
現(xiàn)代領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者面臨的管理環(huán)境正日趨復(fù)雜,如今CEO需要處理的事務(wù)量大約是五到七年前的兩倍。這一壓力促使麥肯錫公司CEO實踐部門的聯(lián)合負責(zé)人、頂級“CEO顧問”庫爾特·斯特羅文克 (Kurt Strovink) 和卡洛琳·杜瓦 (Carolyn Dewar) 兩位高級合伙人,對全球200位頂尖企業(yè)CEO展開了實證研究。
他們的新書《全能CEO:領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的四季修煉法則》剖析了成功擔(dān)任CEO所需的心態(tài)與方法——68%的在任CEO承認上任時感覺自己“準備不足”。而斯特羅文克、杜瓦及其合著者斯科特·凱勒 (Scott Keller) 和維克拉姆·馬爾霍特拉 (Vikram Malhotra) 的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),這些精英CEO擁有獨特的習(xí)慣:勇于挑戰(zhàn)自滿、倡導(dǎo)極致坦誠,并保持謙遜、持續(xù)學(xué)習(xí)。
杜瓦在接受《財富》雜志采訪時表示,書中研究的高績效領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者普遍具備“好奇心與學(xué)習(xí)型思維”,這一特質(zhì)在“幾乎每一次訪談”中都顯而易見,使他們脫穎而出。
斯特羅文克告訴《財富》雜志,頂尖領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會首先承認自己并非無所不知。“他們并非超人,而是學(xué)習(xí)速度更快、適應(yīng)能力更強,并且建立了體系……通過制度化的方法來抑制自身的過度行為,同時充分利用自己的優(yōu)勢和長處。”
摩根大通CEO杰米·戴蒙提出了一條尤為引人注目的高績效文化準則。據(jù)斯特羅文克轉(zhuǎn)述,戴蒙告訴他的團隊:“不要只展現(xiàn)最好的一面,要把最糟的一面也擺出來——把問題放到臺面上。”
杜瓦補充說,這并非鼓勵不良行為,而是倡導(dǎo)組織內(nèi)部的坦誠。這意味著“在事情進展不順時愿意分享……以便我們能夠解決問題。”
斯特羅文克進一步指出,這種程度的不適感是必要的,因為偉大的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者必須創(chuàng)造條件,促進“邊緣性思考、坦誠溝通以及信心的逐步建立……他們把問題擺在房間里,放到臺面上,并著手創(chuàng)造,而且是以他們自己真實的方式去做。”斯特羅文克說,優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者必須找到方法進行艱難的對話——這些對話在其他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者手下可能不會發(fā)生——“但又不會讓這些對話成為留下創(chuàng)傷的殘酷經(jīng)歷。”
現(xiàn)代領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力面臨的挑戰(zhàn)
斯特羅文克解釋說,為CEO提供咨詢雖然是麥肯錫近百年來的核心使命,但在幾年前成立的CEO實踐部門推動下,這項服務(wù)已提升到新的水平。這部分反映了“CEO的角色正變得越來越重要。”斯特羅文克補充道,我們生活在一個“人們正在貶低領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力,認為它是壞事,沒有人愿意被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的時代。但現(xiàn)實是,如果你被一位開明且做得好的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者領(lǐng)導(dǎo),這實際上是一件光榮的事情,在這個時代意義重大,甚至可能比以往任何時候都更重要。”
