Sometimes, CEO succession goes horribly wrong, and that’s very often public. We see the failings of the CEO selected and think, as they fire them, “How could they get this so wrong?” That’s convenient Monday morning quarterbacking, because the reality is that it is very tricky, and no one (except maybe search firms) gets a lot of practice at it. Some of those that made it less than two years: Hein Schumacher (Unilever), Michael Conway (Starbucks), Ted Christie (Spirit Airlines), Pat Gelsinger (Intel), and finally, Kohl’s Ashley Buchanan, who only lasted 100 days. A PwC study found that $112 billion in shareholder value is lost annually because companies pick the wrong people to lead them.
I recently went to Philly (or Philadelphia, PA if you’re proper) to attend a discussion on CEO succession hosted by the National Association of Corporate Directors at the brand new KPMG offices. I didn’t take a picture at the event, so you just get my picture of Philly.
On the panel included CEO, Spirovant Sciences, Dr. Joan Lau; Consultant at Egon Zehnder, Jeremy Lisnoff; Chairman and former CEO of J.G. Wentworth, David Miller; and retired Philadelphia Office Managing Partner, KPMG, Frank Mattei. This was a fantastic program and the reason I value my NACD membership, and while I won’t summarize the entire discussion, I do have some important reflections worth sharing.
We may be undervaluing internal candidates, and overvaluing external “superheros”
CEOs have in the past been considered superheroes in a way that they are good at everything. But that’s rarely true, or sufficient. Some may be more of a people leader, some more business execution, and others great strategists. But you’re not likely to get the superhero, and even if you could, it still doesn’t mean they’re a good fit and the right individual for the job. As Gallup has stated: “The great leaders we’ve studied are not well-rounded individuals. They have not become world-class leaders by being average or above-average in different aspects of leadership. They’ve become world-class in a relatively limited number of areas of leadership.”
An absolutely amazing stat for me is that the average tenure of an internal candidate CEO is 6.7 years, and for an external hire is 3.7 years. Sure, there are circumstances that skew some of that data, but just on the surface, it’s a powerful stat that suggests internal candidates should be given major consideration.
If you were already supporting the current CEO, who do you think was the mentor of that internal candidate? If you want stability and consistency, at least for some of the most important things like culture, then an internal candidate can be a great choice, IF you are supporting and developing them correctly (more on that later).
That doesn’t mean putting the “heir apparent” tag on someone as that has lots of complicated consequences. For example, you are starting a clock under which that individual will expect to be elevated. Don’t make promises that you can’t, or won’t, keep. On top of that, the CEO can start to look like a lame duck, or at least less engaged, as the heir apparently begins to throw their new weight around.
Egon Zehnder finds that the #1 predictor of success in the CEO role is an extraordinary curiosity about themselves and the world around them. That doesn’t surprise me, and it’s how you future-proof around a strategy, or competitive environment, or crisis that you can’t predict. By developing potential internal candidates, you can certainly test for that extraordinary curiosity.
Finally, remember that not everyone who looks like a candidate is a candidate. Someone might be a candidate at age 55, but by 57 they are starting to think differently about their life. Circumstances change. Motivations change. Have conversations without making promises, because if you assume too much, you will likely make mistakes.
CEO succession isn’t a process but a “constellation of activities”
Said another way, if your CEO announces their retirement or departure and then you begin a search for a new candidate, you are certainly doing it wrong.
As just indicated, internal candidates are fantastic choices if your development of senior-level positions is “always on.” In my opinion, at senior levels, you are either exploiting existing talent or developing future talent.
But we also have to be aware that we are asking boards of directors to exercise a rarely used muscle and do it flawlessly. Boards should not have a lot of experience replacing CEOS, and if they do, something is likely wrong. Of course, they have experience and judgement, but that doesn’t mean they’ve practiced applying it to this particular decision. Go around the table and ask how many have actually done this before.
Once you do, you need to be developing a profile for the CEO rather than a job description (since that job description is “you’re accountable for everything”). This is one of those moments where it’s extremely valuable to get input independently from each of the board members and then compile, and debate, and debate further, that input. Heindrick and Struggles states: “The development and assessment process starts with creating the future CEO profile, which the board should develop in conjunction with the current CEO. The profile is based on the company’s strategy and defines the crucial CEO skills and attributes for the next phase of company growth.”
Part of those sets of activities is being prepared for the “hit by bus” scenario, although these days it seems more likely a “went to a Coldplay concert” scenario. Who will take over in a pinch? Knowing that someone is ONLY an interim candidate, versus an interim-to-permanent candidate, is important, because it very quickly changes the process. At the very least, whoever took over as interim should not also be on point for the replacement search.
