在過去一年半的時(shí)間里，食品行業(yè)的獵頭人士們忙得可是不亦樂乎。

這一階段始于2016年5月，馬克?斯馬克成為自家果醬果凍公司JM斯馬克首席執(zhí)行官的時(shí)候，他取代了已經(jīng)在這個(gè)職位上坐了15年的叔叔。隨后，大肉食行業(yè)在當(dāng)年秋天出現(xiàn)了一系列管理層更迭——首先是10月份Hormel Foods公司CEO易主，泰森食品則在12月份步其后塵。最后，全食超市聯(lián)和首席執(zhí)行官沃爾特?羅布在2016年底正式離職，留下約翰?麥基在這家高檔天然食品超市獨(dú)挑大梁。同一天，在雀巢干了八年多CEO的保羅?巴爾克卸任。

隨著時(shí)間的推移，高管陸續(xù)離職，而且其中一些堪稱這個(gè)行業(yè)的勇士。今年春天，首席執(zhí)行官穆泰康在可口可樂處于頂峰之際卸任，他在這個(gè)位置上待了八年多；5月底，通用磨坊食品公司CEO肯?鮑威爾也為自己10年的任期畫上了句號(hào)；大約兩個(gè)月后，生產(chǎn)奧利奧餅干、吉百利巧克力和清至口香糖的億滋國際CEO艾琳?羅森菲爾德宣布自己計(jì)劃退休，她在這家年銷售額260億美元（1708億元人民幣）的休閑食品巨擘擔(dān)任CEO的時(shí)間已經(jīng)超過10年。

截至8月底，上市食品制造和零售領(lǐng)域已有17位CEO在差不多17個(gè)月的時(shí)間里離職或公布了離職意向。Bernstein分析師艾莉西亞?霍華德說：“在這么短的時(shí)間有這么多人離職，這種局面堪稱前所未有?！?/p>

這是巧合嗎？還是說它表明規(guī)模近1萬億美元（6.57萬億元人民幣）的美國食雜行業(yè)要出大事？答案或許是兩者皆有可能。有些CEO是大食品行業(yè)老手，他們只是在自己接近65歲時(shí)按正常的權(quán)利交接程序行事。但在過去幾年里，他們也一直承受著巨大的壓力。咨詢公司AlixPartners董事總經(jīng)理大衛(wèi)?加菲爾德指出：“這個(gè)行業(yè)的CEO遇到了歷史上最大的挑戰(zhàn)。他們面對的是前所未有的變化?！被羧A德相信，CEO組團(tuán)離職顯然和大食品行業(yè)景氣度下降有關(guān)。她說，和她交流過的那些前行業(yè)高管告訴她“情況真的變了，在那個(gè)當(dāng)口他們的態(tài)度都比較公正，而且都說局勢確實(shí)很棘手。”

一方面，以往的方法已經(jīng)不再起作用。這批離職CEO是在大品牌如日中天的時(shí)候一路走上職業(yè)巔峰的。波士頓咨詢集團(tuán)合伙人吉姆?布倫南認(rèn)為，這個(gè)階段的“致勝模式”就是生產(chǎn)和廣告的規(guī)模效應(yīng)，再加上每年的人口增長帶來的動(dòng)力。

但正如霍華德所說，在過去10年中，這個(gè)“歷來都安全又穩(wěn)定的獨(dú)立行業(yè)”變得遠(yuǎn)不像以前那樣了。比如說，購物者開始回避超市中間的食雜區(qū)，回避那些罐裝或盒裝產(chǎn)品及其包含的人工色素、人工香精和防腐劑，同時(shí)開始青睞放在周圍的生鮮產(chǎn)品。消費(fèi)者，特別是商家最想爭取的80、90后，想購買自己眼中的天然食品。無論怎樣調(diào)整生產(chǎn)工藝，大食品領(lǐng)域中的企業(yè)似乎都無法讓購物者相信它們的產(chǎn)品有了變化?；羧A德說：“消費(fèi)者已經(jīng)失去了對老牌食品的信任。因此，我們看到的情況是大型包裝食品廠商受到了全方位的沖擊。”

