2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
-
Upload
stanford-gsb-corporate-governance-research-initiative -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
1/19
2 0 1 3 C E O P E R F O R M A N C E E V A L U A T I O N S U R V E Y
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
2/19
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Executive Summary: Key Results 1
Survey Questions 3
Descriptive Statistics 12
About the Sponsors 14
About the Authors 15
Contact Inormation 16
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
3/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 1
Executive Summary: Key Results
In Grading CEO Perormance, Financials Still Dominate
Boards rate CEOs high in decision-making, low in
talent development
A new study conducted by the Center or Leadership
Development and Research at Stanord Graduate School o
Business, Stanord Universitys Rock Center or CorporateGovernance, and The Miles Group reveals that boardrooms are
giving poor grades to CEOs or their mentoring skills and board
engagement but still prioritize nancial perormance above all
else. More than 160 CEOs and directors o North American public
and private companies were polled in the 2013 Survey on CEO
Perormance Evaluations, which studied how CEOs themselves
and directors rate both chie executive perormance as well as the
perormance evaluation process.
When directors were asked to rank the top weaknesses o their
CEO, mentoring skills and board engagement tied or the #1
spot. This signals that directors are clearly concerned about their
CEOs ability to mentor top talent, says Stephen Miles, ounder
and chie executive oThe Miles Group. Focusing on drivers
such as developing the next generation o leadership is essential
to planning beyond the next quarter and avoiding the short-term
thinking that inhibits growth.
However, when actually evaluating the per ormance o a
CEO, companies place very little weight on many nonnancial
perormance measures. The survey ound that only a 5%
weighting was given to a CEOs perormance in the areas o talent
development and succession planning, and only a 2.5% weighting
was given to employee satisaction/turnover.
While boards clearly see mentoring and talent development
as weaknesses in their CEO, the problem is that they are notevaluating CEOs against those measures in a meaningul way,
says David F. Larcker, James Irvin Miller Proessor o Accounting
and co-director o the Center or Leadership Development and
Research. Financial perormance still dominates the grading
metrics, so i boards really want CEOs to ocus on other things as
well, they will have to change the way they evaluate those in the
top seat.
Additional key ndings o the 2013 Survey on CEO Perormance
Evaluations include:
Directors rate CEOs high in decision making but low in
people management areas. In addition to mentoring and
developing talent, listening and confict management were
the skills least mentioned as strengths o the CEO. The act
that these were in the bot tom three means that there is a real
problem, says Mr. Miles. Each o these should be at leastin the top ve o a CEOs strengths, because they are critical
components to excelling in the CEO role. Decision-making,
which directors overwhelmingly stated was their CEOs greatest
strength, is important, because you dont want a CEO with
analysis paralysis. But planning skills which also made the
top three in CEO strengths are really what CEOs should be
delegating, not ocusing on themselves.
Little weight given to customer service, workplace saety,
and innovation in CEO evaluations. While accounting,
operating, and stock price metrics are assigned high value by
boards, other actors generally hold little worth when boards
rate their CEOs. Seeming important things such as productservice and quality, customer service, workplace saety, and
even innovation are used in less than 5% o evaluations, says
Proessor Larcker.
CEOs and boards believe the evaluation process is balanced.
Eighty-three percent (83%) o directors and 64% o CEOs
believe that the CEO evaluation process is a balanced
approach between nancial perormance and nonnancial
metrics, such as strategy development and employee and
customer satisaction. Unortunately, the truth o the matter
is that the CEO evaluation process is not that balanced, says
Proessor Larcker. Amid growing calls or integrating reporting
and corporate social responsibility, companies are still behind
the times when it comes to developing reliable and valid
measures o nonnancial perormance metrics.
CEOs ailing to engage boards. Board relationships and
engagement tied with mentoring and development skills
as the #1 weakness in CEOs. This serious disconnect
between management and the boardroom has multiple
negative ramications, says Mr. Miles. Board engagement is
absolutely vital to the unction o the CEO and to the health
o a company. How can the board understand whats going on
in the company i the CEO is not engaging?
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.htmlhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.htmlhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.htmlhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.htmlhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.htmlhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.htmlhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.htmlhttp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/research/surveys/performance.html -
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
4/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 2
Directors lukewarm when comparing their CEOs against peer
group. Forty-one percent (41%) o directors believe that their
CEO is in the top 20% o his or her peers, while 17% believe
that their CEO is below the 60th percentile. For almost hal
o directors to say that their CEO is just in the top 20 percent
is not exactly a ringing endorsement, says Mr. Miles. The
board hires the CEO they should believe that they have the
individual in that job who is absolutely the best, or can quickly
become the best. The act that nearly 20% o directors eel
that their CEO ranks below the top 40% means that a lot o
CEOs should be preparing their resumes.
