Lululemon: How Much "Discretion" Should a CEO Exercise?

This week Lululemon CEO Christine Day announced that she would be stepping down.   Her resignation comes just three months after the substantial product recall of yoga pants that led to the departure of the firm's Chief Product Officer.   On the day of Day's surprising announcement, Lululemon shares fell 17%.  Investors wondered if other bad news might be coming from the company that has been a terrific growth story over the past several years.  Day chose not to discuss the detailed reasons for her departure.  She told Fortune, "There is no difference in strategic vision for the company, we were and are aligned... My values include discretion. While I know everyone would like to know 'the reason' [I'm leaving] there are some things that should remain private because the truth is the good things outweighed the bad and by being respectful and grateful one can remember that."  

I find this incident very interesting.  It raises some difficult questions regarding the responsibilities of a public company CEO.   While I respect Day's right to privacy, I can't help but look at that stunning 17% drop in the firm's shares.  Do the shareholders deserve more information?  Does Day have a responsibility to disclose more information about her departure so as to prevent such a drop in the firm's shares?   It's hard to say, of course, given that we don't know the reasons.   However, it seems clear that investors were spooked by the surprise departure.   Investors simply do not like being left in the dark. 

Read More

Insiders vs. Outsiders: Sweeping Generalizations Don't Make Sense

I read an interesting blog post this week on the HBR site.  The post consists of an interview with Harvard Professor Gautum Mukunda.   Here is an excerpt (video posted below as well):

The finding: The best leaders tend to be outsiders who don’t have a great deal of experience.
 
The research: Gautam Mukunda studied political, business, and military leaders, categorizing them into two groups: “filtered leaders,” insiders whose careers followed a normal progression; and “unfiltered leaders,” who either were outsiders with little experience or got their jobs through fluke circumstances. He then compared the groups’ effectiveness; for instance, with U.S. presidents, he looked at historians’ rankings from the past 60 years. He discovered that the unfiltered leaders were the most effective—and also the least effective—while highly filtered leaders landed in the middle of the pack. 
 
The challenge: Is searching for a leader with a long, impressive résumé a waste of time? Is experience a predictor of mediocre performance? Professor Mukunda, defend your research.
 
Mukunda: I was surprised by how unambiguous the data were, but they confirmed what I suspected: If you choose an insider who you know can do the job well, most of the time that person won’t perform any differently from any other top candidate with lots of experience. Such insiders—I call them “filtered leaders”—might be good, but they probably won’t be brilliant. It’s the unfiltered leaders, the outsiders without lots of experience, who perform the very best.

I'm highly skeptical of such a sweeping generalization.  I don't think we can argue that outsiders are ALWAYS preferable to insiders, that unfiltered folks are always preferable to experienced individuals.    The bottom line is: It depends!  Certain circumstances call for an outsider or a person with fresh perspective, while others lend themselves to an insider or someone with deep experience in an industry or company. Each company needs to assess its situation and make the right choice for that organization, given its strategy and culture, AT THAT POINT IN TIME.  The right solution for Company XYZ in 2012 may not make sense in 2018, as conditions change.   Moreover, the search for that superstar outsider can be a futile one, as I've written about in earlier blog posts.  We sometimes become enamored with the outside "star" hire... and then feel very underwhelmed a few years later.  

Read More

The HP Board: Another CEO Bites the Dust?

News reports indicate that the HP Board of Directors will fire CEO Leo Apotheker today and replace him with Meg Whitman.  Many people have criticized the Board heavily for its actions over the past few years... and rightfully so.  They have had their share of public fiascoes.  From my perspective, they deserve the most criticism for not having developed a talent pipeline and a succession plan that would have enabled them to promote an insider during at least one of these management changes.  From Fiorina to Whitman, the Board keeps going outside the firm to find a new CEO.  How can a firm such as HP constantly have to reach for an outsider?  That's a flawed talent strategy and poor governance.

On the positive side, I applaud the Board for not falling into the sunk cost trap with Apotheker.  They deserve some credit for acknowledging their mistake and cutting their losses.  Many Boards would have been reluctant to fire a CEO after such a short period of time, even if it became quite clear that things were not working out.  

Read More

Developing your people: Lessons from NFL Quarterbacks

Karl Moore and Devin Bigoness have a good column at Forbes.com about developing your people.  They draw lessons from the development of National Football League quarterbacks.  As they point out correctly, teams tend to take one of two contrasting approaches with their young quarterbacks.  Some teams take the "immediate testing" approach - i.e. they throw them in the pond and challenge them to learn to swim.   These quarterbacks often will struggle mightily in their rookie year.   It's trial by fire.   Other teams will adopt a "learning to win" model.  These quarterbacks sit on the sidelines for some time, perhaps even several years, watching a veteran quarterback lead the team.  

Each of these models has had its successes and failures.  Aaron Rodgers succeeded using the "learn to win" approach.  He spent four seasons as a back-up before becoming the starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers.  He went on to become a star and a Super Bowl champion.   Peyton Manning, on the other hand, went the immediate testing route.  His team lost many games during his first year, and he did throw many interceptions.  However, we went on to craft a Hall of Fame career, won multiple MVP awards, and became a Super Bowl champion too.   Of course, both models also have their share utter failures as well.

Moore and Bigoness do not advocate one model over another (appropriately, I might add).  Instead, they propose that you should really understand your people, so that you can determine which model might be best for each individual.  At the same time, you have to assess your organization's needs.  You must balance what's best for individual against what is best for the firm.  Some times, you might have to "rush" someone's development, despite some risks, because of a pressing organizational need.  In other cases, you may determine that the organization can afford to give an individual a bit more time to "learn to win." 

Importantly, if you do adopt at  the "learn to win" model, you do need to still make sure that you present that individual with sufficient challenges and development opportunities.  One risk, with this model is that a talented person will leave because they are not receiving the opportunity that they desire.  In the NFL, teams have control over young players for several years.  In companies, people can depart at any time.  Thus, leaders must share their development strategy with the individual being groomed, and work with them to co-create a development plan that works for them and the organization. 

Read More

Part 2 - Interview with HR Expert Jane Perdue

Here is Part 2 of an interview I conducted recently with Jane Perdue, CEO and founder of Braithwaite Innovation Group.  Perdue has extensive experience as a human resource executive, and now a consultant, at Fortune 500 firms. 

Many changes have been made in employee evaluation and merit review processes in the past decade or so. What are some of the most significant problems that still remain with those evaluation processes?

There are many days in which I wish I had a magic wand and could transform the entire performance appraisal process into something practical and meaningful! In my perspective, many of the changes have been in process. An organization can have the most extraordinary online appraisal systems and still fail to move the needle on developing employee performance.

There’s too much focus on the form and too little on the content. While a lunch once with a boss, he wrote a few development notes on a napkin – that’s truly the most effective performance feedback I ever received.

Performance assessment and evaluation must transcend being simply a document completion process to a corporate-wide mindset and dedication to continuous improvement. A mindset that’s embedded in multiple systems: strategic planning, business metrics, staffing, leadership and succession development, just to name a few.

What are 2-3 key success factors with regard to developing sound management succession processes?

For management succession development to be effective and successful:

•  An organization must have identified the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities – both from a quantitative and qualitative perspective – that are crucial to running the business and are embedded in a leadership development program based on measured outcomes
•  Succession development is practiced, recognized and rewarded as business fundamental, just like strategic planning and budgeting
• The process is simple and straightforward, having been pared down to the core essentials with reams of paperwork avoided.

Read More