge and appreciate the sensitivities around CEO succession planning. Few changes in a company can affect such a breadth of internal and external constituents as a change in CEO. It is a critical event, shrouded often in unspeakable sensitivity. Framing the discussion as a neutral one can help directors open up. No CEO likes thinking about being replaced, but by setting expectations early that tenure is fixed, the topic is less likely to be taken personally.
A piece of the ongoing puzzle and dialog around CEO succession is building the competency agenda for the CEO, known as the “success profile.” For several years, we at RSR Partners have advanced the concept of “stretch versus fit.” For example, some boards aspire for greater growth trends and feel that goal can be achieved with some modest tweaking to strategy and culture which the incumbent CEO is unwilling or unable to embrace. Generally, while boards may have no regrets about the past, many have more expansive and aspirational visions for the future. As it relates to the “spec” capabilities required of the next CEO, they question whether to stay squarely on course or to drive change. Invariably, boards harbor some hopes and dreams that a CEO change will provide opportunity for added business propulsion, so they look for both steadiness and value-adding creativity in the next CEO.
My longtime friend and colleague, Alan Renne, who is a senior member of our Board & CEO Services practice and Head of our Industrial Technology team, has commented that “what the pandemic has taught most companies is that both culture and strategy are symbiotic in a sense, although neither can stand still under the pressure of unpredictability, which we’ve seen through the Covid period. Hence, we all hear the constant chatter about how companies require leaders with agility, nimbleness, resilience, etc. The point related to CEO succession is that the ‘stretch’ requirement can feel like a moving target since the marketplace is not static. So, boards must continually engage in the discussion about the CEO spec in the context of possible changes in strategy and culture, and therefore make in-flight course corrections on an ongoing basis.” Alan’s observations are spot on, and it is often during these continual discussions, that inspiring and innovative solutions to the CEO succession issue present themselves.
Bench Strength is Key
Finding an organization’s next CEO should be inextricably linked to understanding the capabilities and skills needed for success and filling those gaps at the C-Suite level. Succession planning goes hand in hand with talent reviews and leadership assessment, which help reveal opportunities to develop rising stars for succession consideration. The Nominating & Governance Chair’s mandate to ensure effective governance means that Chairs need to have a thorough understanding of the talent within the organization. They are expected to know when it makes sense to go to the market for the skills and experience that are needed, especially within the bench levels, so chairs are spending more and more time identifying and getting to know future leaders below the C-Suite.
Stars often rise from the “minor leagues” and good oversight on their development is key, especially as the CEO specification continues to evolve. Issues of executive development and retention go hand in hand, and boards should have their sleeves rolled up in these discussions.
“One of the most delicate topics today in leader development relates to promotion and rotation,” Alan states. “In many cases, companies are eager to keep great talent rising, challenged, and filling development gaps. Consequently, top players are often continuously pushed ahead to the next bigger job, but sometimes too quickly. High potential leaders need time to formulate strategies, build plans, execute, refine, and manage for a period that demonstrates sustainable success. Moving leaders too quickly can short-circuit that process and even disrupt business effectiveness. Boards should engage early in the leader development process because they have the seasoning of experience to spot these things and can offer valuable advice that will benefit their CEO succession plans.”
Retention and motivation of executives should also be high on the radar screen, especially considering the new phenomenon of “opting out,” discussed further below. Some Chairs have admitted that CEO succession can also be a challenge since it can be hard to retain A+ executives in the C-Suite if the company is unable to offer the compensation and flexibility of larger operating portfolios. If retaining and motivating talent within management is a priority, it should tie very closely into succession planning.
The “Siren Song” of Private Equity
Private equity firms are more actively and aggressively recruiting high potential talent from public companies. “There is a war for talent,” states Thames Fulton, a senior member of our Board & CEO services practice. “We often counsel boards so they understand and can deal with these incursions to their executive teams. We have been asked to educate the high-potential corporate executive who unknowingly thinks the grass is greener in private equity, thereby helping a board to buy some time in their succession planning.”
Conversely, there have been some great executives coming out of small and mid-cap companies because their leadership model is lean and therefore very hands-on and experienced. Large cap companies are starting to recruit those executives. “We spend significant time with our small and mid-cap clients, strategizing on how they can build their leadership bench in a way that earns loyalty and commitment from their teams,” adds Thames.
Competing for leadership talent in this environment can be especially challenging for organizations with limited bench spots. Boards must get creative about generating roles to provide opportunities for succession. There are ways to stimulate succession preparation with retention and development strategies. Dovetailing the creation of those roles with efforts to fill gaps in the competence between the bench and CEO can significantly impact an organization.