As part of these processes, be prepared for a more-than-thorough background check. It’s amazing when a CEO is fired for ethical lapses, how many employees say out loud: “I can’t believe it took them this long,” because it seemed like everyone knew. You know that your employees are starting their own background check the moment an announcement is made.
Your next CEO hire is vital and hard. Get the best help you can, be rigorous, take it seriously, and once you make it, do everything possible to ensure it is successful.
The Culture of Problem Solving: How Leaders Shape Success
Section 5 from the People Solve Problems Book
The Culture of Problem Solving: How Leaders Shape Success
A strong culture doesn’t just solve problems—it prevents them.
A problem-solving culture isn’t built on processes alone—it’s built on behaviors. Key Behaviors of a Problem-Solving Culture explores the role leaders play in shaping environments where critical thinking thrives. From leading by example to architecting systems that support continuous learning, this series uncovers the essentials of building a culture where solving problems is second nature.
Building Trust and Testing to Learn with Moe Rinkunas, Rock Health Advisory
 |
 |
 |
In this episode of People Solve Problems, host Jamie Flinchbaugh speaks with Maureen (Moe) Rinkunas, Director of Insights Membership at Rock Health Advisory. Moe brings over 20 years of experience spanning corporate innovation, venture studios, and advisory leadership at organizations including DuPont, Accenture, Dreamit Ventures, and Redesign Health.
Moe opens the conversation by sharing her fundamental belief that everyone possesses problem-solving capabilities, shaped by evolution itself. However, she emphasizes that people bring different strengths to the table. When working with teams, she takes time to understand individual styles and leverages them strategically throughout the innovation process. Moe explains how naturally optimistic team members excel at generating ideas and maintaining energy during brainstorming sessions, while more skeptical individuals prove invaluable when narrowing options and making final decisions. By understanding these diverse strengths, she creates environments where different personalities contribute at the right moments.
The conversation shifts to collaboration and the messy nature of innovation work. Moe stresses that psychological safety forms the foundation of effective problem-solving. She explains that trust must be built over time, creating a reserve that teams can draw upon when facing uncomfortable challenges. She shares a powerful example from her time at DuPont, where leaders instituted a “Dead Project Day” on the Day of the Dead, encouraging people at all levels to share their failures. Initially met with skepticism, this practice became an annual tradition that normalized risk-taking and built lasting trust within the organization.
When discussing innovation leadership, Moe introduces the concept of leaders as snowplows. She describes how innovation leaders must clear paths for their teams by navigating organizational politics, communicating effectively with senior leadership, and helping others understand that innovative projects require different metrics and timelines than traditional initiatives. This protective role helps create safe spaces where teams can do their best work, even when external pressures threaten psychological safety.
Moe advocates strongly for test-and-learn approaches in innovation work. She emphasizes developing minimal viable solutions paired with “what must be true” statements that guide testing priorities. Her teams create learning plans with clear testing commitments, specific metrics, and defined timeframes. Moe suggests framing decisions around manageable increments, asking what information teams need to decide whether to continue, pivot, or stop after six weeks rather than demanding absolute certainty. This approach makes testing feel achievable and keeps teams moving forward with practical confidence.
Looking at healthcare innovation specifically, Moe identifies significant opportunities in an industry facing mounting pressures around staffing shortages and affordability challenges. She notes that while many innovators develop point solutions addressing specific problems, the real opportunity lies in creating connections between these innovations. She encourages entrepreneurs to think about integrated, holistic healthcare experiences that reflect how people actually live with and experience their health.
Throughout the conversation, Moe demonstrates how thoughtful attention to team dynamics, psychological safety, and structured learning processes enables innovation work to flourish. Her insights offer practical guidance for anyone leading creative problem-solving efforts in complex organizational environments.
To learn more about Moe’s work, visit Rock Health Advisory or connect with her on LinkedIn
Coaching Problem Solving: Building Thinkers, Not Just Fixers
Section 4 from the People Solve Problems Book
Coaching Problem Solving: Building Thinkers, Not Just Fixers
Real impact doesn’t come from giving answers—it comes from building better problem solvers.
Great leaders don’t just solve problems—they develop others to do the same. Coaching Problem Solving explores how to guide teams toward solutions through self-discovery, questioning, and structured coaching models. This series analyzes when, where, and how to coach problem-solving effectively, turning challenges into learning opportunities.
Beyond Tools: The Mindset That Drives Real Problem-Solving
Section 3 from the People Solve Problems Book
Beyond Tools: The Mindset That Drives Real Problem-Solving
The best solutions don’t come from the tools you have—they come from the way you think, act, and lead.