杜瓦則援引硬數(shù)據(jù),指出這本書和相關(guān)實踐在當(dāng)前至關(guān)重要,因為坦率地說,擔(dān)任CEO充滿挑戰(zhàn)。她提到了關(guān)于CEO任期不斷縮短的報道(部分見于《財富》雜志),“但事實證明,實際情況兩極分化嚴重。”她解釋說,30%的CEO任職過不了頭三年,而一旦跨過這個門檻,長期任職的幾率就會顯著增加。她指出,私募股權(quán)公司密切關(guān)注這一點,談?wù)揅EO頻繁更替的成本。“我們不希望人員頻繁變動。”杜瓦引用估算數(shù)據(jù)稱,在標普500指數(shù)成分股公司中,每年因CEO交接失敗而損失的價值高達1萬億美元。
斯特羅文克補充說,他們的研究確實為優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力賦予了量化指標。“我們研究的頂尖前20%的CEO,長期來看,為他們的公司、整體經(jīng)濟乃至世界創(chuàng)造了超乎比例的價值,”他闡述道,并補充說麥肯錫估計,這前20%的CEO創(chuàng)造的經(jīng)濟利潤是緊隨其后的60%CEO創(chuàng)造的經(jīng)濟利潤總和的30倍。他說,領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力——以及CEO人才——是“分布不均的”。
巴克萊銀行股東咨詢業(yè)務(wù)全球主管吉姆·羅斯曼數(shù)十年來一直在追蹤對沖基金針對上市公司的維權(quán)行動,包括CEO的變動。他在10月初發(fā)現(xiàn),由維權(quán)活動導(dǎo)致的CEO更替將在2025年創(chuàng)下紀錄,超過2024年的水平。他在接受《財富》雜志采訪時表示,這使得CEO的職位比以往任何時候都更加不穩(wěn)定。“感覺維權(quán)人士所做的,基本上是要求上市公司達到私募股權(quán)的標準,”他說,并且他們認為CEO“更像是一個運營者,而不是從內(nèi)部晉升上來的人。”
據(jù)羅斯曼稱,股東維權(quán)人士已成功將私募股權(quán)所有權(quán)的嚴格標準強加于上市公司,要求它們遵循專注于無情地最大化效率和價值的季度績效指標。這與歷史上將CEO視為“地方英雄”或“受人尊敬的人物”的觀點形成鮮明對比。羅斯曼說,維權(quán)人士意識到,他們不需要像私募股權(quán)公司那樣將公司私有化來推行這種觀點;他們只需購買一部分股份并游說董事會,就能使組織立即承受巨大的外部壓力。“我認為CEO的頻繁變動與私募股權(quán)模式在上市公司中的持續(xù)滲透直接相關(guān),”羅斯曼補充道。
羅斯曼指出,技術(shù)加速了這種對運營的關(guān)注,技術(shù)能提供公司相對于同行的即時業(yè)績信息;同時,指數(shù)基金所有權(quán)的集中化使得維權(quán)人士更容易在前十大股東中組織支持。因此,新的董事會——其自身也采用了更類似于私募股權(quán)的心態(tài)——具有高度的品牌意識,并能迅速更換表現(xiàn)不佳的高管。
杜瓦贊同這種思路,她說:“如果你考慮到經(jīng)濟中有多少部分正在轉(zhuǎn)向私募股權(quán)和私營公司,它們的流動率要高得多。”她最近分享了一個軼事,談到與一家私募股權(quán)公司董事會成員的對話,對方說領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層更替率達到71%對他們來說是平均水平。她補充說,這個核心問題正是她對領(lǐng)導(dǎo)CEO實踐部門如此熱情的原因:“我們?nèi)绾尾拍苷嬲?wù)于CEO、董事會和組織,幫助每個階段都順利進行?”
