It’s Monday, a new week, a new slate, and another opportunity to lead with clarity.

CEOs In The News is a weekly intelligence briefing for senior leaders, boards, and those shaping the future of business. Each edition curates the most important executive moves, corporate shifts, and leadership trends — with clear insights on why they matter.

Our mission is simple: deliver clarity, signal, and strategic perspective in minutes — so you start the week one step ahead of the boardroom narrative.

Six of the seven highest-profile Fortune 500 CEO transitions announced or activated this spring went to internal candidates. Greg Abel, a 26-year Berkshire Hathaway veteran, presided over his first annual meeting Saturday with Warren Buffett seated as chairman in the front row ^[1]. John Ternus, a 25-year Apple veteran, joined his first earnings call as CEO-elect on April 30 alongside Tim Cook and CFO Kevan Parekh ^[2]. Richard Jackson, who joined Occidental Petroleum in 2003 and is its current chief operating officer, will succeed Vicki Hollub on June 1 ^[3]. Karl Mistry took the CEO role at Toll Brothers after 22 years inside the company ^[4]. Jason Bonfig, a 25-plus-year Best Buy operator, takes over from Corie Barry on October 31 ^[4]. Karen Carter, a Dow lifer, is the company’s pick. The single notable exception — Lululemon’s Heidi O’Neill, recruited from Nike — is conspicuous precisely because the rest of the class went the other way ^[5].

The data confirms the impression. Spencer Stuart’s 2025 S&P 1500 CEO Transitions Report, the most rigorous accounting of the cohort, found that 73% of new S&P 500 CEOs in 2025 were internal hires — the highest share since the firm began tracking the metric ^[6]. Russell Reynolds’ global figure was 68%; in APAC, it was 73% ^[7]. The Conference Board’s parallel study captured the inflection point. After a 2024 cycle dominated by external hires, boards are paying a premium for institutional knowledge, internal credibility, and the absence of a 90-day listening tour.

The shift is a deliberate response to two structural pressures. First, average outgoing CEO tenure dropped to 7.1 years in 2025 from 7.4 the prior year and 8.3 in 2021 ^[8]. The proportion of CEOs leaving within 30 to 36 months of taking the job rose 79% year over year ^[7]. Second, the cost of getting succession wrong has compounded: 84% of incoming S&P 1500 CEOs in 2025 were first-time enterprise CEOs ^[6], and the activist landscape has industrialized the punishment for early stumbles. Internal candidates with deep operating fluency reduce both risks at once.

The week’s overarching theme is that the boardroom premium has shifted from transformation talent to institutional knowledge. The 2022–2024 archetype — recruit a high-profile outsider, hand them an 18-month transformation mandate, and absorb the operational disruption — is being repriced. The 2026 archetype is the operator who already runs the business, knows where the bodies are, and can take the wheel without asking the board for a learning curve.

You're the VP. The decision-maker. The one with hundreds of people depending on you. Everyone comes to you when they're struggling.

But when you're the one drowning, who do you call?

I'm Kenny Stoddart, and I spent 27 years in cybersecurity managing teams across seven countries before I hit my own wall at 50. Now I work with high-stakes executives who are tired of white-knuckling it alone. This isn't therapy. This isn't cheerleading. It's strategic coaching from someone who sat in your boardrooms, felt your pressure, and found the way out.

Greg Abel presided over the 2026 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting on Saturday, May 2, his first as chief executive officer of the $1.02 trillion conglomerate. Buffett, who handed off the CEO title at the start of the year, attended as chairman and sat in the front row with the rest of the board. Abel’s headline message was unambiguous: there will be no breakup, no strategic reset, and no departure from the disciplined-investing posture that defined the prior six decades ^[9]. “We are not contemplating any structural changes to Berkshire,” Abel told shareholders, framing his job as steward rather than architect.

The numbers behind the meeting reinforced the framing. Berkshire’s cash pile reached $397.4 billion as of March 31, up 6.5% from year-end and an all-time high ^[10]. First-quarter operating earnings more than doubled. The conglomerate is sitting on the largest war chest in corporate history at the same time the new CEO is publicly committing to patience. That combination — a record dry-powder balance and an explicit refusal to deploy it under pressure — is the cleanest expression of the lifer trade visible in the Fortune 500 today.

