January 29, 2026
jetcityimage2/Depositphotos.com
Is High Exec Turnover Hurting Retailers?
C-level departures have accelerated in recent years, and while shaking up top management can reduce complacency within an organization and improve performance, it also has downsides.
The exec exits most called out are at the CEO level, a role where turnover just wrapped up its second consecutive record year, according to analysis by Russell Reynolds Associates.
Russell Reynolds attributes the faster pace of CEO changes to continued economic and political volatility, rapid technological change, and pressure from activist investors. The management consulting firm said the shift to shorter CEO tenures shows the CEO role is shifting from the “long-term steward of the organization to a catalyst for transformation. Leadership success is increasingly being defined by a CEO’s ability to drive rapid, visible results, with far greater pressure to deliver immediate impact.”
Russell Reynolds also noted that the shorter tenures may come about as the majority of recent hires have been first-time CEOs. Another reason often cited for high CEO turnover across jobs is burnout.
Similar pressures are being felt for those in other c-level roles. A just-published survey of “current and aspiring c-level professionals” from resume writing firm TopResume showed 38% considered leaving their role in the past 12 months, with half that group thinking about it “very often.” The top motivation for considering leaving their role was a “desire for better work-life balance,” cited by 32%, with “burnout/stress” cited by 25%.
Top Retailers Swapping CEOs in Recent Years
At the retail level, new CEOs hired in 2024 at Macy’s, Nike, Starbucks, VF Corp., Petco, and Under Armour led to extensive changes in other c-level roles — and the pattern continued for many retailers in 2025. CEO departures over the last year occurred at Kohl’s, Kroger, Ulta Beauty, L.L. Bean, Lululemon and The Container Store, with Walmart and Target both seeing new CEOs, effective Feb. 1.
Tagro Solutions, a human resources consultant, in a blog entry said high c-level turnover can strain longstanding client and customer relationships and impact morale as existing employees worry about job security. Tagro also noted that the loss of loss of institutional knowledge that can lead to training gaps and project delays.
A survey from Gartner — of 227 supply chain execs taken in mid-2025 — showed 54% reporting that leadership turnover significantly disrupted their supply chain operations in the past three years.
Researchers from the University of Kansas School of Business found that as rates of top management turnover increase, productivity erodes. James Guthrie, professor of management, University of Kansas, said in a press release that companies often undervalue social connections, industry relationships and organizational knowledge when making c-level changes.
He said, “Certainly you need to change top executives when they’re not performing well or skill sets are obsolete, but I think a lot of firms take this too far. Companies often underestimate the value of employee retention.”
BrainTrust
Lucille DeHart
Principal, MKT Marketing Services/Columbus Consulting
Anil Patel
Founder & CEO, HotWax Commerce
Frank Margolis
Executive Director, Growth Marketing & Business Development, Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are turnover rates at the CEO and overall c-level at retail moving too fast? Are the negative consequences of an exec departure often overlooked?
Is there a natural tendency to undervalue the institutional knowledge a departing executive offers, and overestimate the positive effects of change?
Poll
Loading …
Executive turnover has increased – some, but not all of it is because running a large retailer has become way more intense and challenging. And there is no doubt that some talent has been lost from the industry. However, there’s also an influx of new talent to top posts. Walmart is a case in point: Doug McMillon is brilliant but his replacement, John Furner, is also an excellent operator. Overall, I’d still say that retail has a very deep bench of talented people that it can call on.
The other thing I would add is there is no universal here. CEO departures happen for all kinds of reasons and the subsequent changes are mixed. Kohl’s CEO was booted out because of misconduct, and they struggled to find anyone external who wanted to take on the challenge. Macy’s former CEO retired, and he was replaced by someone way better. Lululemon’s CEO was basically forced out because of poor performance, and they’re still looking for a replacement. And so on.
Kohl’s CEO was booted out because of misconduct, and they struggled to find anyone external who wanted to take on the challenge. Macy’s former CEO retired, and he was replaced by someone way better. Lululemon’s CEO was basically forced out because of poor performance
Perhaps a better question for this topic would be “Is failure to turnover execs hurting retailers?”
It’s a very valid question. Because Macy’s got a way better CEO when the previous one retired!
Some of my retail clients require managers to have employees who are “manager-ready” when the opportunity arises to replace an existing manager or when a new location opens and needs a manager. I am often surprised that this strategy is not always implemented at the highest levels of a company, such as the C-Suite, SVP, and VP levels. There will always be exceptions, but every organization should prepare for a CEO who may retire, fall ill, leave, or be replaced for any other reason, the day that the CEO’s job starts.