坦誠與不適感的力量
麥肯錫的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),要在這種高風(fēng)險環(huán)境中生存下來,頂尖的CEO適應(yīng)能力強,但不一定冷酷無情。他們通過秉持“好奇心和學(xué)習(xí)心態(tài)”并將不適感融入運營中而取得成功。
斯特羅文克和杜瓦再次提到了摩根大通的戴蒙,他掌握著在這種嚴酷環(huán)境中對抗自滿情緒的關(guān)鍵技巧。斯特羅文克指出,這位投資銀行負責(zé)人認為每個大型組織都有“休息”的傾向,這要求CEO不斷地“催化并推動它”。他補充說,大型組織的“社會學(xué)”意味著如果領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者自滿,事情就會變得漸進式發(fā)展。
這種主動營造的不適感是對外部壓力必要的內(nèi)部制衡。杜瓦指出,邁克爾·戴爾就是典范,他通過迫使團隊想象一個更了解他們客戶的攻擊者來對抗自滿,鼓勵他的公司“自我顛覆”。(她還指出,戴爾從19歲成為創(chuàng)始人CEO以來,一直在進行自我顛覆。)
杜瓦回憶起微軟CEO薩蒂亞·納德拉曾告訴她,CEO實踐部門之前的書《卓越CEO》提到了這份工作的孤獨感,源于一種“信息不對稱問題”,即他實際上無法與許多同事談?wù)撍赖氖虑椤K麄儫o法承受意識到這些。“在你的組織內(nèi)部或上級,比如你的董事會或投資者中,沒有其他人能看到你所看到的所有部分。”她說,她認為CEO擁有一些可信賴的顧問至關(guān)重要,可以算是某種“私人智囊團”。
歸根結(jié)底,這本書指出,在這個高度加速、受私募股權(quán)影響的時代,最成功的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者是那些能夠駕馭這一角色核心二元性的人:在信息不完整的情況下做出大膽、自信的決策,同時保持謙遜和持續(xù)學(xué)習(xí),以滿足無情的績效要求。
作者強調(diào),這本書的目標是“追溯領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者隨時間的成長過程”,包括為下一代鋪路的第四階段。財捷公司前CEO布拉德·史密斯被引用為傳承建設(shè)的非凡范例,他在11年間與董事會進行了44次繼任討論——每個季度一次。杜瓦說,史密斯“為他許多曾共事的人后來在其他地方成為CEO這一事實感到非常自豪”,并稱他為“某種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力發(fā)展的引擎。我認為作為一名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,這非常了不起,是他遺產(chǎn)的一部分。”
斯特羅文克說,有一個發(fā)現(xiàn)尤其讓他驚訝,可能還有些反直覺:至少對于書中描述的這200位領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者群體而言,作者沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)著名的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力“二年級低谷”。“至少對這個群體來說,他們沒有經(jīng)歷二年級低谷。隨著時間的推移,他們一直在持續(xù)進步。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
現(xiàn)代領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者面臨的管理環(huán)境正日趨復(fù)雜,如今CEO需要處理的事務(wù)量大約是五到七年前的兩倍。這一壓力促使麥肯錫公司CEO實踐部門的聯(lián)合負責(zé)人、頂級“CEO顧問”庫爾特·斯特羅文克 (Kurt Strovink) 和卡洛琳·杜瓦 (Carolyn Dewar) 兩位高級合伙人,對全球200位頂尖企業(yè)CEO展開了實證研究。
他們的新書《全能CEO:領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的四季修煉法則》剖析了成功擔(dān)任CEO所需的心態(tài)與方法——68%的在任CEO承認上任時感覺自己“準備不足”。而斯特羅文克、杜瓦及其合著者斯科特·凱勒 (Scott Keller) 和維克拉姆·馬爾霍特拉 (Vikram Malhotra) 的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),這些精英CEO擁有獨特的習(xí)慣:勇于挑戰(zhàn)自滿、倡導(dǎo)極致坦誠,并保持謙遜、持續(xù)學(xué)習(xí)。
杜瓦在接受《財富》雜志采訪時表示,書中研究的高績效領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者普遍具備“好奇心與學(xué)習(xí)型思維”,這一特質(zhì)在“幾乎每一次訪談”中都顯而易見,使他們脫穎而出。
