The current moves are a necessary cleaning out of past problems and decisions not taken, short tenures for CEO's are not necessarily the answer, however. While the Board needs the possibility of making a change if they see that things not working out, and they should not shirk this decision making responsibility, short-termism is also negative and the CEO needs to be given the time to elaborate and implement his/her strategy, and be judged accordingly.
OAM
See article:
With forced turnover up 300 percent since 1995, business has entered the era of the short-term chief.
That giant sucking sound heard in the business world during 2004 was the extraction of chief executives from seats of power. Dissatisfied shareholders removed Richard Shirrefs from Eurotunnel in April. Coca-Cola Company, wracked by managerial turmoil and a declining stock price, replaced Douglas Daft in June. A board struggle at the European Internet service provider T-Online ended in September with the resignation of chief executive Thomas Holtrop. In December, Franklin Raines was fired from the American mortgage insurance company Fannie Mae in the midst of an accounting scandal. Since then, of course, the rapid pace of CEO departures has continued. The first quarter of 2005 brought headline-generating forced successions at Disney, Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, and AIG, linked to shareholder dissatisfaction, scandal, or both. These episodes, along with dozens of others, are prompting scholars, consultants, the business media — and, naturally, executives and directors themselves — to ask whether we have reached a tipping point, in which power in the corporation is permanently shifting away from chief executives.
See full Article and the Report, in pdf format.
Posts