Retail CEO turnover has reached record highs in recent years, and the pace of change is accelerating compared to other industries. Pressure for immediate results and more demanding external challenges contribute to shorter retail CEO tenures (under four years). Overlooked consequences include loss of institutional knowledge, drop in employee morale and performance, and banner reputational risks. Intentional internal succession planning and preparation can mitigate the negative impact of retail’s high CEO turnover.
I don’t think executive turnover across the board is inherently bad — in fact, not all turnover should be viewed negatively. In situations where there’s a planned succession that aligns with a company’s long-term strategy, a leadership change can be a healthy evolution. Walmart’s recent CEO transition is a good example: it was clearly communicated, tied to a broader strategic continuum, and designed to preserve momentum rather than disrupt it. In cases like that, change isn’t transactional — it’s transformational in a controlled and thoughtful way.
That said, when turnover becomes too frequent or reactive, the consequences are often underestimated. Retail is a complex business that thrives on continuity—deep customer insights, long-term vendor relationships, nuanced operational knowledge, and a finely tuned culture. When a C-suite changes too rapidly, it’s easy to overlook how much institutional knowledge departs with those executives. That loss isn’t limited to CEOs; it shows up at every leadership level when the collective memory of what works, why it works, and how to adapt it walks out the door. Too often, organizations underestimate the cost of that loss or overestimate the upside of a fresh face when there is insufficient handoff, context, or cultural continuity.
There’s also a natural bias in business storytelling that frames change as inherently positive—new blood equals new ideas, innovation, and momentum—even when what’s really needed is stability through strategic refinement. The flip side, undervaluing institutional knowledge, shows up not just in the C-suite but through all layers of leadership. When seasoned leaders depart, so does their nuanced understanding of customer behaviors, operational cadence, and historical decision context — the sort of insight you can’t replicate in a LinkedIn profile or a four-page résumé.
In sum, turnover can be constructive when it’s strategic, planned, and executed with respect for continuity. But the industry should take a harder look at how often we celebrate change without asking what essential knowledge and cultural continuity we’re leaving behind. The most effective organizations balance renewal with respect for the deep expertise that makes sustained performance — and often transformation itself — possible.
More companies should try Undercover Boss! Swap the CEO for the frontline worker.
Much of the pressures put on the C-suite come from the stock price, which is an unrealistic measure for brand growth and scalability. Managing a business with quarterly metrics does not allow for long-term investment returns and puts unsustainable pressures on the company to perform soley on immediate gains. While bad C-suite members should be weeded out quickly, better cultural integration should happen before the hiring is solidified. Entire organizations spend way too much time ensuring their own continuity with new leadership and the onboarding/fact-finding/30-60-90 day period greately reduces productivity. Retail, in general, has high turnover from sales floor to corporate offices. I would like to see more stable workforces so everyone has a vested interest in building the business and not just being employed by it.
Executive turnover is not a bad thing, rather it is demonstrative of just how challenging retail is. Bad CEOs are exited, and viable replacements take their place – that’s how the world turns. But good CEOs – such as Doug McMillon – will stay in role for a decade plus, demonstrating that turnover is a necessary evil.
Executive turnover in retail is increasing largely because the job itself has changed. The role now demands faster decisions, constant transformation, and the ability to navigate ongoing economic and operational pressure. In that environment, leadership changes are not always a sign of instability. In many cases, they reflect an organization adjusting to new realities.
At the same time, continuity still plays an important role in retail success. Deep knowledge of the business, teams, and customers takes time to develop and becomes most valuable during periods of change. From my experience, the strongest outcomes come when leadership transitions are planned and purposeful, combining fresh thinking with a clear handoff of experience and context.
Maybe, the expectations are too high for retail?
I think companies should be more decisive to change out ineffective leadership. If they realize they hired the wrong person and they’re seeing profits sink, someone needs to make a decision quick. I see no problem with this kind of turnover.
The problem turnover is when you have “38% considered leaving their role”. This is a serious issue.
If the leadership is saying they are burnt out and need more work-life balance, then what do you think their team is feeling?
