Leadership Changed, Nothing Did Maybe it's all the superhero movies, but we tend to place too much hope in individual leaders. So, when things aren't working out with one CEO, like frustrated voters or unhappy lovers, we start looking for someone better.

It's an understandable response, but the obvious reaction isn't always the right one. Because an unwritten rule of the corporate world is that we tend to get the leaders we deserve. So, if your CEO isn't working out, and this is the second or even third one who hasn't, then maybe the problem isn't them. Maybe it's the organisation and the system within which they're expected to lead.

There are a range of reasons leaders can fail, but when successive ones don't fix the problem, it's a sure sign of two things. That the challenges facing the business aren't simple, and that the CEOs haven't been sufficiently enabled or supported to resolve these challenges.

A third and obvious explanation – not included here – is that the CEOs lack the necessary capabilities. And if just one leader has failed to deliver results, that's often the most likely cause. But once we start looking at two or more leaders not fixing the problem, then unless the recruitment process that selected them was (repeatedly) awful, the issues likely lie elsewhere.

Three common causes
Reviewing the research into more systemic, organisational causes of CEO failure, there are three issues that frequently occur, which seem to be becoming more common, and that businesses often inadvertently make worse.

Efficiencies undermining change. First, through board- or investor-driven efficiencies, many firms have inadvertently made it more difficult for their CEOs to drive successful change and transformation agendas. The increasing challenges of modern leadership are well-documented and, to some extent, unavoidable. But in their pursuit of productivity, many organisations have been steadily increasing the size and scope of leadership roles. As a result, workloads and work hours have been increasing. The result of this has been twofold. It has increased stress levels and reduced bandwidth for extra activities. And it has negatively affected the relationships between leaders and employees, as managers have less time for people. And both of these make driving and sustaining change, and particularly the behavioural and cultural aspects of change, much harder.

Over-managing image. Second, while organisations certainly invest heavily in training leaders, there's a growing sense that the focus is not always right. One of the biggest reasons for this is that leadership has become far more performative than ever before, with a greater requirement on leaders to engage in impression management. Twenty years ago, 'politicking' was commonly viewed as a dark art akin to manipulativeness. Today, self-presentation and image management skills are considered an essential part of the leadership toolbox. And unfortunately, organisations often amplify this through their attempts to manage their brand both internally and externally, putting CEOs at the forefront of efforts to present a particular image to employees as well as to customers. And while this probably sounds entirely reasonable, it comes at the same time as CEOs are being told that they need to be authentic, and so find themselves caught between telling tales and being themselves.

Poorly trained boards. Finally, there is growing evidence (and shareholder discontent) about the quality and training given to boards. They are an essential part of the system, because without an effective function board, it is much harder for a CEO to be successful, especially one who is less experienced or facing significant challenges.

Systemic solutions
Needless to say, systemic problems require systemic solutions. They needn't be rocket science. For example, there are increasing reports of firms placing limits on the number of direct reports that leaders have. Then there is the growing trend of leadership training aimed at supporting senior executives to balance the need for image management with authenticity. And, of course, the slowly increasing levels of development support aimed at boards.

The challenge here is not so much the solution as it is the intention. It is more moving boards, owners, and investors away from the individualistic superhero zeitgeist, where the fault and the solution lie in the individual, to seeing things more systemically. Where success and failure are rarely the result of individual components in isolation. So, less about super CEOs, and more about super systems.

Obviously, changing individuals often feels - and often actually is - easier than changing systems. And sometimes underlying issues resolve themselves. But sometimes they don't. And when that happens, sooner or later, you're going to run out of CEOs to blame.

Moreover, given how much value CEO failure can cost, surely it is better to proactively identify and (if necessary) address potential systemic issues now, regardless of how successful or not you think your CEO is, rather than wait until it is too late, when you discover that booting the CEO doesn't fix the problem.