Disconnect in how CEOs and directors regard the evaluation
process. Sixty-three percent (63%) o CEOs versus 83% o
directors believe that the CEO perormance process is e ective
in their companies. Nearly a third o CEOs dont think that
their evaluation is eective, says Proessor Larcker. The
success o an organization is dependent on open and honest
dialogue between the CEO and the board. It is dicult to see
how that can happen without a rigorous evaluation process.
10% o companies say they have never evaluated their CEO.
Given their duciary duties, its strange that any company
would not evaluate its CEO, says Proessor Larcker. The
CEO perormance evaluation should eed all sorts o board
decisions, including goal setting, corporate perormance
measurement, compensation structure, and succession
planning. Without an evaluation o the CEO, how can the
board claim to be monitoring a corporation?
CEOs highly likely to agree with the results o their
perormance evaluation. Only 12% o CEOs believe that
they are rated too high or too low overall, and almost hal
(49%) do not disagree with any area o their perormance
evaluation. Shareholders have to wonder at the objectivity o
the evaluation process, says Proessor Larcker. Its hard to
believe that boards are pushing CEOs on their evaluations i
they pretty much agree with their evaluation.
Only two-thirds o CEOs believe that their own perormance
evaluation is a meaningul exercise. Even though a high
percentage o directors and CEOs think that the CEO evaluation
process is meaningul, this number really should be 100%,
says Mr. Miles. Every board has the power to meaningully
evaluate the CEO whether doing it themselves, or bringing in
someone to do it, or some combination thereo.
Directors unlenient on violations o ethics but more orgiving
o CEOs with legal or regulatory violations that occur on theirwatch. A signicant minority o directors 27 percent say
that unexpected litigation against the company would have no
impact on their CEOs perormance evaluation, says Proessor
Larcker, while approximately a quarter o directors (24%)
say that unexpected regulatory problems would also have no
impact. By contrast, all directors (100%) say that their CEOs
perormance evaluation would be negatively impacted by
ethical violations or a lack o transparency with the board.
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
5/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 3
Survey Questions
1. How oten does the board o directors ormally evaluate the
perormance o your CEO?
CEOs and Directors Combined.
Percentage
Have never been evaluated 9.9
Less requently than one time a year 6.8
One time per year 75.3
Two times per year 4.3
Four times per year 3.1
More requently than our times per year 0.6
2. Who is primarily responsible or leading the process or the
ormal evaluation o the CEO perormance?
CEOs and Directors Combined.
Percentage
Chairman (i dierent than the CEO) 36.1
Lead independent director 13.9
Head o the nominating and governance committee 8.9
Head o the compensation committee 15.2
Entire board o directors as a group 15.8
Outside consultant or advisor 2.5
Other 7.6
3. Do you engage an outside consultant or advisor to
supplement the review process?
CEOs and Directors Combined.
Percentage
Yes 21.4
No 78.6
4. How satised are you with the services provided by this
outside consultant or advisor?
CEOs and Directors Combined.
Percentage
Very satised 38.2
Moderately satised 58.9
Neither satised nor dissatised 0
Moderately dissatised 0
Very dissatised 2.9
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
6/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 4
5. Who establishes the criteria or metrics that your company
uses to assess the perormance o your CEO?
CEOs and Directors Combined.
Percentage
Chairman 22.2
CEO (i you are not the CEO) 4.9
Lead director 3.1
Board o directors as a group 71.0
Outside consultant or advisor 6.2
Human resources 3.7
General counsel 0.6
Major Investors 3.7
I dont know 1.9
Other 11.7
6. On a scale o 0 to 100, what weighting do you place
on this metric?
Assign a number rom 0 to 100 or each selected
metric; your total should add to 100. CEOs and
Directors Combined.
Mean
Accounting, operating or stock price perormance 41.1
Strategy development 17.0
Customer service / satisaction 4.2
Employee satisaction / turnover 2.5
Product or service quality 4.4
Workplace saety 1.5
Innovation 3.7
Leadership skills 14.6
Succession planning / internal talent development 4.9
Other 6.1
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
7/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 5
7. What impact would each o the ollowing have on your
overall evaluation?
Assign each according to a scale o: very negative impact,
moderately negative impact, no impact.