Buffett’s posture in the room mattered as much as Abel’s. He used his floor time to endorse the succession in the bluntest possible terms: “Greg is doing everything I did and then some.” He also used the platform to flag what he called a “gambling” quality in current equity markets and to defend the cash position as a posture, not a problem. The board engineered a transition meeting in which the outgoing CEO publicly stress-tested the incoming one and pronounced the result acceptable. That choreography is unusual, and it is the closest thing to a continuity guarantee the public markets accept.

Attendance told a quieter story. The arena was roughly half full, a sharp drop from the 30,000-plus crowds that defined the Buffett era ^[11]. The folksy asides were largely replaced with operating commentary. Whether that read as discipline or as deflation depended on the listener. For other Fortune 500 boards, the lesson is that succession framing is a strategic choice and one that has to be made before the announcement, not improvised in the first quarter on the job. Berkshire chose the steward narrative deliberately, executed it with rare consistency, and is now living with both the upside (a smooth handoff) and the downside (a less magnetic event) of that choice.

500+ speakers. 18 content tracks. Workshops, masterclasses, and the people actually shipping the tools you use every day. WeAreDevelopers World Congress — September 23–25. Use code GITPUSH26 for 10% off.

Secure Your Pass

Apple posted $111.2 billion in revenue and $29.6 billion in net income for fiscal Q2 2026, a 17% year-over-year revenue increase and a record for the March quarter ^[12]. The financial print was important. The choreography around it was more important. Incoming CEO John Ternus joined the earnings call with Tim Cook and CFO Kevan Parekh — Ternus’s first Wall Street appearance since the September 1 succession was announced — and used his prepared remarks to commit publicly to continuity in capital discipline.

“The deep thoughtfulness, deliberateness and discipline in financial decision making that Apple is known for is something Kevan and I intend to continue when I transition into the role in September,” Ternus said on the call ^[13]. The language was deliberate. Ternus did not use the call to telegraph a strategic pivot, signal a major acquisition, or hint at a new product category. He used it to lock down the capital allocation framework — buybacks, dividend, R&D, capex — that has defined Apple for fifteen years. Cook, on the same call, framed his role over the four-month transition as ensuring Ternus has every operational handoff he needs to step into the seat without disruption.

The trio configuration on the call is itself a signal worth reading. Apple has been disclosing its earnings without a CEO-elect cameo for fifteen years. Inserting Ternus four months early — and pairing him explicitly with Parekh in the language about “Kevan and I” — is the cleanest possible way to communicate to institutional shareholders that the operating partnership has been solidified before the title changes. Cook’s public counsel to Ternus, reported in Fortune the day before the call, was equally telling: “The most important decision he’ll make is where he spends his time” ^[14]. That is a CEO talking to his successor about institutional fluency, not strategy.

For other boards engineering high-profile transitions, the Apple template is now in the public record. Announce the successor with substantial runway. Pair them visibly with the sitting CFO. Use the next earnings call to introduce the operating partnership rather than the personality. Defer all transformation conversations until after the title change. The cost of executing this template is the appearance of being uneventful. The benefit is that the stock did not move on the announcement and continues not to move. For a company with a $4 trillion market capitalization, the absence of movement is the point.

Your inbox is flooded with newsletters. Your feed is chaos. Somewhere in that noise are the insights that could transform your work—but who has time to find them?

The Deep View solves this. We read everything, analyze what matters, and deliver only the intelligence you need. No duplicate stories, no filler content, no wasted time. Just the essential AI developments that impact your industry, explained clearly and concisely.

Replace hours of scattered reading with five focused minutes. While others scramble to keep up, you'll stay ahead of developments that matter. 600,000+ professionals at top companies have already made this switch.

Join them today, for free.

Best Buy named Jason Bonfig its next CEO, effective October 31, succeeding Corie Barry, who has held the role since 2019 ^[15]. Bonfig joined the company in 2000 and most recently served as Chief Customer, Product, and Fulfillment Officer. The board did not run an external process. It did not need to. Bonfig has been visible to the directors for years, has owned the merchandising P&L through the post-pandemic correction, and inherits a balance sheet his predecessor stabilized. The market read was a single-day stock move under one percent — exactly the response a board engineering a continuity narrative is hoping to see.