Great problem-solvers don’t just follow processes—they take ownership, collaborate, and learn deliberately. This series from Section 3 of People Solve Problems, shifts the focus from tools to behaviors, showing why creativity, trust, and initiative matter more than capital or rigid frameworks. And we’ll explore the human elements that make problem-solving truly effective.
Discover why behaviors matter more than tools in problem-solving success. Learn how focusing on tools alone leads to failure modes like malicious compliance and unthinking problem-solving, and why true improvement comes from learning through action, not templates.
Collaborate
Why solving problems alone usually backfires. When you bring people in early, you spot issues before they become disasters. The real enemy isn’t your coworkers—it’s wasted time and effort. This video shows how working together from the start leads to solutions that actually work.
Creativity Over Capital
Smart beats expensive. Creative solutions keep getting better over time, but throwing money at problems eventually runs out. This video shows you how to come up with creative fixes, test them quickly, and pick the ones that actually work.
Systems Dynamics: Moving Beyond Supply Chain Optimization with scmBLOX’s J. Chris White
|
|
|
J. Chris White, Co-Founder and CEO of scmBLOX, joined host Jamie Flinchbaugh to explore the critical differences between systems thinking and systems dynamics, and how these approaches can transform supply chain management. As a systems dynamics modeler with 30 years of experience covering operations and supply chains, Chris brought deep expertise to this conversation about solving complex business problems.
Chris explained that while many people embrace systems thinking after reading Peter Senge’s “The Fifth Discipline,” they often miss that Senge was actually a systems dynamicist trained by Jay Forrester, who created systems dynamics. According to Chris, systems thinking provides valuable guidance, but when it comes to actually solving problems, you need the rigor of systems dynamics modeling and simulation. He described systems thinking as appreciating the use of data in decision making, while systems dynamics is doing all the math to generate that data.
The conversation revealed how he views systems dynamics as another tool in the problem-solving toolbox. He emphasized that it works best for larger, interconnected problems where you need to see the whole system view. He explained that systems are collections of parts that are interrelated and interconnected, all working together to achieve a goal. As systems become more complex, the relationships between parts begin to dominate, which is where systems dynamics shines.
When discussing supply chain management specifically, Chris highlighted how traditional “end-to-end” approaches are actually quite limited. Most companies only track orders from their immediate suppliers to customer delivery, but he pointed out that COVID-19 revealed how interconnected supply chains really are. The disruptions, bullwhip effects, and shortages that dominated news cycles showed that problems happening several tiers upstream can significantly impact your business.
Chris used a tree analogy to illustrate this point: there’s little value in optimizing the leaves when you should have been on a different branch strategically to begin with. He emphasized that resilience is more of a system phenomenon than an individual company trait, and that understanding supply chains as systems gives you more power to change the future.
One of the biggest surprises he encounters when working with clients is how little data they actually need to get started. Unlike statistical models that rely heavily on data, systems dynamics focuses on causal connections and structure. He explained that if you know what you’re making and have a bill of materials, your supply chain usually mirrors that structure. This allows companies to begin modeling without perfect visibility into every supplier’s capacity or inventory levels.
Chris emphasized that when companies optimize only their individual parts of the supply chain, they often create unintended effects that come back to hurt them later. What seems beneficial in the short term can actually cause problems in the long term. The goal is to help companies understand how their decisions impact the entire supply chain system, not just their immediate operations.
Throughout the discussion, Chris demonstrated how systems dynamics provides a scientific approach to understanding supply chain vulnerabilities before disruptions occur, whether they’re global events like the Suez Canal blockage or local issues like supplier bankruptcies.
To learn more about Chris White’s work in systems dynamics and supply chain management, visit scmblox.com or connect with him on LinkedIn
People-Centered Problem Solving: The Missing Link in Every Organization
Section 2 from the People Solve Problems Book
People-Centered Problem Solving: The Missing Link in Every Organization
Tools don’t solve problems—people do.
The best solutions don’t come from checklists—they come from thinking, learning, and adapting.
This video series covers section 2 of People Solve Problems, where we explore the skills that drive real solutions, from crafting the right problem statements to integrating intuition and testing ideas in the real world. These videos shift the focus from rigid frameworks to the human capabilities that make problem-solving effective.
Test to Learn
Ask “how do you know?” at every step. Balance confidence with risk by running fast, cheap experiments instead of big bets. Create hypotheses to build knowledge you can use again. Even poker pros lose hands on purpose to test what they think they know. Good testing doesn’t just solve today’s problem – it makes you better at solving future ones too.