斯特羅文克告訴《財富》雜志,頂尖領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會首先承認自己并非無所不知。“他們并非超人,而是學(xué)習(xí)速度更快、適應(yīng)能力更強,并且建立了體系……通過制度化的方法來抑制自身的過度行為,同時充分利用自己的優(yōu)勢和長處。”
摩根大通CEO杰米·戴蒙提出了一條尤為引人注目的高績效文化準則。據(jù)斯特羅文克轉(zhuǎn)述,戴蒙告訴他的團隊:“不要只展現(xiàn)最好的一面,要把最糟的一面也擺出來——把問題放到臺面上。”
杜瓦補充說,這并非鼓勵不良行為,而是倡導(dǎo)組織內(nèi)部的坦誠。這意味著“在事情進展不順時愿意分享……以便我們能夠解決問題。”
斯特羅文克進一步指出,這種程度的不適感是必要的,因為偉大的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者必須創(chuàng)造條件,促進“邊緣性思考、坦誠溝通以及信心的逐步建立……他們把問題擺在房間里,放到臺面上,并著手創(chuàng)造,而且是以他們自己真實的方式去做。”斯特羅文克說,優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者必須找到方法進行艱難的對話——這些對話在其他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者手下可能不會發(fā)生——“但又不會讓這些對話成為留下創(chuàng)傷的殘酷經(jīng)歷。”
現(xiàn)代領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力面臨的挑戰(zhàn)
斯特羅文克解釋說,為CEO提供咨詢雖然是麥肯錫近百年來的核心使命,但在幾年前成立的CEO實踐部門推動下,這項服務(wù)已提升到新的水平。這部分反映了“CEO的角色正變得越來越重要。”斯特羅文克補充道,我們生活在一個“人們正在貶低領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力,認為它是壞事,沒有人愿意被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的時代。但現(xiàn)實是,如果你被一位開明且做得好的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者領(lǐng)導(dǎo),這實際上是一件光榮的事情,在這個時代意義重大,甚至可能比以往任何時候都更重要。”
杜瓦則援引硬數(shù)據(jù),指出這本書和相關(guān)實踐在當(dāng)前至關(guān)重要,因為坦率地說,擔(dān)任CEO充滿挑戰(zhàn)。她提到了關(guān)于CEO任期不斷縮短的報道(部分見于《財富》雜志),“但事實證明,實際情況兩極分化嚴重。”她解釋說,30%的CEO任職過不了頭三年,而一旦跨過這個門檻,長期任職的幾率就會顯著增加。她指出,私募股權(quán)公司密切關(guān)注這一點,談?wù)揅EO頻繁更替的成本。“我們不希望人員頻繁變動。”杜瓦引用估算數(shù)據(jù)稱,在標普500指數(shù)成分股公司中,每年因CEO交接失敗而損失的價值高達1萬億美元。
斯特羅文克補充說,他們的研究確實為優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力賦予了量化指標。“我們研究的頂尖前20%的CEO,長期來看,為他們的公司、整體經(jīng)濟乃至世界創(chuàng)造了超乎比例的價值,”他闡述道,并補充說麥肯錫估計,這前20%的CEO創(chuàng)造的經(jīng)濟利潤是緊隨其后的60%CEO創(chuàng)造的經(jīng)濟利潤總和的30倍。他說,領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力——以及CEO人才——是“分布不均的”。
巴克萊銀行股東咨詢業(yè)務(wù)全球主管吉姆·羅斯曼數(shù)十年來一直在追蹤對沖基金針對上市公司的維權(quán)行動,包括CEO的變動。他在10月初發(fā)現(xiàn),由維權(quán)活動導(dǎo)致的CEO更替將在2025年創(chuàng)下紀錄,超過2024年的水平。他在接受《財富》雜志采訪時表示,這使得CEO的職位比以往任何時候都更加不穩(wěn)定。“感覺維權(quán)人士所做的,基本上是要求上市公司達到私募股權(quán)的標準,”他說,并且他們認為CEO“更像是一個運營者,而不是從內(nèi)部晉升上來的人。”
據(jù)羅斯曼稱,股東維權(quán)人士已成功將私募股權(quán)所有權(quán)的嚴格標準強加于上市公司,要求它們遵循專注于無情地最大化效率和價值的季度績效指標。這與歷史上將CEO視為“地方英雄”或“受人尊敬的人物”的觀點形成鮮明對比。羅斯曼說,維權(quán)人士意識到,他們不需要像私募股權(quán)公司那樣將公司私有化來推行這種觀點;他們只需購買一部分股份并游說董事會,就能使組織立即承受巨大的外部壓力。“我認為CEO的頻繁變動與私募股權(quán)模式在上市公司中的持續(xù)滲透直接相關(guān),”羅斯曼補充道。
