Here Are 4 ASX Stocks That Manage Leadership Transitions Well, And 4 That Don’t (Right Now)

There are ASX stocks that manage leadership transitions better than others, and those that manage them well are less risky than those that don’t. Earnings misses are usually temporary and commodity cycles eventually turn, but a poorly managed change at the top can erode a company’s culture, strategy and market credibility for years. In our view, the way a board handles a CEO handover, whether it is telegraphed well in advance with an internal successor groomed for the role, or whether it is forced, abrupt and accompanied by a wider governance crisis, is one of the clearer tells of how well a board actually understands its own business.

This article looks at four ASX-listed companies through that have built reputations for the opposite: long-planned, internally sourced successions that barely register as a risk event in the share price. But also four that lack that, at least right now.

4 ASX Stocks That Manage Leadership Transitions Well,

Macquarie Group (ASX: MQG)

There’d be an uproar if we didn’t start with (let alone include) the Millionaires Factory because Macquarie’s record on leadership succession is arguably unmatched on the ASX. The investment bank has moved through several generations of chief executive, from Allan Moss to Nicholas Moore in 2008 and from Moore to Shemara Wikramanayake in 2018, with each handover sourced internally and well telegraphed to the market in advance.

The consistency of this pattern over multiple decades suggests it is a deliberate function of how Macquarie structures its executive committee and its internal promotion pathways, developing several plausible internal successors at any given time rather than being a coincidence or just relying on a single anointed heir. The market’s muted reaction to each of these transitions, in terms of share price volatility, is itself evidence of how credible investors find the company’s succession planning.

Cochlear (ASX: COH)

Cochlear has likewise built a reputation for orderly internal succession, moving from founding managing director Chris Roberts to Chris Smith in 2004 and subsequently to Dig Howitt in 2019, with each incoming chief executive having spent meaningful time within the business before stepping into the top role.

This continuity has supported a consistent long-term strategic narrative around the company’s hearing implant technology and global distribution, without the disruption that can accompany an externally sourced leadership change in a highly specialised medical device business where institutional knowledge of the regulatory and clinical landscape is difficult to replace quickly. Now, we are well aware of the earnings downgrade earlier this year, but we’ve kept it on our list because it is hardly the case that a change of leadership alone means a change in ofrtunes.

BHP (ASX: BHP)

BHP’s two most recent chief executive transitions, from Andrew Mackenzie to Mike Henry in 2020 and, before that, from Marius Kloppers to Mackenzie in 2013, were both internally sourced and well flagged ahead of time. Mike Henry in particular had run BHP’s Australian operations and its Coal business prior to his promotion, giving the market a clear line of sight into his operational background before he took the top job. The result has been a series of leadership changes that have not introduced any meaningful discount or premium into BHP’s valuation, consistent with a market that views the company’s succession planning as a managed process rather than a risk event.

Wesfarmers (ASX: WES)

Wesfarmers’ transition from Richard Goyder to Rob Scott in 2017 is a useful example of internal grooming done well. Scott had previously run both the Coles and Industrials divisions and had served as the group’s finance director, giving him direct exposure to the full breadth of Wesfarmers’ diversified portfolio before stepping into the chief executive role. The long lead time afforded by this internal career path meant the market had effectively priced in Scott as the likely successor well before the announcement, reducing the transition to a formality rather than a surprise.

4 ASX Stocks That Haven’t Managed Leadership Transitions Well

AMP (ASX: AMP)

AMP’s leadership instability traces back most clearly to the 2018 Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, which exposed fees charged to customers for financial advice that was never provided. The fallout claimed both the chief executive and the chair within weeks of each other, a relatively rare occurrence on the ASX, and set off a period of leadership churn that has persisted across multiple chief executives since. Each successive leader has attempted a different version of the same task, restoring trust in the wealth management franchise while simultaneously restructuring or divesting parts of the business, and the company’s share price has reflected the market’s scepticism that any single leadership team can resolve a problem this structural. AMP is a useful case study in how a single governance failure, if severe enough, can produce a multi-year cycle of leadership instability rather than a one-off transition.

Nine Entertainment (ASX: NEC)

Nine’s transition troubles have come from a different direction again, a mix of personal conduct issues and chair-level instability rather than strategic failure. Hugh Marks departed as chief executive in 2021 following the disclosure of a workplace relationship, with Mike Sneesby promoted into the role. More recently, the abrupt resignation of Chairman Peter Costello in mid-2024, following a reported altercation with a journalist, added a further layer of leadership uncertainty at board level.

Importantly, Nine’s underlying media assets, including its free-to-air television, publishing and streaming businesses, have continued to operate broadly as expected through these episodes, which suggests the company’s transition troubles are more a governance and reputational issue than an indicator of operational distress. Even so, repeated leadership disruption at both the executive and chair level tends to compound investor uncertainty over time, particularly in a sector already facing structural advertising headwinds.

Mayne Pharma (ASX: MYX)

Mayne Pharma’s recent leadership changes have coincided with a period of significant strategic transition for the business, including the sale of its US generics and branded pharmaceutical operations and a broader reshaping of its asset base. Board records indicate the departure of the chief executive alongside multiple non-executive director changes within a short window, a pattern that, in our experience, tends to signal a company in the midst of an unresolved strategic pivot rather than one executing a settled plan.

The risk for shareholders in situations like this is less about any single departure and more about the cumulative effect of executive and board turnover landing at the same time as major corporate restructuring, since it leaves the market with limited continuity of leadership to assess the credibility of the new strategy. Some investors may be forgiven for thinking Jim Chalmers’ late 2025 decision to block a US$672m takeover bid was even worse than his CGT changes.

Southern Cross Media (ASX: SXL)

Southern Cross Media has experienced one of the more pronounced recent examples of board overhaul on the ASX, with multiple director changes including the departure of both its chief executive and interim chairman occurring within a short period. This has played out against a difficult structural backdrop for the regional radio and television sector, where advertising revenue has been under sustained pressure from digital substitution.

As with Mayne Pharma, the issue is not simply that leadership changed but that it changed across multiple roles simultaneously, which tends to leave a vacuum at precisely the moment a company most needs a clear and credible strategic narrative for investors.

What separates the two groups

For investors, the practical implication is that a company’s succession track record is itself a piece of evidence worth weighing alongside more conventional fundamentals. A board that has consistently managed leadership change well is, in our view, more likely to be applying the same discipline to other forms of risk management across the business. Conversely, a pattern of reactive, crisis-driven leadership churn is rarely confined to the executive suite alone and often correlates with broader strategic drift.

None of this guarantees future performance in either direction, but it is a reasonable lens through which to assess governance quality on the ASX, particularly for companies where a leadership change is currently under way or appears likely in the near term.