CEOs Directors
Unexpected fnancial restatement
Percentage
52.1
62.1
Very negative impact
43.7
33.8Moderately negative impact
4.2
4.1
No impact
Unexpected litigation
Percentage
21.1
12.0
Very negative impact
52.1
61.3
Moderately negative impact
26.8
26.7No impact
Missed orecast o revenues or earnings
Percentage
23.9
32.0Very negative impact
69.1
58.7
Moderately negative impact
7.0
9.3
No impact
Major negative PR event
Percentage
36.6
16.0Very negative impact
53.5
77.3
Moderately negative impact
9.9
6.7
No impact
Unexpected regulatory problem*
Percentage
23.9
21.3
Very negative impact
42.3
54.7
Moderately negative impact
33.8
24.0No impact
* Such as with the Environmental Protection Agency/OSHA/Food
and Drug Administration, etc.
Unexpected resignation o senior executive team members
Percentage
11.3
10.7
Very negative impact
50.7
62.6Moderately negative impact
38.0
26.7
No impact
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
8/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 6
Negative results rom workplace engagement survey
Percentage
18.3
8.0
Very negative impact
53.5
76.0Moderately negative impact
28.2
16.0
No impact
Event in which CEO violates ethical principles or personal
conduct standards
Percentage
91.6
98.7
Very negative impact
4.2
1.3Moderately negative impact
4.2
0
No impact
CEO lacks transparency with the board o directors
Directors Only. Percentage
Very negative impact 86.3
Moderately negative impact 13.7
8. Which individuals are interviewed as part o the
review process?
Select all that apply. CEOs and Directors Combined.
Percentage
CEO 48.2
Board members 74.1
Executives one level below the CEO 40.7
Executives two levels below the CEO 6.8
Executives three or more levels below the CEO 2.5
Customers 6.8
Suppliers 1.2
Analysts 2.5
I dont know 31.1
Other 7.4
9. How amenable is your CEO to the process o being reviewed?
Directors Only.
Percentage
Very cooperative 64.0
Moderately cooperative 20.0
Neither cooperative nor uncooperative 8.0
Moderately uncooperative 8.0
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
9/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 7
10. Does the CEO do a sel-evaluation as part o the
ormal review?
Directors Only.
Percentage
Yes 74.7
No 25.3
11. When is the inormation in the evaluation shared with
the CEO?
Directors Only.
Percentage
Both in the middle and at the end o the process 20.0
Only at the end o the process 80.0
12. How is this inormation shared?
Directors Only.
Percentage
Verbally 44.0
In writing 2.7
Both verbally and in writing 53.3
13. Who reviews the evaluation with the CEO?
Select all that apply. Directors Only.
Percentage
Chairman o the board (i dierent than the CEO) 51.2
Lead independent director 22.0
Head o the nominating and governance committee 9.8
Head o the compensation committee 26.8
Another outside director 2.4
Entire board o directors as a group 24.4
Outside consultant or advisor 2.4
Other 4.9
14. Do you agree with the ollowing statement: The CEO
evaluation process [My evaluation process] is a meaningul
exercise?
CEOs Directors
Percentage
25.0
60.0
Strongly agree
39.8
28.0
Agree
19.1
6.7
Neither agree nor disagree
13.2
5.3Disagree
2.9
0
Strongly disagree
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
10/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 8
15. Do you agree with the ollowing statement: The CEO
evaluation process is a balanced approach that ocuses
on nancial (stock price and accounting) perormance and
non-nancial (strategy development, leadership, employee
and customer satisaction)
CEOs Directors
Percentage
18.6
48.0Strongly agree
45.6
34.7
Agree
24.3
12.0
Neither agree nor disagree
8.6
5.3Disagree
2.9
0Strongly disagree
16. How would you rate your personal understanding o the
strengths and weaknesses o your CEO?Directors Only.
Percentage
Excellent understanding 78.7
Moderate understanding 20.0
Very little understanding 1.3
17. Do you agree with the ollowing statement:
There is no way that the board can really understand
my perormance?
CEOs Only.
Percentage
Strongly agree 5.8
Agree 11.6
Neither agree nor disagree 14.5
Disagree 50.7
Strongly disagree 17.4
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
11/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 9
18. What are the biggest strengths o your current CEO?
Select all that apply. Directors Only.
Percentage
Decision making skills 69.5
Board relationship and engagement 47.6
Planning skills 46.3
Team building skills 43.9
Communication skills 41.5
Motivational skills 39
Sharing leadership / delegation skills 39
Persuasion skills 35.4
Interpersonal skills 32.9
Compassion / empathy 26.8
Mentoring skills / developing internal talent 23.2
Listening skills 23.2
Confict management skills 19.5
Other 12.2
I dont know 2.4
19. What are the biggest weaknesses or your current CEO?
Select all that apply. Directors Only.