羅斯曼指出,技術(shù)加速了這種對運營的關(guān)注,技術(shù)能提供公司相對于同行的即時業(yè)績信息;同時,指數(shù)基金所有權(quán)的集中化使得維權(quán)人士更容易在前十大股東中組織支持。因此,新的董事會——其自身也采用了更類似于私募股權(quán)的心態(tài)——具有高度的品牌意識,并能迅速更換表現(xiàn)不佳的高管。
杜瓦贊同這種思路,她說:“如果你考慮到經(jīng)濟中有多少部分正在轉(zhuǎn)向私募股權(quán)和私營公司,它們的流動率要高得多。”她最近分享了一個軼事,談到與一家私募股權(quán)公司董事會成員的對話,對方說領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層更替率達到71%對他們來說是平均水平。她補充說,這個核心問題正是她對領(lǐng)導(dǎo)CEO實踐部門如此熱情的原因:“我們?nèi)绾尾拍苷嬲?wù)于CEO、董事會和組織,幫助每個階段都順利進行?”
坦誠與不適感的力量
麥肯錫的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),要在這種高風(fēng)險環(huán)境中生存下來,頂尖的CEO適應(yīng)能力強,但不一定冷酷無情。他們通過秉持“好奇心和學(xué)習(xí)心態(tài)”并將不適感融入運營中而取得成功。
斯特羅文克和杜瓦再次提到了摩根大通的戴蒙,他掌握著在這種嚴酷環(huán)境中對抗自滿情緒的關(guān)鍵技巧。斯特羅文克指出,這位投資銀行負責(zé)人認為每個大型組織都有“休息”的傾向,這要求CEO不斷地“催化并推動它”。他補充說,大型組織的“社會學(xué)”意味著如果領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者自滿,事情就會變得漸進式發(fā)展。
這種主動營造的不適感是對外部壓力必要的內(nèi)部制衡。杜瓦指出,邁克爾·戴爾就是典范,他通過迫使團隊想象一個更了解他們客戶的攻擊者來對抗自滿,鼓勵他的公司“自我顛覆”。(她還指出,戴爾從19歲成為創(chuàng)始人CEO以來,一直在進行自我顛覆。)
杜瓦回憶起微軟CEO薩蒂亞·納德拉曾告訴她,CEO實踐部門之前的書《卓越CEO》提到了這份工作的孤獨感,源于一種“信息不對稱問題”,即他實際上無法與許多同事談?wù)撍赖氖虑椤K麄儫o法承受意識到這些。“在你的組織內(nèi)部或上級,比如你的董事會或投資者中,沒有其他人能看到你所看到的所有部分。”她說,她認為CEO擁有一些可信賴的顧問至關(guān)重要,可以算是某種“私人智囊團”。
歸根結(jié)底,這本書指出,在這個高度加速、受私募股權(quán)影響的時代,最成功的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者是那些能夠駕馭這一角色核心二元性的人:在信息不完整的情況下做出大膽、自信的決策,同時保持謙遜和持續(xù)學(xué)習(xí),以滿足無情的績效要求。
作者強調(diào),這本書的目標是“追溯領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者隨時間的成長過程”,包括為下一代鋪路的第四階段。財捷公司前CEO布拉德·史密斯被引用為傳承建設(shè)的非凡范例,他在11年間與董事會進行了44次繼任討論——每個季度一次。杜瓦說,史密斯“為他許多曾共事的人后來在其他地方成為CEO這一事實感到非常自豪”,并稱他為“某種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力發(fā)展的引擎。我認為作為一名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,這非常了不起,是他遺產(chǎn)的一部分。”
斯特羅文克說,有一個發(fā)現(xiàn)尤其讓他驚訝,可能還有些反直覺:至少對于書中描述的這200位領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者群體而言,作者沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)著名的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力“二年級低谷”。“至少對這個群體來說,他們沒有經(jīng)歷二年級低谷。隨著時間的推移,他們一直在持續(xù)進步。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
The modern leader faces a leadership environment that is rapidly growing in complexity, grappling with roughly twice as many issues on a CEO's desk as just five to seven years ago. This pressure has driven senior partners Kurt Strovink and Carolyn Dewar, co-leaders of McKinsey & Company's CEO Practice—the firm's top “CEO whisperers”—to empirically study the world's top 200 corporate chiefs.
