CEO Non-Performance: Misconduct or Incapacity?

When a company's critical financial metrics—such as Net Profit After Tax (NPAT), Profit Before Tax (PBT), Revenue, Earnings Per Share (EPS), and debtor's days—fail to meet expectations over a year or two, the CEO's performance comes under scrutiny. The pressing question is whether this shortfall is due to misconduct or incapacity.

Identifying the Root Causes

A CEO's performance is shaped by a combination of external and internal factors. Externally, changes in political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legislative landscapes can significantly impact company performance. Internally, factors like employee performance, shareholder influence, and operational efficiencies play a critical role.

No-Fault Incapacity

Sometimes, unforeseen events beyond the CEO's control, such as the KZN riots and flooding, can drastically affect company performance. These scenarios are considered "no-fault" situations, where the CEO is not to blame for the non-performance. In such cases, the CEO is expected to plan for future contingencies, including securing specific insurance coverage and incorporating force majeure clauses in commercial agreements.

Misconduct and Negligence

Conversely, if a CEO fails to follow the Board's directives to mitigate future disruptions, it may indicate negligence, leading to misconduct. Neglecting necessary actions despite clear mandates can jeopardize the company's resilience and long-term success.

Incompatibility and Values/Culture Misalignment

Non-performance can also arise from a mismatch between the CEO's values and the company's core values and culture. This misalignment can result in decisions and strategies that do not align with the company's direction, leading to subpar results. Discussions at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) suggest that such incompatibility may soon be classified under Schedule 8 as incapacity due to poor performance.

Moving Forward

Non-performance must be addressed promptly. A thorough analysis is essential to identify the root causes. Appropriate measures can then be taken—whether addressing incapacity through strategic planning and risk management or handling misconduct through corrective action.

In conclusion, distinguishing between misconduct and incapacity is vital for any organisation dealing with CEO non-performance. This distinction ensures a fair and just response, tailored to the specific circumstances, ultimately steering the company back to growth and success. However, proactive measures are crucial to avoid reaching a crisis point.

We have a FREE upcoming webinar on Monday, the 29th of August, on Mega-trends in Case and Labour Law. Guest Speakers Jonathan Goldberg and Riaz Itzkin will present from 9 AM - 12 PM, we only have 300 slots available and spaces are quickly filling up!

Register via this JotForm link: https://form.jotform.com/241963377587069