The Nexus of Board & Management and the “Opting Out” Phenomenon
The CEO role has always carried with it great cachet – authority, visibility, power, influence, prestige, impact, and wealth potential. In recent years, as terms like “servant leadership” and “shareholder capitalism” have occupied rightful places in the vernacular, the CEO role has become ever more complicated. More importantly, the pandemic circumstances over the past year have placed a glaring light on the CEO role. It is an extraordinarily intense and often grueling job, fraught with gut-wrenching decisions, overwhelming workload, tricky management and leadership challenges, and high pressure deadlines. Consequently, boards need to have intimate insight into the thinking of their future succession candidates. This can be incredibly important when gauging the bench’s proclivity to carry the CEO title.
In our discussions with the bench strength of today’s public companies, especially those seen as the best and brightest, we see an emerging phenomenon. Many are now seeing the CEO role as the great heavy-lifting job that it is, and they conclude that the associated sacrifices are too great for the potential rewards. In their minds, they are choosing to opt out in lieu of other career trajectories, including private equity backed opportunities. This is just one example of how boards need to know about personal decisions, especially as they consider high potential candidates for succession, which begs for deeper interactions between boards and the promising talent in the management ranks.
“When addressing clients’ CEO succession needs, we often overlay our board and executive search processes,” comments Gretchen Crist, Head of our firm’s Consumer Goods & Services practice. “This is an advantage during CEO succession projects because we can operate at the nexus of boards and management. We appreciate the board perspective and can integrate intelligence on proficiencies and personal motivations from the front lines of the business.”
Moreover, the succession planning process should be encountered as a moving target that never stands still – because markets, companies, and people are ever-changing. As such, the regularity of discussion between board directors and management should likewise increase. The Chair’s role is to help facilitate those conversations. Some Nom & Gov Chairs have occasional one-on-one conversations or visits with key members of management, while others have 8 – 10 executives attend each board meeting, and some attend dinners, on a rotation. Developing trusting relationships with members of management is good for both knowledge and retention.
Strike a Balance
“Succession planning has evolved into a rigorous process,” concludes Alan. “Our clients look down many levels into the management ranks to identify star talent. We are assessing their leadership abilities, putting their development plan in place, conducting a risk analysis around who might be poached, and benchmarking against external candidates and competitors. The goal is for the board to have transparency around who will be the next CEO if everything goes according to plan, and, as is often the case, if conditions change, to be sure to have a current CEO spec and a competency structure ready to go, should a search be unavoidable.”
“There also needs to be some flexibility and nimbleness,” adds Gretchen. “Clients do not need their succession plan to be perfectly buttoned up. It is fluid and dynamic. It’s important to get the dialog going and be open minded as the conversation evolves.”
There is so much to discuss during the CEO succession planning process, that it is natural and cyclical for the board to continually address the topic. Timing, the methods of evaluation of candidates, the development plans to help high potential executives build competencies, the regular review of the CEO spec, as well as a periodic revisiting of those stretch topics – like strategy and culture – are crucial to be sure that strong candidates of today have the skills to meet the expectations of tomorrow.
The clock is ticking… and boards need to be prepared when the time comes to make the best and most informed decision possible when selecting their next CEO. There is no more important responsibility for directors in this new world of stakeholder capitalism than CEO succession.
We are here to help you get it right.
About Our Board & CEO Services Practice
Our Board and CEO Services team partners with CEOs and boards to understand issues, assess opportunities, and strategically advise to ensure sustainable growth strategies are optimized. We are committed to executing an action plan that addresses sensitive and complex leadership needs and ensures clients are well positioned for the future. RSR offers trusted advisement rooted in years of experience and market knowledge. We excel at optimizing board and CEO effectiveness through transformative thinking about structure and operations. This helps us to engage closely with clients to drive greater accountability and enhanced performance. Our practice group leverages RSR Partners’ renowned experience in corporate governance with the firm’s industry and human capital consulting expertise to create an integrated and seamless approach. The range of services we provide to boards and CEOs include:
Board Services
CEO Services
RSR Partners is a boutique professional services firm headquartered in Greenwich, CT, that specializes in helping Boards and CEOs with their most critical recruiting, selection, and succession needs. The firm was founded in 1994 by industry icon, Russell S. Reynolds, Jr. The firm has conducted thousands of projects for Boards and CEOs at public, private equity backed, and family-owned businesses across a range of industries including asset management, consumer goods and services, industrial, technology, and healthcare. To learn more about RSR Partners, click here.