Their new book, A CEO for All Seasons, breaks down the mindsets and methods required to succeed in a role that 68% of incumbent CEOs admitted they felt “ill-prepared” for when they stepped into the shoes. While the research conducted by Strovink, Dewar, and co-authors Scott Keller and Vikram Malhotra found that these elite performers possess unique habits for challenging complacency, fostering brutal candor, and staying humble enough to keep learning.
The high-performing leaders studied in the book distinguish themselves through a pervasive “curiosity and learning mindset,” which came through in “almost every interview,” Dewar said in an interview with Fortune.
The top leaders are the first to admit they don't know everything, Strovink told Fortune. “It wasn't that they were superhuman. It's that they learned faster, they were more adaptable and they had structures ... institutionalized methods for being able to neutralize their excesses and capitalize on their strength and edge.”
One of the most striking mandates for high-performance culture came from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. As Strovink related it, Dimon tells his teams: “don't bring your best self, bring your worst self—put the problems on the table.”
Dewar added that this isn't meant to encourage bad behavior, but rather organizational candor. It means being “willing to share when things aren't going well ... so we can fix it.”
Strovink added that this level of discomfort is necessary, as great leaders must create conditions for “edge thinking, for candor and for confidence building over time ... they put it in the room, they put it on the table and they create, and they do it in their own authentic styles.” Strovink said that good leaders have to find a way to have tough conversations that maybe wouldn't happen under another leader, “but not have those be scarring, brutalizing experiences.”
The challenges of modern leadership
Strovink explained that advising CEOs, while a core of McKinsey's mission stretching back nearly 100 years, has reached a new level under the CEO Practice, founded several years ago. This was partly a reflection “that the role of the CEO is becoming more and more important.” We live in an era, Strovink added, “where people are pulling down leadership and saying it's a bad thing and nobody wants to be led. But the reality is if you're led by an enlightened leader who's doing it well, it's actually a glorious thing that's so relevant in this generation, maybe even more important than ever.”
Dewar turned to hard data, arguing that the book and the practice are both vital now because it's frankly challenging to be a CEO. She alluded to the reporting (some of it in the pages of?Fortune) about the ever-shortening tenure of the CEO, “but it turns out it's actually quite bifurcated.” She explained that 30% of CEOs don't make it past the first three years, and the odds of a long tenure rise significantly once that threshold is passed. She noted that private equity looks closely at this, talking about the cost of churn for a CEO. “We don't want people churning.” Dewar cited estimates that in the S&P 500, $1 trillion in value is destroyed each year due to failed CEO transitions.
Strovink added that their research really has put a number on good leadership. The top quintile CEOs that we've studied, over time, create disproportionate value for their companies, for economies as a whole, for the world,“ he argued, adding that McKinsey estimates that the top quintile generates 30x the economic profit of the next three quintiles combined. Leadership—and CEO talent—is ”unevenly distributed,“ he said.
