BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
1 FEB 2022
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
27 FEB 2022
Does leadership affect a company's performance? K.Kumar, Partner & Industries Leader, Deloitte, shares insights from Deloitte's study on the significance of the CEO’s role in influencing company performance. Deloitte conducted a study of a select few Nifty 50 companies ﴾as listed on June 2021﴿ that experienced CEO transitions over the past 1.5 decades since 2005.
E
very
organization
leadership
not quite fit in, like public sector companies that do
transitions in its lifetime, each of which can
not have the same objectives as private CEOs have. We
have
also had one or two companies that did not have CEO
far-reaching
undergoes implications
for
the
company’s business and financial performance. Deloitte
changes at all. We eliminated that.
researched select few Nifty 50 companies that experienced CEO transitions over the past 15 years to understand just how significant a relationship between leadership change and company performance is and what sets the outperforming leaders apart. The research indicated the vital role boards play in selecting the right candidate, managing the change, and laying the groundwork for new leaders.
We also looked at CEO tenure of at least three years. The hypothesis that we had was that it takes three years for a CEO to demonstrate performance. After we eliminated all of that, we had 49 CEO transitions and 25 companies fitted into our definition. We
broadly
broke
them
into
services
manufacturing. In Services, we included everything
We researched Nifty 50 companies for the period from 2005 to 2020. We deliberately stopped it before
When we drilled down further,
the pandemic as everything changed with the pandemic
we were able to see that 80% of
setting in. The study did not require us to have this
the CEO transitions were in
year's data but the track record of companies and CEOs
some sense planned. Therefore,
over longer periods of time. Therefore, stopping at 2020 was not a big issue for us.
28
companies, by and large, had time for succession.
We also looked at eliminating companies that did
FEB 2022
and
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
from Banks to IT services to Telecom and, in manufacturing, everything from consumer business to chemicals and so on. CEO transitions that took place in the last 15 years
observation was the top
happened due to the below four main reasons:
companies in India seems to
• CEO Retired / Contract expired (43%)
place a lot of premium on
• Resignation / Removed (20%)
experience and age profile.
• Transferred / Promoted (23%) • Promoter
stepped
down
and
One very interesting
brought
a
professional CEO (14%)
In our entire sample set of 49 CEOs, there were only three women CEOs, indicating the need for diversity and inclusion. That should concern us and we have to do something about that. When we drilled down further, we were able to see that 80% of the CEO transitions were in some sense planned. Therefore, companies, by and large, had time for succession.
if there was a causal effect. This is a topic we'll pick up another time.
Age and Experience Matter One very interesting observation was the top companies in India seems to place a lot of premium on experience and age profile. (See Fig 9 of the report) The median age of new CEO in the manufacturing industries
Global Events
is about 56 years and of service CEOs is about 49 years.
There seems to be a tendency to have CEO transitions
immediately
after
global
events—for
example, in 2009 on the back of the global financial crisis; in 2013, when we saw the taper tantrum and, in 2016, the election noise that came out of the US, Brexit and so on. We did not try and take those events to see
This is India specific and sort of counterintuitive. This is not happening around the world. We somehow think that youngsters are becoming CEOs. It's probably not the case in India. Parag Agarwal would not have made it to the CEO had he looked for a job. He wisely stayed with his company and made it big.
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
29 FEB 2022
Two relatively young individuals who are 40 to 44 that made it to the CEOs were not from service companies but from the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies.
Two, it reflects in the performance of the company, the quality of governance and their ability to set expectations. Since we compared companies across multiple sectors, we did not just look at the percentage increase
Tenure
in stock prices. We took four measures of performance:
We also looked at how much tenures the companies
1. Relative to Respective Index: An increase in
give their CEOs. About 50% of the CEOs have less than
stock prices is always going to be measured
five years. If you add CEOs who have had much shorter
with reference to the industry index. You can
tenures, it's almost 61- 62 percent, where the tenure is
have a banking company growing at 12% in
about five years or far less. In fact, this is being skewed
premium. But if the banking index is growing
a little bit by banking, which gives fairly long innings
at
to their CEOs. IT gives the shortest tenures. One can
underperforming. But a chemical company
understand manufacturing CEO tenures are short
growing at 6% would be an outperformer if
simply because they get into their jobs when they are
the relative index is growing at 5%.