The annual letter from our CEO, Brett Stephens, to our clients and friends.
Dear Clients and Friends,
2020 has been a year of unprecedented change and reinvention. We have been honored to work alongside so many of you, helping you navigate these tumultuous times as successfully as possible. Effective leadership in the C-Suite and at the board level has never been more important, and the discreet advisory work we perform for Boards and CEOs has surged in response. We have spent many hours engaging with you on topics such as achieving agility; the emotional intelligence and moral quotient of leaders; the importance of diversity, inclusion, and equality initiatives; deploying technology, AI, and virtual work environments; managing risk; and addressing environmental, social, and governance concerns. Some of these topics were discussed at length during the roundtables we hosted earlier this year, and we expect to tackle these topics again at our 20th Annual Directors Dinner in January 2021. In the meantime, we wanted to share with you some additional trends that have emerged during the last few months that we expect will continue to evolve in 2021:
1. CEO Succession Disruption: CEO turnover reached a record high in 2019 but slowed temporarily during the crisis. The stress and trauma of leading an organization through a crisis often accelerates a CEO’s departure. When we reach a turning point and conditions stabilize, we expect to see a shift in the C-Suite at many organizations — even at companies that survived or thrived. Not only are public companies actively thinking about CEO succession, but our private equity clients have been building their potential inventory of CEO candidates in anticipation of deal activity returning significantly in 2021. Now is the time to begin CEO succession planning if you have not already. We have been trusted by boards and CEOs with succession planning for more than 25 years, and CEO succession is our premier service because we have minimal off-limits restrictions — meaning, we have unparalleled access to top talent and leadership across all industries due to our boutique size. In addition to our reputation for discretion and for identifying ideal successors, our clients also engage us to manage leadership assessment processes, if needed (with our neutral, third-party assessment partner); to help with the on-boarding and integration of the new CEO (whether an internal or external candidate); and to advise the board, CEO, and CHRO on how to manage the transition with leadership and throughout the broader organization.
2. Board Recalculation: The dialogue around which competencies, capabilities, and perspectives a board member needs to be effective in the “new normal” has gathered momentum. Some of our clients came to the stark realization that their directors were lacking the knowledge and experience necessary to help leadership execute the new direction that was charted in response to the pandemic and economic crisis. We are advising our board clients on how to effectively remake and reshape themselves with directors who possess the skills and capabilities to guide leadership through disruption and reinvention. Transformation at the board level typically takes time given how board dynamics can affect decision making, so we expect director recruitment to remain very active and increase in 2021.
3. Diversity Recruiting: The desire for more diverse boards has gained significant momentum across the country, making it critical to work with a board recruiting firm that has access to and existing relationships with high quality candidates. We often counsel our clients on how to achieve their long-term diversity goals in addition to managing immediate needs. (94% of our elected board candidates were diverse in 2019.) Similarly, at the C-Suite level, large Fortune 500 companies have the resources and prestige to attract diverse candidates, while mid- and small- cap companies will need to seek advisors who can prioritize them in order to compete for diverse talent. We have been more successful than our large competitors at attracting diverse talent to mid- and small-cap organizations, especially under time constraints. No matter how it is done, additional diversity of thought and experience in the C-Suite and at the board level should be a positive outcome of the conversations taking place across our country about diversity, inclusion, and equality.
4. Separation of the Roles of Chairman and CEO: Similar to past economic downturns, boards have increasingly recognized the benefit of a Non-Executive Chairman who can help the CEO navigate through a crisis. Based upon the consistency of the demand for our services advising on these arrangements, we believe splitting the Chairman and CEO roles will be a more frequent occurrence in 2021. However, such a decision requires concise communication and planning and should not be made to generate press coverage. Organizations need a highly analytical and candid assessment of their strengths, shortcomings, opportunities, and risks — with a learned objective and with experienced advisors — to make the right decision for their organizations at this crucial and unpredictable time.
We continue providing services to Boards and CEOs on a broad range of governance and leadership needs. To cite a few current examples, we are:
Board Recruiting and Advisory
CEO Services
Leadership and Talent Consulting
In the event you have a sensitive board or leadership need in the coming year, we would be honored to share our experience and expertise regarding this critical process and help you solve for your organization’s immediate needs, and for its long-term success. Thank you for the continued trust and confidence you have placed in our firm. We look forward to working closely with you in the year ahead, and for many years beyond.
Barrett J. Stephens
Chief Executive Officer
O: +1 (203) 618-7022
BStephens@RSRPartners.com