Jim Rossman of Barclays, global head of shareholder advisory, has been tracking hedge-fund activist campaigns against publicly traded companies for decades, including CEO churn. He found in early October that CEO turnover resulting from activist campaigns was set to hit a record in 2025, exceeding the 2024 record. He told Fortune in an interview that this was making the CEO role more tenuous than ever before. ”It feels like what activists have done is basically [to hold] public companies to the standards of private equity,“ he said, and they view the CEO ”more as an operator, not somebody who's risen through the ranks.“
Shareholder activists have successfully enforced the strict standards of private equity ownership onto public companies, according to Rossman, holding them to quarterly performance measures focused relentlessly on maximizing efficiency and value. This contrasts sharply with the historical view of a CEO as a ”local hero“ or ”revered figure.“ Activists realized they didn't need to take a company private the way a private-equity firm would to enforce this view, Rossman said; they could simply buy a stake and lobby the board, making the organization instantly subject to immense external pressure. ”I think the CEO [churn] is directly linked to the ongoing infiltration of the private equity model in the public companies,“ Rossman added.
Rossman noted that this operational focus is accelerated by technology, which provides instant information on a company's performance relative to peers, and by the consolidation of ownership among index funds, making it easier for activists to organize support among the top ten shareholders. Consequently, new boards—themselves adopting a more private-equity-like mentality—are highly brand-conscious and quick to replace underperforming executives.
Dewar agreed with this line of thinking, saying, ”if you think about how much of the economy is shifting to private equity and privately held companies, their churn rate is much higher.“ She recently shared an anecdote about talking to a board member at a private equity firm, who said that 71% churn was average for them in terms of leadership turnover. This central question is why she is so passionate about leading the CEO Practice, she added: ”how do we actually serve CEOs and boards and organizations to help each of those stages go well?“
Power of candor and discomfort
To survive in this high-stakes environment, McKinsey's research found that top CEOs are adaptable, not necessarily ruthless. They succeed by embracing a ”curiosity and learning mindset“ and structuring discomfort into their operations.
Strovink and Dewar referred again to JPMorgan's Dimon, who has a crucial technique for combating complacency in this relentless environment. The investment bank chief believes that every large organization has a tendency to ”rest,“ Strovink noted, and this requires the CEO to constantly be ”catalyzing it and pushing it.“ The ”sociology of large organizations“ means things turn incremental if a leader is complacent, he added.
This proactive discomfort is the necessary internal counterbalance to the external pressure. Michael Dell exemplifies it, Dewar noted, who fought complacency by forcing his team to imagine an attacker who understood their customers better, encouraging his company to ”disrupt ourselves.“ (She also noted that Dell has been disrupting himself since becoming a founder CEO at age 19.)
Dewar recalled how Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told her the CEO Practice's previous book, CEO Excellence, about the loneliness of the job, stemming from an ”information asymmetry problem“ in which he literally cannot talk to many of his colleagues about what he knows. They can't afford to realize it. ”No one else in your organization or above you, like your board or your investors, see all the pieces you see.“ She said she thinks it's vital for CEOs to have some trusted advisors, ”a kitchen cabinet“ of sorts.
Ultimately, the book suggests that the most successful leaders in this highly accelerated, private-equity-influenced era are those who can navigate the core duality of the role: making bold, confident decisions with incomplete information while sustaining the humility and constant learning required to meet relentless performance demands.
The authors emphasize that the goal of the book is to trace the ”development of leaders through time,“ including the fourth season, which sets up the next generation. Brad Smith, the former CEO of Intuit, was cited as an extraordinary example of legacy building, having had succession discussions with his board 44 times over 11 years—every single quarter. Smith is ”really proud of the fact that many people who worked with him went on to be CEOs other places,“ Dewar said, calling him a ”sort of engine of leadership development. And I think that's really remarkable as a leader, as part of his legacy.“
Strovink said he was particularly surprised by one, maybe counterintuitive finding: at least for the population of 200 leaders profiled in the book, the authors did not find the famous ”sophomore slump“ in leadership. ”At least for this group, they didn't have a sophomore slump. They were consistently getting better over time.“