Dow’s pick of Karen Carter — also an internal veteran with multi-decade tenure — landed inside the same week and against the same template. Dow is in the middle of a publicly disclosed restructuring that will eliminate roughly 4,500 roles and shutter underperforming European assets. The board calculation is that an internal CEO can execute a restructuring of that magnitude without the political cost of a high-profile outsider whose every move is read as repudiation. The institutional knowledge advantage in restructuring scenarios is structurally larger than in growth scenarios, which is part of why the lifer trade is concentrated in mature-industry transitions.

Lululemon went the other way. The board named Heidi O’Neill, most recently Nike’s president of consumer, product, and brand, as the company’s next CEO effective September 8 ^[16]. O’Neill replaces Calvin McDonald, who is exiting after seven years. The hire is the cleanest external CEO appointment among the spring transitions, and it is being read by the executive search community as a deliberate choice to import a brand-marketing operator into a company that has lost its product cadence. There is also a parallel proxy contest that complicates the framing: a dissident slate is questioning Lululemon’s governance and operating discipline, which raised the cost of running a slow internal process.

The contrast is itself the lesson. Internal succession is the dominant playbook in 2026, but it is not a default. It is the right playbook for a board whose binding constraint is operating execution, restructuring discipline, or the need to absorb a difficult quarter without spooking the institutional shareholders. It is the wrong playbook for a board whose binding constraint is brand reinvention or category disruption. The Lululemon board concluded its constraint was the latter and paid the premium for an outside hire. The Dow, Best Buy, Apple, Berkshire, and Occidental boards concluded the opposite. Both calls can be defensible. What is no longer defensible is choosing the archetype by reflex rather than by diagnosis.

Two of the cleanest succession announcements of the spring landed within forty-eight hours of one another. AIG completed its planned CEO transition on April 28, with Eric Andersen — the former president of Aon — taking the chief executive role on June 1 from Peter Zaffino, who shifts to executive chair ^[17]. Occidental Petroleum announced on May 1 that COO Richard Jackson, a 23-year company veteran, will become CEO June 1, with outgoing CEO Vicki Hollub retiring after a decade in the role and remaining on the board ^[3]. Both transitions were broadcast to the market more than a year in advance. Neither produced a meaningful stock reaction.

AIG is the more interesting case because Andersen is not, technically, a lifer. He spent nearly thirty years at Aon, where he ran the broker as president from 2020 through 2025 and helped lift the firm’s market capitalization from $35 billion to $85 billion ^[17]. The board recruited him in early 2026, parked him in the “CEO-elect” seat for four months alongside Zaffino, and gave the institutional shareholders a multi-quarter window to evaluate the operating handoff before the title change. That structure — transparent runway, public co-presence, no surprise — is the same template Apple is now executing. It is increasingly the default for any transition where the board cares more about market confidence than about a strategic announcement.

Zaffino’s legacy at AIG matters as a benchmark for what an outgoing CEO leaves behind. Five consecutive years of underwriting profitability from 2021 to 2025, a property-and-casualty business rebuilt around disciplined risk selection, and a balance sheet positioned for the soft cycle that is now beginning. The board is paying for that operating record with the most expensive capital in succession planning: a year-long handoff with a non-internal CEO. The structure is justifiable when the binding constraint is sustaining a turnaround, not extending it, and Andersen’s Aon experience translates more directly to AIG than most cross-industry hires would.

Occidental is the cleaner internal case. Hollub, who became the first female CEO of a major American oil company in 2016 and engineered the $38 billion Anadarko acquisition in 2019, hands off to Jackson with the company’s carbon-management thesis intact and the upstream portfolio rebalanced. The board kept her on the directors’ slate, locked Jackson into the COO seat for two years before the title change, and announced the transition with a one-line press release ^[18]. Stock reaction: minimal. The board got exactly the signal it engineered — a continuity event, not a reset.

Spencer Stuart’s 2025 S&P 1500 CEO Transitions Report, released this winter, established the data baseline for the lifer trade. The firm counted 168 CEO transitions across the S&P 1500 in 2025 — the highest absolute total since 2010 ^[6]. Internal hires accounted for 73% of S&P 500 transitions and 60% across the broader S&P 1500. Externally hired CEOs slipped to 40% of S&P 1500 appointments, down from 43% in 2024. The composition shift was visible in real time across the spring, but the structural data has been building for two years.