Percentage
Board relationship and engagement 24.4
Mentoring skills / developing internal talent 24.4
Sharing leadership / delegation skills 22
Listening skills 20.7
Confict management skills 18.3
Planning skills 14.6
Team building skills 13.4
Interpersonal skills 13.4
Compassion / empathy 12.2
Decision making skills 11
Communication skills 11
Persuasion skills 11
Motivational skills 7.3
Other 11
I dont know 3.7
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
12/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 10
20. Which o the ollowing areas o your evaluation do not
refect your personal opinion o your perormance.
Select all that apply. CEOs Only.
Percentage
None o these 48.8
Decision making skills 15
Sharing leadership / delegation skills 11.3
Listening skills 11.3
Confict management skills 11.3
Compassion / empathy 11.3
Planning skills 10
Mentoring skills / developing internal talent 10
Communication skills 10
Team building skills 8.8
Persuasion skills 7.5
Motivational skills 6.3
Interpersonal skills 6.3
Other 5
21. Do you agree with the ollowing statement:
The best board evaluator is someone that either is a CEO
or has recently been a CEO
CEOs Only.
Percentage
Strongly agree 14.3
Agree 40.0
Neither agree nor disagree 21.4
Disagree 18.6
Strongly disagree 5.7
22. Do you agree with the ollowing statement: I am generally
rated too high or too low on my perormance evaluation
CEOs Only.
Percentage
Strongly agree 2.9
Agree 8.7
Neither agree nor disagree 63.8
Disagree 20.3
Strongly disagree 4.3
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
13/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 11
23. How would you evaluate the eectiveness o the CEO
perormance [your perormance] evaluation process?
CEOs Directors
Percentage
40.0
15.5
Very eective
42.6
47.9
Somewhat eective
6.7
16.9Neither eective or ineective
8.0
12.7
Somewhat ineective
2.7
7.0
Very ineective
24. How would you rank your present CEO relative to his or her
peers [your perormance relative to peers] in your industry?
CEOs Directors
Percentage
9.9
6.7
The absolute best
56.3
41.2
Top 20
22.5
34.721-40
8.5
10.7
41-60
1.4
4.0
61-80
1.4
2.7
Bottom 20
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
14/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 12
Descriptive Statistics
Methodology: Survey conducted in February and March 2013.
Respondents were asked to consider each question rom the
standpoint o the corporation they are most closely associated
with. Respondents were screened to include only CEOs and
nonexecutive directors. CEOs include a small number o
executives with joint president and/or COO titles.
Note: Percentages may be rounded to achieve 100.0 percentDemographic Data: Total Population Directors and CEOs
What is your primary proessional background?
Percentage
General corporate executive background 46.8
Academia / Government service 3.6
Accounting or auditing 2.2
Commercial banking 1.5
Consulting 3.6
Engineering 3.6
Finance 15.4
Investment management 5.8
Law 3.6
Technology 5.1
Other 8.8
What is the revenue or the company that you are most closely
identied with?
Percentage
$20 billion 9.6
Gender
Percentage
Male 78.7
Female 21.3
Age
Percentage
31 to 40 3.6
41 to 50 19.7
51 to 60 42.4
61 to 70 27.7
>70 6.6
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
15/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 13
What is the industrial sector or the company that you are most
closely identied with?
Percentage
Business Services 8.1
Chemicals 1.5
Commercial Banking 2.9
Commodities 0.7
Communications 5.1
Computer Services 13.2
Electronics 12.5
Energy 7.4
Financial Services (other than commercial banking) 8.8
Food and Tobacco 7.4
Industrial and Transportation Equipment 3.7
Insurance 2.9
Other Manuacturing 7.4
Other Services 11.8
Retail Trade 2.2
Transportation 0.7
Utilities 1.5
Wholesale Trade 2.2
Respondent: Director or CEO
Percentage
CEO 49.4
Outside Director 50.6
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
16/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 14
About the Sponsors
About Stanord Universitys Rock Center
For Corporate Governance
The Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center or Corporate
Governance is a joint initiative o Stanord Law School and the
Stanord Graduate School o Business, created with the idea
that advances in the understanding and practice o corporate
governance are most likely to occur in a cross-disciplinaryenvironment where leading academics, business leaders, policy
makers, practitioners and regulators can meet and work together.
The Rock Centers goal is to conduct research and tap this wealth
o expertise to advance the practice and study o corporate
governance. The Rock Center works closely with the Center or
Leadership Development and Research.
About Stanord Graduate School o Business, Center
For Leadership Development and Research
The Center or Leadership Development and Research mission is
to advance the intellectual understanding o corporate governanceand executive leadership by engaging academics, regulators,
practitioners and proessionals, bridging the gap between theory
and practice. We aim to strengthen governance and leadership
as independent areas o teaching and scholarship in business
schools worldwide and to generate new insights into undamental
big issues.