near 56. (See Fig 6 of the report)
13%,
they
would
be
seen
as
2.By what percentage is the incumbent CEO
We left the demographics out of the way. Let us
performing better? We can have a CEO who is
now look at how the CEOs performed. We looked at
performing very well, but I would call him an
stock performance as the indicator of performance for
outperformer if he or she is able to perform
two reasons. One, everybody understands this and it is
better than his predecessor. So by what
fairly transparent, at least for the Nifty 50 companies.
percentage is the incumbent CEO performing
30
FEB 2022
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
What also came out as a bit of a shock was that 80% of the time, a CEO who succeeded one who was sacked or who resigned, ended up being a laggard or a modest performer.
better than the predecessor was the second parameter that we tried to track.
Modest performers do not necessarily erode value. They add some premium but, in comparison with the
3.Premium over the Index: How much of
first two categories, they were not generating that kind
premium am I able to deliver over and above
of a premium growth. That's really why we ended up
the index? If the index is at 10%, if I am able to
having four groups of CEOs.
deliver a premium of 40%, I would be considered a better performer than someone who delivers only a 10% -12% premium over the index.
delivering the premium? We did not want a situation where a CEO performs and delivers high premium in year one and nothing in year two, average in year three and so on. We eliminated that concentration bias by adding a weight to consistency in performance.
laggards. They underperformed the index or the predecessor or they were not able to consistently perform or they were not able to add sufficient premium. Leaving out laggards, the others were able to build a premium from something like -0.67 to close to 12% but if you look at the high performer and stalwart
Four Clusters of CEOs
groups, they were able to build a performance of up to
We ended up getting four clusters and called them: • Stalwart CEOs or really high performing CEOs
• Laggard CEOs
tended to be high performers or stalwarts. They were rest. Roughly half of them, 45 percent of the CEOs were
The last measure was how consistently am I
• Modest performing CEOs
Out of the 49 CEOs that we looked at, 12 of them able to add significant amount of performance over the
Consistency
• High performer CEOs
How did they look like? (See Fig 8 of the report).
22%, which is roughly twice that of what the average peer group is able to do. Therefore, you can have a situation where irrespective of the industry, you can have CEOs performing at much higher levels than their peer group.
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
31 FEB 2022
High‐performing CEOs tend to peak much later in their careers. Stalwarts tend to peak in 4.6 years and they tend to grow their share price for 4.8 eight years.
That is an important lesson. We broke this down even
performers 3.5 years. 84% of the CEOs came from
further to see what causes high performance with the
within the organisation. All the stalwarts came from
CEOs.
within. This is not to suggest that outsiders cannot be successful CEOs but it's an interesting fact. Should
Shocking Reality
CEOs come from within or without, should they be aged
What also came out as a bit of a shock was that 80% of the time, a CEO who succeeded one who was sacked or who resigned, ended up being a laggard or a modest
or young are contentious topics.
How Do They Peak?
performer. It was funny and therefore, we started
High-performing CEOs tend to peak much later in
looking at what role did the company and the board
their careers. Stalwarts tend to peak in 4.6 years and
have in setting up these CEOs for success.
they tend to grow their share price for 4.8 eight years.
We had about 12 high performers or outperformers who can substantially better the industry and peer group in terms of the premium and the shareholder reward that they can generate. It is interesting that high performers tended to be of a slightly older age profile.
It's not as if they did not perform better than the peer group. In the beginning, they were performing better than the peer group in any case, but they continue to perform at a much higher level, for a much longer time. Their tenure tended to be about six years or so.
