What do coffee, sneakers, and airplanes have in common? For some of the biggest names in these markets, their shared characteristic is change. That is, Starbucks, Nike, and Boeing have all undergone the upheaval of losing their existing chief executive officers and bringing in new leaders, with radically different ideas and approaches, to run things. Although still in the early months of their tenures, some of them already appear to be faring better than others.

After Starbucks faced its third consecutive quarter of falling demand—seemingly due to increased competition in China and boycotts of the brand following conflict in the Middle East—it brought in Brian Niccol to revert course. The former CEO of Chipotle, Niccol is something of an expert in turning companies around. He plans to return Starbucks to its original brand identity and reestablish the physical stores as community coffee houses. Niccol has also vowed to simplify the menu and improve staffing levels. Investors seemed happy with the appointment; Starbucks shares increased by 24.5 percent on the day it was announced.

Elliot Hill’s appointment as CEO of Nike followed a year in which stock prices fell 25 percent and revenue was down 10 percent. In his first few weeks at the helm, Hill earned praise for his strategic determination and success in negotiating a 12-season extension of Nike’s partnership with the NBA. But the real test for Nike remains, because Hill must find a way to inspire the established company to create more innovative, appealing products that can compete with trendy, new, hipper sneaker companies like Hoka and On. Nike’s ability to tap into the aesthetics of athleisure, in a way that also creates a more compelling brand image, will likely be what decides its economic future.

And finally, there’s Boeing, with its widely publicized and deeply dangerous product failures. Although notable events like doors flying off planes are recent, expert observers believe the source of many of the company’s problems actually began in the 1990s, when the company exhibited a clear change in focus, prioritizing profit over engineering quality. The installation of Kelly Ortberg as CEO in August 2024 was supposed to help resolve the problems, not make them worse. But even as Ortberg vowed to improve the workplace culture at Boing, strikes by union workers cost the company an estimated $1 billion per month. Boeing reported a $6 billion loss in just the third quarter of 2024, one of the biggest in the company’s history.

Turnarounds of big companies are possible, and the narratives of how they happen make up much of the lore surrounding the genius of company leaders. For example, stories of how Apple and General Motors recaptured market share after periods of decline continue to inspire managers at various hierarchical levels. But success is never guaranteed, and the new leaders of these three companies confront massive pressures to make the right choices. The survival of the brands depends on it.

Discussion Questions 

1. What are some other ways that these companies might deal with their declining sales? Would a strategy suggested for Starbucks also work for Boeing? Why or why not?
2. Is it fair that so much of a company’s success or failure is attributed to the CEO?

Sources: Allison Morrow, “Why Nike, Starbucks and Boeing Have Lost Their Magic,” CNN, October 25, 2024; Hope King, “New Leaders at Boeing, Starbucks and Nike Face Similar Problems,” AXIOS, October 23, 2024; “How Vital Is a Company’s CEO?” BBC, November 27, 2024