About The Miles Group
The Miles Group develops talent strategies or organizations,
teams, and individuals ocusing on high-perormance,
world-class leadership. Headquartered in New York, The Miles
Group advises top global corporations through CEO succession,
executive transitions, board assessment and training, and talent
development. The rms coaching and advisory services enableleaders to raise the bar on their own perormance, as well as
create an environment or success throughout the organization.
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
17/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 15
About the Authors
David F. Larcker
David F. Larcker is James Irvin Miller
Proessor o Accounting at the Graduate
School o Business o Stanord University
and proessor at the Stanord Law School
(courtesy). He was previously the Ernst &
Young Proessor o Accounting at theWharton School o the University o
Pennsylvania and Proessor o accounting
and inormation systems at the J. L.
Kellogg Graduate School o Management
at Northwestern University. He received bachelors and masters
degrees in engineering rom the University o Missouri Rolla and
a doctorate in business rom the University o Kansas.
David is senior aculty at the Stanord Rock Center or Corporate
Governance and Morgan Stanley Director o the Center or
Leadership Development and Research. He is also a trustee o the
Wells Fargo Advantage Funds.
David has published many articles and book chapters ontopics such as executive compensation, corporate governance,
measurement o intangible assets, and strategic business
models. He received the Notable Contribution to Management
Accounting Literature Award in 2001. He is the coauthor o
Corporate Governance Matters: A Closer Look at Organizational
Choices and Their Consequences. In 2012, he was named to
the NACD Directorship 100 as one o the most infuential people
in the boardroom and corporate governance community. He has
served as a consultant to numerous organizations on corporate
governance and design o executive compensation contracts.
Email: [email protected]
Brian Tayan
Brian Tayan is a member o the Center or Leadership
Development and Research at the Stanord Graduate School o
Business. He has written broadly on the subject o corporate
governance, including the boards o directors, succession
planning, compensation, nancial accounting, and shareholder
relations. Tayan is co-author oCorporate Governance Matters:
A Closer Look at Organizational Choices and Their Consequences.
Stephen Miles
Stephen Miles is the ounder and chie
executive ocer o The Miles Group.
Previously, he was a vice chairman at
Heidrick & Struggles and ran Leadership
Advisory Services. With more than 15
years o experience in assessment,executive coaching, top-level succession
planning, organizational eectiveness and
strategy consulting, Stephen specializes in
CEO succession and has partnered with
numerous boards o global Fortune 500 companies to ensure that
a successul leadership selection and transition occurs. He has
also led many chairman successions and board eectiveness
reviews, partnering with boards o directors to help them with
their overall eectiveness, committee eectiveness and individual
director eectiveness.
Stephen is a recognized expert on the role o the chie operating
ocer, and has consulted numerous companies on theestablishment and the eectiveness o the position and supporting
the transition rom COO to e ective CEO. He is a coach to many
CEOs and COOs around the world, and his clients cut across all
industry sectors.
Stephen and his CEO advisory services were proled in the
Bloomberg BusinessWeek article The Rising Star o CEO
Consulting.Prior to The Miles Group and Heidrick & Struggles,
Stephen held various positions at Andersen Consulting.
Stephen is author and co-editor o the best-selling business book
Leaders Talk Leadership. He also co-authored Riding Shotgun: The
Role o the Chie Operating Ofcer, as well as the cover article in the
May 2006 issue oHarvard Business Review on the same topic.
Email:[email protected]
Michelle E. Gutman
Michelle E. Gutman, associate researcher, is a member o
the Center or Leadership Development and Research at the
Stanord Graduate School o Business, and at the Rock Center or
Corporate Governance at Stanord University. She is a ounder and
advisor to Stanord Women on Boards, an initiative to increase
the representation o outstanding Stanord-aliated women on
duciary boards o directors. Follow Stanord twitter eeds:
@StanordCorpGov & @StnrdLeadrship or research news.
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
18/19
2013 Survey on CEO Perormance Evaluations 16
Contact Inormation
For more inormation on this report, please contact:
Katie Pandes, Stanord Graduate School o Business
Phone: 650-724-9152
Email:pandes _ [email protected]
Stanord GSB Center or Leadership Developmentand Research:
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/
Rock Center or Corporate Governance at Stanord:
http://rockcenter.law.stanford.edu/
The Miles Group:
http://miles-group.com/
-
7/30/2019 2013 CEO Performance Evaluation Survey Results form Stanford University and The Miles Group
19/19