Much less focus, however, has been put on the problem of more gradual deterioration, or stagnation, of performance. Our Life Cycle research reveals that this is a particularly common development beginning approximately after the first five years of a CEO’s tenure. Company performance was lower on many fronts in years six to ten for two out of three CEOs than in their first five years. The rate of revenue increase slowed in these later years. Both EBITDA and ROIC slackened relative to earlier years, companies often became less efficient, and growth in operating income stalled.

When CEOs depart during the Complacency Trap stage of the life cycle, generally from years six to ten, inefficiencies that have crept into the organization and problems that have been festering— such as an underperforming unit or product line— constitute much of the low-hanging fruit their successors immediately go after. This invites the question: If those problems are so apparent to new leaders and boards that appoint them, why haven’t they been more effectively addressed?

Research has found that 73 percent of PE CEOs are replaced at some point during the holding period, most often within the first two years, because PE boards demand faster proof that the CEO is meeting performance goals. Being replaced may lead to substantial financial loss for the CEO because, in PE deals, the CEO and some of the upper management team are usually required to invest personal wealth in the deal. In return, they’re granted a portion of the increase in equity realized at exit, the amount of which varies but is generally between 2 percent and 4 percent.

The first stage, Proof of Performance, can range from less than a year in duration to an upper range of two years, depending on the results being achieved. Although the Launch stage for public company CEOs is intense, private equity partners, CEOs of PE portfolio companies who have also been public company CEOs, and directors who’ve worked with both the public and PE models unanimously agreed that the expectation for fast results was even greater for the PE CEO. Instead of being afforded a honeymoon or the exploratory period of a listening tour, a PE CEO is expected to immediately begin implementing the elements of the detailed investment thesis.

In all cases, an essential truth is that the CEO is still the one primarily in charge of running the company. The PE firm provides an idealized model of the transformation process, and the CEO brings the wisdom of experience in how to actually manage the messier, human process of execution.