I have nothing against young or old and I'm not
Out of the six years, for about five years, they tend
suggesting that this is how we should do things in the
to have increasingly high performance, on a year-on-
future. We seem to have a tendency to look at slightly
year basis, which is fantastic. If you look at the
more experienced ones, like the older people.
laggards, they tend to peak in six months’ time. They
The other thing that we noticed was that high performers tend to have a much longer tenure. Stalwarts tend to be CEOs for 6.5 years and modest 32
FEB 2022
come in and outperform the industry. Even if they underperform, that underperformance peaks in six months’ time after which, they either flat out or get
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
into decline. The modest performers tend to peak out
succeeding CEO. What we found out was the succeeding
in two years and they are able to increase share prices
CEOs or the new CEOs are able to do two things. One,
for about a year and eight months or so, whereas the
they not only focus on internal efficiencies and cost
laggards are able to increase their share prices for 2.6
cutting and things like that. They are able to, even in
years. Boards get impatient when share prices do not
the first year, focus on things like premiumisation.
increase.
They are able to think about scale, market growth and
The CEO being an outstanding performer has a huge impact for the shareholders because they not only outperform but outperform for long periods of time, increasing shareholder value.
overseas expansion. So, not being single dimensional, but being able to address both internal efficiencies and external market customers is a big advantage. The second thing which came out very clearly was that many of the topics that we saw in the previous
Differentiators
CEO's tenure and the new CEO's tenure happened to be
What differentiates between the outperforming
common, which means the successful CEOs are able to
CEOs and others? We looked at the management
take forward some of the best things that worked with
discussions of the stalwart companies and the high
the previous CEO.
performing companies to see if there are consistent messages coming out in the management discussions during the previous CEO's tenure and the succeeding CEO's tenure, particularly with reference to the
There is a tendency of some CEOs to come and sweep the table clean and then bring in new ideas, whereas the best performing CEOs are able to identify and take forward what worked in the past. In that
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence
33 FEB 2022
sense, they are able to hit the ground running. There is
you can have a CEO peaking in five years or
tremendous amount of continuity and the fact that
towards the end of the tenure. It becomes the
many of them also happen to be insiders seem to help
job of the board to ensure that they set clear
this. It tells us that good CEOs do not require a lot of
time frames and performance expectations to
startup time.
the CEO. You can pressurize the CEO to perform in a very short time. He or she will
They are not overly focused on the margins. They
probably do that; but you probably are in
are able to look at leveraging return on equity and
danger of being left with a laggard, who will
marketplace performance. It is not just a P&L
never be able to perform on a growing basis,
performance that they focus on, but also on the broader
over the rest of his or her tenure. Therefore
health of the balance sheet.
how the board is able to set the CEO for
Takeaways for the Boards
success is very important in ensuring smooth transition or building a strong pipeline.
• Look at how strong your leadership is. It is not just identifying an individual. How are you
• The amount of premium that companies were
preparing this individual to be a successful
able to build when they had more than two
CEO? Many boards do not think of this as
CEO transitions was half of the premium that
their primary task but we recently presented
the companies were able to build when they
this to a bunch of very senior independent
had only two transitions. Therefore, even a
directors and chairs of boards. They said that
single extra CEO transition brings down your
they consider being responsible for the
ability
leadership pipeline is the most important
Therefore the submission to the boards would
thing in their world. If you do not have a
be: don't get trigger-happy. Give the CEO the
process of developing your future leaders,
opportunity, set the right expectations and
then you are making a big mistake.
right time frames. The more frequent changes
to
build
marketplace
you make, the lesser is their ability to
• People do not well understand how boards can
generate shareholder value.
help CEOs transition into their roles very smoothly, particularly when you have CEOs
• It seems like the CEO transitions peak when
who come from outside. The best CEOs are
there is a global event. The boards must
able to win because they are able to ensure
ensure that these events are factored into the
continuity of strategies and policies. If you do
performance expectations of CEOs.
not, as a board, help CEOs transition, help
• Finally, the picture of women CEOs is very
him or her with understanding of what has
bleak. We see only 3 out of 49 as women CEOs
worked well in the past and not allow things
even in top 50 Nifty companies. Boards must
to change every three years in an abrupt
work seriously to change this scenario to
fashion, then you can have a CEO who can
ensure diversity and inclusion.
deliver high value to the shareholders. • You can have a CEO peaking in six months or 34
FEB 2022
premium.
Click here to download the full report.
BUSINESS MANDATE
fountainhead of excellence