The age and tenure data points the same direction. Incoming CEOs in 2025 averaged 54.4 years old, down from 55.8 the year before ^[6]. The share of new CEOs aged 60 or older fell to 18%, after hovering near 30% in recent years. Average outgoing CEO tenure dropped to 7.1 years from 7.4 the prior year and 8.3 in 2021 ^[8]. The proportion of CEOs leaving within 30 to 36 months of taking the job rose 79% year over year ^[7]. Boards are appointing younger executives, then giving them less time to perform.

That combination — internal promotions, younger CEOs, shorter tenures — is producing a specific kind of risk profile: the operationally fluent first-time CEO who has not yet been stress-tested in a public-company turnaround. Russell Reynolds found that 84% of new S&P 1500 CEOs in 2025 were serving in their first enterprise CEO role ^[6]. The COO-to-CEO pipeline accounted for 48% of appointments, divisional CEOs another 30%, and CFOs 9% ^[7]. Boards are selecting from a deep operating bench with a relatively narrow performance bandwidth.

The implication for sitting CEOs is straightforward. The peer cohort is being refreshed at a faster rate than at any point in two decades, with younger profiles, shorter expected tenures, and a heavier first-time-CEO concentration. The bar for what constitutes credible operating performance has compressed in two directions at once. Boards expect faster impact and lower drama. Falling outside that envelope in either direction is the most reliable way to shorten the runway.

Starboard Value disclosed a major position in Dynatrace on April 28 and released a critical letter the same day, arguing that the AI-software observability vendor is meaningfully undervalued and underexecuting on margin discipline ^[19]. Starboard, identified in its filing as one of Dynatrace’s five largest shareholders, called for at least 500 basis points of adjusted operating margin expansion by fiscal 2029, a $75 million annual reduction in sales and marketing spend, and an accelerated buyback program that could return more than $2.5 billion to shareholders within three years. Dynatrace shares traded up roughly 8% in the after-hours session that followed the disclosure.

The framing of the campaign matters more than the specific demands. Starboard managing member Peter Feld pushed back on the prevailing market narrative that Dynatrace, alongside other observability and monitoring vendors, has been unfairly bundled into the “companies that AI will disintermediate” trade. Feld’s argument, in the letter, is the inverse: rising enterprise AI adoption increases the complexity of the cloud applications and AI workloads Dynatrace’s platform monitors, expanding the addressable market rather than collapsing it ^[19]. The campaign is, in effect, an asset reclassification thesis dressed as an operating critique.

That structure — a public letter, a value-creation playbook, and an explicit narrative correction — is now the dominant template in mid-cap technology activism. The campaign at Tripadvisor, which yielded four board seats in nine months, used the same architecture. The campaigns Starboard is running at BILL Holdings (with Elliott alongside) and now at Dynatrace use it. The intended audience is not management. It is the institutional-investor base whose voting behavior at the next annual meeting determines whether a settlement is required at all. The letter is the campaign.

The implication for sitting directors of any AI-adjacent technology vendor is operational. The “AI disruption discount” narrative is now being inverted by the most sophisticated activist firms, who are building positions in companies they argue are oversold on disruption fears and underleveraged on operating discipline. The defensive posture — argue the discount is justified by structural risk — has stopped working. The boards that respond first with a public capital-return framework, a credible margin path, and an explicit AI-tailwind thesis settle the campaigns. The boards that do not lose four seats and the strategic narrative within twelve months.

Mark Zuckerberg told Meta employees at a town hall on April 24 that the company will eliminate 8,000 roles beginning May 20 and cancel another 6,000 open requisitions, bringing the effective headcount reduction to roughly 14,000 positions or about 10% of the workforce ^[20]. Zuckerberg framed the cuts in unusually direct terms. “We basically have two major cost centers in the company: compute infrastructure and people-oriented things,” he told employees, according to Reuters. The compute bucket — Meta’s 2026 AI capex guidance is $115 to $135 billion — is the one that is growing.

The structural significance of Meta’s announcement is that it converts AI capex into headcount math at a Fortune 50 scale. Zuckerberg’s comment is the cleanest articulation by any mega-cap CEO that the AI infrastructure buildout is being funded, on the margin, by reductions in the operating expense line. Meta is not the first company to make the trade. Oracle eliminated 30,000 roles on March 31, the same quarter it posted a 95% jump in net income to $6.13 billion. Block is cutting more than 4,000 roles, roughly 40% of its workforce, in Jack Dorsey’s AI restructuring. Citi continues to execute on the 20,000-role reduction target announced in 2024. Dow’s 4,500-role program was disclosed alongside its CEO transition.

