| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Slate has an article about the succession planning and how it is bad news if the child of the CEO takes over. From the article:
Posted by jack at August 23, 2006 3:36 PM | TrackBack
The question of how installing the boss's kid as CEO affects firms' performance is actually quite hard to answer. An initial step is to look at how a company's performance changes after a CEO succession, comparing firms with scion CEOs with those in which executive power passes outside the family. The authors of the new study do this, and they show that in a sample of 5,000 Danish firms from 1994 to 2002, firm performance (measured by the ratio of operating income to assets) improved only after a nonrelative took over. The ratio of operating income to assets averaged 3.3 percent in their sample—for a firm with a million dollars in assets, that puts annual operating income at $33,000. Company performance improved 1.3 percentage points ($13,000 in annual income per million in assets) after the succession of outside-the-family CEOs. And it declined 0.1 percentage points ($1,000 in annual income per million in assets) when scion CEOs were chosen.
Hi, interesting point and something all family-owned businesses should take note of (our company focuses on industries where just about 100% are "fob"s so we see alot of this...) I just happened to post an interview I did with an expert on family-owned businesses, where we discuss succession and management issues, I think you might find it of note... http://www.thelightisgreen.com/2006/08/why_can_a_famil.html
Posted by: Al McClymont at August 24, 2006 12:04 PM