Avon recently announced that CEO Andrea Jung would be stepping down, but remaining at the firm as Executive Chairman. The firm announced that a search for a new CEO would commence immediately. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that two former Avon CEOs (including Jung's mentor and predecessor) have criticized the decision to have Jung remain as Executive Chairman for at least two years. According to the Wall Street Journal,
Former Avon CEO James Preston, once one of Ms. Jung's closest
mentors, took the unusual step of writing a letter to the board two days
after the shake-up. He criticized Ms. Jung's leadership, stressed that
departing CEOs should step aside and called on the board to replace her
with someone with deep experience in the direct-selling world. "I have long held the belief that once a CEO leaves that position, he
or she should make a 'clean break' and not question or second-guess the
actions of his successor," wrote Mr. Preston, who ran Avon from 1989 to
1998, in the letter, dated Dec. 15, that was reviewed by The Wall
Street Journal. "I have held true to that belief, even though in recent
years I have become increasingly concerned—and saddened—by the declining
fortunes of the company."
I found the Avon decision puzzling as well. I wonder whether the decision will make it very difficult for Avon to find a top quality CEO. What executive would want to take the job, knowing that the former CEO would be looking over their shoulder for the next two years? It's particularly problematic, given that Avon has struggled lately. Big changes will have to be made. Will Jung prevent some of that change from occurring as fast as it should?
The Board now has a major problem. The fact that Preston's letter has become public puts pressure on the directors to clarify and justify their rationale for keeping Jung as executive chairman for two years. They cannot ignore this issue. They'll have to address it, or they jeopardize their ability to find a high quality CEO. Moreover, a lack of response will raise more questions about the efficacy of corporate governance at the firm. That could hurt the share price, as investors may be leery of investing in the company if they perceive governance to be weak.