The mechanics inside Meta are worth dwelling on. The reorganization places remaining headcount into AI-focused “pods” reporting into new Chief AI Officer Alexandr Wang’s Superintelligence Labs unit ^[20]. Internal productivity tools — Zuckerberg referenced personal AI agents called MyClaw and Second Brain — are absorbing the work historically performed by middle-management and operational coordination roles. The company is, in effect, productizing its own org chart compression. Whether the productivity gain is real at scale remains an open empirical question. The capex commitment is not an open question: the spend is locked in, and the operating expense reductions are how the income statement absorbs it.

For sitting CEOs of any company spending on AI infrastructure at meaningful scale, the Meta disclosure changes the conversation with the board. The polite framing — that AI investment is incremental and self-funding — is no longer credible at the top of the market. Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and Jack Dorsey have each publicly accepted the trade. Boards will increasingly expect the same explicit accounting from sitting CEOs: which roles are being absorbed by AI-driven productivity, on what timeline, and at what offsetting capex level. The CEOs who can answer those questions will set the standard. The ones who cannot will be answering them under pressure within two earnings cycles.

The most operationally consequential data point in the spring CEO research is not the volume of departures. It is the compression of expected tenure. Russell Reynolds’ early 2026 reads put the proportion of CEOs leaving within 30 to 36 months of taking the job up 79% year over year ^[7]. BCG’s 2025 succession analysis showed average outgoing CEO tenure declining from 8.5 years in 2025 to 9.1 in 2021. The first-half-2025 cohort came in at 6.8 years — the lowest since the firm began tracking the metric in 2018 ^[8]. The runway is shorter, and it is shortening every quarter.

The compression is being driven by three reinforcing pressures. First, activist firms have industrialized the timeline for forcing CEO changes after a perceived stumble. The 12-month-from-13D-to-board-reconstitution clock is now an operational benchmark. Second, the proxy advisory ecosystem — even in its diminished form, with JPMorgan Asset Management and increasingly other large allocators rotating away from ISS and Glass Lewis — is producing more concentrated voting blocks against incumbent management on questions of capital allocation discipline. Third, the deliberate appointment of younger first-time CEOs (54.4 years old on average, 84% first-timers) compresses the variance in who is actually capable of executing in the role.

The implication is that the lifer trade and the tenure compression are two sides of the same coin. Boards are appointing internal veterans precisely because the cost of getting succession wrong has become catastrophic. The lifer is, on the margin, less likely to need a learning curve and more likely to absorb a difficult quarter without losing the institutional shareholders. The internal candidate is the lower-variance bet at a moment when high-variance bets are being punished by the market structure.

For sitting CEOs at the 18- to 36-month mark, the operating environment is now more hostile than at any point in twenty years. The board is benchmarking the CEO against an internal-veteran archetype that did not require a learning curve. The activist universe is benchmarking the CEO against a value-creation framework that assumes faster operating improvement. The institutional shareholder base is benchmarking the CEO against a peer cohort whose median expected tenure is shrinking. The CEO who is not running the company as if every quarter is the make-or-break quarter is running it on assumptions the rest of the system has already abandoned.

The Fortune 500 Power Moves column for the week of April 25 to May 1 was dominated by the AIG and Occidental announcements covered above, but the second-tier appointments tracked the same pattern: internal promotions, planned successions, and CFO seats turning over faster than CEO seats ^[21].

Deere & Company (No. 89) promoted Brent Norwood to Chief Financial Officer effective May 1. The appointment is internal and follows a multi-year tour of investor relations and finance leadership. Deere is in the middle of a multi-billion-dollar autonomy and connectivity rollout, and the board chose the executive who has owned the capital communication strategy through the cycle.

Booz Allen Hamilton (No. 398) appointed Troy Lahr as EVP and CFO effective May 4 ^[21]. Lahr most recently served as CFO of Sierra Space and previously held finance roles at Boeing. The hire is an external industrial-aerospace import for a company whose growth is increasingly tied to defense AI and cleared-personnel professional services.

PPG Industries (No. 234) named Jamie A. Beggs Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective July 6, succeeding Vincent J. Morales after his 41 years with the company ^[21]. Beggs joins from Avient Corporation. The appointment is the textbook version of a planned, late-career-CFO retirement: a multi-month runway, an external hire from an adjacent specialty-chemical operator, and a public commitment to capital-discipline continuity.

