lululemon’s founder is trying to force the hand of board members at a company he hasn’t led in a decade. The governance argument he’s making has direct implications for how CHROs think about succession.
Chip Wilson founded lululemon in 1998 and remains one of its largest individual shareholders. This week, he issued an open letter addressed not to shareholders but to prospective CEO candidates. His message warns them to be wary of the board before taking on the job.
After three CEO departures without a ready successor, Wilson argues the board “is simply not equipped to support visionary leadership,” according to the letter, which was delivered in a press release and on LinkedIn. Earlier this month, he also launched a website detailing Wilson’s view on the change needed at lululemon.
Additionally, Wilson has nominated three independent directors and is pushing for a shareholder vote to replace sitting board members, a process that will come to a head at the company’s annual meeting.
The letter is a power play, and Wilson has his own interests. But the governance argument underneath it is worth taking seriously.
The board has pushed back. In a late February statement, lululemon said it had repeatedly asked to interview Wilson’s three nominees, but that Wilson refused access until the board agreed to a broader set of settlement terms upfront. The board says it remains open to dialogue.
Read more: What boards really want in their CHROs
A mismatch hiding in plain sight
Wilson’s core complaint is that lululemon’s board is built for a different kind of company than lululemon, in Wilson’s view. The brand’s competitive advantage lives in product innovation, cultural precision and creative leadership. The board’s composition skews toward financial oversight and institutional relationships.
Governance researchers at Stanford GSB have documented that when board expertise doesn’t match a company’s actual strategic risks and opportunities, directors lack the conceptual vocabulary to ask the right questions, not just evaluate the answers they receive. “Similarly, we know (only after the fact) that certain prominent corporate failures result in part from a stunning lack of awareness at the board level of major breakdowns in risk controls,” write the researchers.
Wilson names six questions he believes any incoming CEO should press the lululemon board on, including how it defines the “brand muse,” whether it will allow real investment in design and innovation, and whether it can actually support internal talent development.
Read more | Board prep for CHROs: How to show up as a strategic business leader
‘The talent and leadership of the next generation’
This last one hits home for HR leaders. “The reason the CEO position at lululemon is vacant today is because of the board’s inability to successfully succession plan,” Wilson put it bluntly. “The future of lululemon depends on the talent and leadership of the next generation. A new CEO should be able to trust that a board will empower them to invest in the next generation of the company.”
Wilson argues that lululemon’s repeated failure to have a successor ready reflects the board’s inability to create a succession plan, not simply bad luck with executives.
This tracks with what governance research has documented. Advisory firm Spencer Stuart found that only about a quarter of CEOs believe they actually have the board they need. Succession planning ranks as the top stated priority for governance committees, yet board turnover has held flat at roughly 7% to 8% a year for five consecutive years.
Domain competence as governance requirement
Most independence frameworks do nothing to ensure boards have that capability. NYSE and Nasdaq standards were designed to prevent overt conflicts of interest. They were not designed to ensure that the board governing a brand-driven consumer company includes anyone who has actually built a brand.
Wilson’s proposed remedy, adding directors with brand, product and marketing expertise alongside a formal Brand Product Committee, appears to be an attempt to institutionalize domain competence as a governance requirement rather than an afterthought.
The lululemon situation surfaces a challenge that HR leaders face regularly—succession pipelines built in the C-suite can be undermined at the board level. A CHRO can invest years developing internal talent for the CEO role.
If the board evaluating that pipeline doesn’t understand the business deeply enough to recognize readiness, a CHRO’s planning work is vulnerable to being dismissed in favor of an external search. “Too many leaders fail to realize that an ineffective, dysfunctional board can frustrate, disrupt and ultimately, prevent success,” wrote Wilson.
Credit: Source link