Is this a retail problem, a CEO problem, or a Board of Directors problem? The wrong hire with the wrong skills and the wrong agenda is baking quick turnover baked into the mix from day one. Retail is evolving faster than ever and last decade’s or even last year’s To-Do list isn’t going to cut it. And being too far ahead of the curve won’t work either. I think Ron Johnson had a lot of good ideas for JCP way back when. But it was too much, way too fast. Didn’t Sears evolve way too little, too slowly…??? Didn’t Target doing a great job of evolving ahead of the curve for a while there?
CEO’s aren’t supposed to manage the status quo. They are supposed to manage change. The vision thing. How much change how quickly…??? What can the internal team handle? What can the external team execute without stumbling? What is the customer demanding? What does the customer think would be nice to have, but can wait? Has the market embraced some new level of table stakes the company is behind on? It’s a daunting list of moving parts that ultimately all need to smoothly mesh together.
So I think this all significantly raises the bar for the Board of Directors. The board itself has to have the breadth of expertise to be able to pressure test for the CEO’s range of skills. And no CEO is going to get A+ in every category. So how does the rest of the C-suite complement the CEO? And is everyone mature enough to look at past mistakes and stumbles and embrace them for the learning opportunites they present…???
When the pandemic hit, it was clear: It’s a New Jack City. The status quo in retail is done. Retail PEST analyses — especially in 2025 and 2026 — confirmed a growing number of factors keeping CEOs up at night and a faster velocity of change.
Agile visionaries who see where the market is going, and know how to restructure their teams, systems and partnerships also need the stamina to keep up.
More Discussions
Will In-Store Media Fly For WHSmith?
Is WHSmith’s gamble a wise one? Will broader in-store retail show growth moving forward?What Lessons Can Be Learned From Eddie Bauer’s Retail Exit?
What can be learned from the Eddie Bauer story?Are Super Bowl Shoppers Calling a Budgetary Audible?
Will Super Bowl audiences continue to spend as much as previous, or will spend dip?
Executive turnover has increased – some, but not all of it is because running a large retailer has become way more intense and challenging. And there is no doubt that some talent has been lost from the industry. However, there’s also an influx of new talent to top posts. Walmart is a case in point: Doug McMillon is brilliant but his replacement, John Furner, is also an excellent operator. Overall, I’d still say that retail has a very deep bench of talented people that it can call on.
The other thing I would add is there is no universal here. CEO departures happen for all kinds of reasons and the subsequent changes are mixed. Kohl’s CEO was booted out because of misconduct, and they struggled to find anyone external who wanted to take on the challenge. Macy’s former CEO retired, and he was replaced by someone way better. Lululemon’s CEO was basically forced out because of poor performance, and they’re still looking for a replacement. And so on.
Perhaps a better question for this topic would be “Is failure to turnover execs hurting retailers?”
It’s a very valid question. Because Macy’s got a way better CEO when the previous one retired!
Some of my retail clients require managers to have employees who are “manager-ready” when the opportunity arises to replace an existing manager or when a new location opens and needs a manager. I am often surprised that this strategy is not always implemented at the highest levels of a company, such as the C-Suite, SVP, and VP levels. There will always be exceptions, but every organization should prepare for a CEO who may retire, fall ill, leave, or be replaced for any other reason, the day that the CEO’s job starts.
Retail CEO turnover has reached record highs in recent years, and the pace of change is accelerating compared to other industries. Pressure for immediate results and more demanding external challenges contribute to shorter retail CEO tenures (under four years). Overlooked consequences include loss of institutional knowledge, drop in employee morale and performance, and banner reputational risks. Intentional internal succession planning and preparation can mitigate the negative impact of retail’s high CEO turnover.
I don’t think executive turnover across the board is inherently bad — in fact, not all turnover should be viewed negatively. In situations where there’s a planned succession that aligns with a company’s long-term strategy, a leadership change can be a healthy evolution. Walmart’s recent CEO transition is a good example: it was clearly communicated, tied to a broader strategic continuum, and designed to preserve momentum rather than disrupt it. In cases like that, change isn’t transactional — it’s transformational in a controlled and thoughtful way.
That said, when turnover becomes too frequent or reactive, the consequences are often underestimated. Retail is a complex business that thrives on continuity—deep customer insights, long-term vendor relationships, nuanced operational knowledge, and a finely tuned culture. When a C-suite changes too rapidly, it’s easy to overlook how much institutional knowledge departs with those executives. That loss isn’t limited to CEOs; it shows up at every leadership level when the collective memory of what works, why it works, and how to adapt it walks out the door. Too often, organizations underestimate the cost of that loss or overestimate the upside of a fresh face when there is insufficient handoff, context, or cultural continuity.