Toll Brothers activated CEO Karl Mistry’s March 30 succession this past week, with Mistry — a 22-year company veteran — formally taking the chief executive role from Douglas Yearley. Agilon Health (AGL) named Tim O’Rourke president and CEO effective May 7 ^[22], in the most active turnaround mandate of the week given the company’s -73.8% trailing total shareholder return and elevated activist exposure. Abbott Laboratories added Kevin Conroy to the board on April 24, tightening governance ahead of what proxy analysts read as a high-probability activist engagement window ^[22].

The cumulative read across the week is that the CFO seat continues to turn over at a faster rate than the CEO seat in most sectors. Crist|Kolder’s 2025 Volatility Report counted 31 sitting CFOs promoted to CEO across the S&P 1500, the highest absolute number on record. The pipeline from CFO to CEO is widening at the same time the inbound CFO archetype itself is changing. Boards that have not refreshed their CFO succession plan in the last 12 months are working from a stale playbook.

The events of this week — Berkshire’s post-Buffett opening, Apple’s public partnership between Ternus and Parekh, Occidental’s Hollub-to-Jackson handoff, AIG’s Zaffino-to-Andersen completion, the Best Buy and Dow internal picks, Meta’s 8,000-role cut to fund $135 billion in AI capex, Starboard’s campaign at Dynatrace — share a common throughline. The boardroom premium has shifted from transformation talent to institutional fluency. The CEO who can already operate the company at scale, on day one, without a learning curve or a brand reset, is the most valuable asset on the market.

The mandate has at least four operational pillars. First, operating fluency — the ability to absorb a difficult quarter without an external diagnostic phase. Second, capital discipline — a transparent framework for AI capex, buybacks, and operating-expense compression that the institutional shareholders can underwrite without having to take it on faith. Third, activist literacy — a working understanding of how campaign architecture, value-creation framing, and proxy advisory mechanics produce four-seat board reconstitutions inside twelve months. Fourth, succession transparency — a public, scheduled handoff structure that allows the institutional base to evaluate the operating partnership before the title changes.

That specification is not aspirational. It is the standard that Abel, Ternus, Jackson, Andersen, Bonfig, Mistry, and Carter are already being measured against. The boards that selected them did so because they concluded the lifer trade is the lower-variance bet at a moment when high-variance bets are being structurally punished. The internal candidate is a hedge against the activist clock, the proxy advisory drift, and the tenure compression that has accelerated every quarter since 2023.

The single most important question a sitting Fortune 500 CEO can ask in 2026 is not whether the strategy is right. It is whether the board, surveying the current market for internal-veteran successors and the cost of running an external search against the lifer-class default, would still choose them today. That question is no longer hypothetical. It is the empirical assessment the directors are running quietly between board meetings. The CEOs who are making themselves indispensable on operating fluency, capital discipline, and succession transparency are running the same diagnostic on themselves. The ones who are not are leaving the answer to chance.

The Berkshire arena was half-full on Saturday. The folksy asides were mostly gone. The 30,000-person crowds that defined the Buffett era have given way to a more disciplined, less magnetic event built around operating updates and capital allocation discipline. For the boards engineering similar transitions — Apple, Occidental, AIG, Best Buy, Dow — that quieter version of the succession is the point. Continuity is engineered, not improvised, and the cost of engineering it is the absence of drama.

The deeper signal of the spring 2026 succession class is that the appetite for the high-profile outsider as turnaround CEO has cooled at exactly the moment the tenure clock has compressed. Boards have concluded that the lifer is the lower-variance bet, and the institutional shareholders have ratified the conclusion by not punishing the announcements. That is a structural shift in the labor market for chief executives, and it has implications for every sitting CEO whose board is quietly running its own internal-candidate readiness review. The question for every reader of this newsletter is the obvious one. If your board ran the same internal-candidate review against you tomorrow, would the lifer who already runs the operation be the more credible bet — or would you?

CEOs In The News is published weekly for an audience earning $300K to $10MM. It’s intended for educational use to empower executives for the ongoing week. For executive search inquiries, executive branding needs, board advisory services, or newsletter feedback, contact our editorial team. The opinions in this newsletter are not that of its sponsors.

Need Executive Branding? Click here.

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.

Advertise with us.