The boardroom fracas at Harley-Davidson is a reminder to all corporate board members that succession planning is vital to maintaining the stability, long-term sustainability and growth of a business. When board members delay or fight over finding the future leaders of a major corporation, it can leave the company without direction, alarming shareholders and encouraging activist investors to take action.
When Harley-Davidson CEO Jochen Zeitz informed the company in the last quarter of 2024 that he planned to retire, the motorcycle maker’s board was on the clock—entrusted with the responsibility to find their CEO’s successor as soon as possible. But as of April 2025, the Harley-Davidson board is still in the process of identifying its next CEO. Recently, Jared Doureville, a Harley-Davidson director since February 2022, resigned and called for the immediate resignation of Zeitz and two longtime board members, citing “cultural depletion, executive turnover and misalignment with the core brand,” as major reasons for his actions, according to news reports.
Doureville’s connection to H Partners Management (he serves as one of its principals) led to the private equity firm, which owns approximately 9.1 percent of Harley-Davidson stock, launching a campaign to get other shareholders to cast “withhold” votes for Zeitz and the other two board members at the company’s shareholder meeting in May.
As part of its efforts to oust the CEO and directors, H Partners said that it was “deeply concerned that if the Board—as currently constituted—were to select the new permanent CEO, there will be a continuation of the Company’s current strategic direction and further destruction of significant shareholder value.” H Partners emphasized the company’s poor performance, having logged a 42.7 percent loss in stock price value over the last 12 months—including 24 percent since the start of 2025.
Harley-Davidson countered by calling H Partners’ campaign “self-serving” because its CEO candidate was rejected by the board. “H Partners has chosen to put its own interest ahead of the interests of other shareholders by attempting to disrupt the Board’s rigorous and thoughtful CEO transition process, creating uncertainty for and putting Harley-Davidson’s future and shareholder value at risk.”
Whether you believe that H Partners’ call for the CEO and two board members to be replaced was calculated and self-serving, the prospect of a company operating multiple months without knowing who its next CEO will be, is disconcerting to investors. A regularly updated succession plan is a necessity for publicly traded corporations—especially in the current environment where one year of poor performance can lead to calls for a CEO’s ouster.
As the turmoil at Harley-Davidson unfolds, here are some observations about the situation that might help other companies avoid this type of issue:
Keep board disagreements in house. There are bound to be disagreements among the board about who should be the next leader of any company. Unfortunately, the disagreement about Harley-Davidson’s CEO became public when director Doureville resigned and released a scathing letter about what was happening at the company. When board members publicly criticize each other, almost everyone loses. Generally, it results in board members losing their board seats, the company losing stock price value, shareholders losing faith in the board and CEO’s ability to lead and the potential for reputational damage to the company brand. If the board can make compromises among its current members, it may avert calling attention to problems that could force the board to have to make compromises with activist investors.
Make sure the process for replacing the CEO is thorough, but fast. Whenever a leader is replaced, you want to do the proper due diligence to make sure that the right person is elevated to the top job. However, take too long to replace a CEO, and the financial markets and your shareholders may start to question whether the board is up to the task. Calls for CEOs to be replaced usually coincide with poor performance or mismanagement of a crisis. These situations require quick resolutions that can get the company back on track. Dragging out the CEO selection process creates uncertainty. The faster a new CEO is in place, the sooner the company can begin implementing a turnaround plan or recovering from a crisis.
Consider making an annual succession plan review mandatory. If this isn’t already a general practice for your board, consider it. The recent firings of CEOs for poor performance, disagreements on strategy and conflicts with large shareholders make this a practical thing to do. Recent threats of violence against corporate officials also raise the risk of a company needing to have someone to step in to the CEO’s role on an interim basis in an emergency. An annual succession plan review is also a way to make sure the board is focused on the company’s future.