There’s also a natural bias in business storytelling that frames change as inherently positive—new blood equals new ideas, innovation, and momentum—even when what’s really needed is stability through strategic refinement. The flip side, undervaluing institutional knowledge, shows up not just in the C-suite but through all layers of leadership. When seasoned leaders depart, so does their nuanced understanding of customer behaviors, operational cadence, and historical decision context — the sort of insight you can’t replicate in a LinkedIn profile or a four-page résumé.
In sum, turnover can be constructive when it’s strategic, planned, and executed with respect for continuity. But the industry should take a harder look at how often we celebrate change without asking what essential knowledge and cultural continuity we’re leaving behind. The most effective organizations balance renewal with respect for the deep expertise that makes sustained performance — and often transformation itself — possible.
More companies should try Undercover Boss! Swap the CEO for the frontline worker.
Much of the pressures put on the C-suite come from the stock price, which is an unrealistic measure for brand growth and scalability. Managing a business with quarterly metrics does not allow for long-term investment returns and puts unsustainable pressures on the company to perform soley on immediate gains. While bad C-suite members should be weeded out quickly, better cultural integration should happen before the hiring is solidified. Entire organizations spend way too much time ensuring their own continuity with new leadership and the onboarding/fact-finding/30-60-90 day period greately reduces productivity. Retail, in general, has high turnover from sales floor to corporate offices. I would like to see more stable workforces so everyone has a vested interest in building the business and not just being employed by it.
Executive turnover is not a bad thing, rather it is demonstrative of just how challenging retail is. Bad CEOs are exited, and viable replacements take their place – that’s how the world turns. But good CEOs – such as Doug McMillon – will stay in role for a decade plus, demonstrating that turnover is a necessary evil.
Executive turnover in retail is increasing largely because the job itself has changed. The role now demands faster decisions, constant transformation, and the ability to navigate ongoing economic and operational pressure. In that environment, leadership changes are not always a sign of instability. In many cases, they reflect an organization adjusting to new realities.
At the same time, continuity still plays an important role in retail success. Deep knowledge of the business, teams, and customers takes time to develop and becomes most valuable during periods of change. From my experience, the strongest outcomes come when leadership transitions are planned and purposeful, combining fresh thinking with a clear handoff of experience and context.
Maybe, the expectations are too high for retail?
I think companies should be more decisive to change out ineffective leadership. If they realize they hired the wrong person and they’re seeing profits sink, someone needs to make a decision quick. I see no problem with this kind of turnover.
The problem turnover is when you have “38% considered leaving their role”. This is a serious issue.
If the leadership is saying they are burnt out and need more work-life balance, then what do you think their team is feeling?
Is this a retail problem, a CEO problem, or a Board of Directors problem? The wrong hire with the wrong skills and the wrong agenda is baking quick turnover baked into the mix from day one. Retail is evolving faster than ever and last decade’s or even last year’s To-Do list isn’t going to cut it. And being too far ahead of the curve won’t work either. I think Ron Johnson had a lot of good ideas for JCP way back when. But it was too much, way too fast. Didn’t Sears evolve way too little, too slowly…??? Didn’t Target doing a great job of evolving ahead of the curve for a while there?
CEO’s aren’t supposed to manage the status quo. They are supposed to manage change. The vision thing. How much change how quickly…??? What can the internal team handle? What can the external team execute without stumbling? What is the customer demanding? What does the customer think would be nice to have, but can wait? Has the market embraced some new level of table stakes the company is behind on? It’s a daunting list of moving parts that ultimately all need to smoothly mesh together.
So I think this all significantly raises the bar for the Board of Directors. The board itself has to have the breadth of expertise to be able to pressure test for the CEO’s range of skills. And no CEO is going to get A+ in every category. So how does the rest of the C-suite complement the CEO? And is everyone mature enough to look at past mistakes and stumbles and embrace them for the learning opportunites they present…???
When the pandemic hit, it was clear: It’s a New Jack City. The status quo in retail is done. Retail PEST analyses — especially in 2025 and 2026 — confirmed a growing number of factors keeping CEOs up at night and a faster velocity of change.
Agile visionaries who see where the market is going, and know how to restructure their teams, systems and partnerships also need the stamina to keep up.