Why Problem-Solving Fails—and How to Fix It
Section 1 from the People Solve Problems Book
Why Problem-Solving Fails—and How to Fix It
Problem-solving isn’t just about having the right tools—it’s about how we apply those tools in different problem-solving scenarios. In these videos, we’ll challenge conventional thinking, revealing why standardization alone doesn’t drive better solutions. This section explores the real issues behind ineffective problem-solving and how to bridge the gap between tools and action.
Because solving problems isn’t just about what you use—it’s about how you think.
Jim Benson of Modus Institute: Building Confidence Through Visual Collaboration
|
|
|
Jim Benson joined host Jamie Flinchbaugh on People Solve Problems to discuss his approach to collaboration and visual management as the foundation for successful Lean and Agile implementations. As Inquisitor at Modus Institute and creator of Personal Kanban, Jim brings a unique perspective on how organizations can remove workplace toxicity while dramatically improving effectiveness.
Jim defines collaboration simply yet powerfully: two or more people working toward a common goal with systems in place that allow everyone to act with confidence. This definition cuts through the confusion often created when collaboration gets mixed up with consensus-building or other diluted interpretations. The key insight Jim shared is that confidence drives everything in business, just as consumer confidence drives the free market economy.
Jim illustrated this concept through the story of a young procurement agent at Turner Construction who was responsible for purchasing everything from structural steel to toilet paper for a billion-dollar construction project in New York. Initially working from spreadsheets, he had to justify every decision to three levels of management, creating a cycle of criticism and second-guessing that undermined his confidence. When Jim helped implement an obeya with visual controls, everything changed. He could display his work transparently, allowing managers to see when projects were on track, in trouble but manageable, or requiring their expertise.
The transformation was remarkable. Instead of commenting on everything he did, managers could now apply their expertise strategically when needed. He could act with confidence, knowing that everyone had visibility into his work and could provide help when necessary rather than criticism after the fact. Jim emphasized that this visual management approach removes toxicity from the workplace by creating clarity around roles, responsibilities, and when intervention is needed.
Jim challenged the current trend of CEOs instituting longer work weeks while people are already working at 300% capacity, but only 25% effectiveness. He argued that most knowledge workers are operating far beyond sustainable levels, and the solution isn’t more hours but better systems. By creating a better understanding of what people can handle and properly defining work upfront, organizations can increase effective throughput by 200-300% while making work easier and more enjoyable.
The conversation touched on problem-solving approaches, where Jim distinguished between everyday operational issues and strategic thinking opportunities. He noted that most bottlenecks in modern business are actually collaborative opportunities that get addressed through non-collaborative means like new software or individual assignments. Instead, these issues often stem from information flowing between people in the wrong formats, which can be fixed simply by understanding what each person in the value stream actually needs.
Jim offered a provocative alternative to traditional strategic planning, where leadership teams retreat to develop strategy in isolation. He suggested that companies have exponential strategic value equal to the number of employees raised to the power of the number of employees. Rather than excluding people from strategic planning, Jim advocates for involving everyone in developing strategies, tactics, and measures collaboratively. When people understand how their daily tasks connect to broader strategic goals, achieving corporate objectives becomes much easier.
The underlying theme throughout Jim’s insights is that most workplace dysfunction stems from people wanting to contribute meaningfully but lacking the systems and clarity to do so effectively. By implementing visual management and collaborative approaches, organizations can tap into this existing motivation while removing the barriers that create frustration and inefficiency.
Jim’s work can be explored further at modusinstitute.com, and he can be found on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/jimbenson.
Lean Coffee Episode 5In Episode 5, Mark Graban and Jamie Flinchbaugh are going back in time (apologies to Huey Lewis and the News) to the 1990s and examining companies that were iconic then and trying to find new ground today. But we start with coffee mugs – our most vintage mugs. A coffee mug can make coffee better, or ruin it, or bring back memories. The vessel may not be more important than what’s in it, but it’s up there. And this is our first, but perhaps not our last, Miss Piggy reference.
Before we get to AOL finally ending its dial-up service, we do a deep dive into Starbucks’ new CEO and his efforts to restore Starbucks. Both the substance and the approach to decision-making matter here. On the approach, making too many decisions at the top can undermine those you’re asking to make their decisions, but the right decisions in the right way can break things loose or shift your culture.
But this also brings us to the question of what Starbucks customers value, and how to consistently deliver that value. There are many systematic barriers put in the way of baristas trying to deliver value. Will Starbucks and its CEO remove those barriers and find value? We will see (or at least their customers will).
We wrap up sharing our experiences with jazz flutist Frank Wess and the new movie Spinal Tap II.
Please review us and follow!