如果說這場戰(zhàn)爭的一個(gè)焦點(diǎn)是大食品企業(yè)的產(chǎn)品里有什么，那么另一個(gè)焦點(diǎn)則是它們銷售產(chǎn)品的方式。為了對付闖入美國市場后大舉擴(kuò)張的折扣零售商，比如德國的Aldi和Lidl，超市一直在對供應(yīng)商施壓，要求后者降價(jià)。在決定零售業(yè)未來的對決中，沃爾瑪和亞馬遜采取了同樣的策略。今年夏天，亞馬遜進(jìn)一步加大了賭注——斥資137億美元（900億元人民幣）收購全食超市，這讓大食品行業(yè)的CEO們更睡不著覺了。完成收購后第一時(shí)間，亞馬遜就開始迅速下調(diào)主要商品的價(jià)格。對此，老牌公司CEO沒有什么好的對策可選。波士頓咨詢集團(tuán)的布倫南說：“你必須調(diào)整商品結(jié)構(gòu)，否則就是死路一條。”

和綠色果汁成為消費(fèi)者新寵相比，更讓大食品行業(yè)CEO感到擔(dān)心的只有一樣?xùn)|西，那就是3G Capital。這家巴西私募集團(tuán)已經(jīng)成了徘徊在這個(gè)行業(yè)上空的幽靈。

借用《財(cái)富》雜志高級(jí)自由編輯杰奧夫?科爾文的描述，收購亨氏并將其與卡夫食品合并后，3G Capital立即進(jìn)行了一場“削減成本閃電戰(zhàn)”?，F(xiàn)在，卡夫亨氏已經(jīng)成為利潤率最高的大食品公司，從而向某些人證明管理團(tuán)隊(duì)?wèi)?yīng)該可以提高利潤，而且不受巨大行業(yè)壓力的影響。高管獵頭公司Russell Reynolds Associates董事總經(jīng)理安德魯?海斯說：“從那以后公司一直都很緊張。它們擔(dān)心自己可能成為下一個(gè)目標(biāo)，而且試著像3G Capital那樣進(jìn)行自我調(diào)整，以此作為預(yù)防措施?！蹦赇N售額580億美元（3811億元人民幣）的聯(lián)合利華發(fā)現(xiàn)自己處在這場3G Capital風(fēng)暴的中心，原因是卡夫亨氏今年2月對這家英荷合資公司發(fā)起了要約收購。盡管董事會(huì)直截了當(dāng)?shù)鼐芙^了此事，但聯(lián)合利華隨后確實(shí)采取了措施來壓縮開支并提高盈利能力。但在包裝食品領(lǐng)域，3G Capital的威脅依然存在。食品行業(yè)資深人士艾倫?默里在大食品和初創(chuàng)領(lǐng)域都有經(jīng)營經(jīng)驗(yàn)。他解釋說，3G Capital“可以用非常冷漠和冷靜的方式來削減成本”，而這些公司的很多管理者是一級(jí)一級(jí)升上來的，所以“他們沒辦法像3G Capital那樣冷酷地砍掉成本?！?/p>

這是食品中最難去除的元素

泰森食品和Campbell's Foodservice首席執(zhí)行官都這樣認(rèn)為。

維權(quán)投資者已經(jīng)表明，如果老牌食品公司不主動(dòng)采用3G Capital的模式，他們就會(huì)采取必要措施來迫使后者就范。這些年來，納爾遜?佩爾茨的對沖基金Trian一直在要求吉百利、亨氏、百事可樂、達(dá)能和億滋國際做出改變，而比爾?阿克曼的潘興廣場基金也持有這些公司的股份。Jana Partners敦促全食超市做出調(diào)整，進(jìn)而使這家食雜超市接受了亞馬遜的收購。同時(shí)，丹尼爾?勒布的Third Point最近披露自己已經(jīng)參股雀巢。AlixPartners的加菲爾德說：“這個(gè)行業(yè)沒有什么區(qū)域或地方是不對維權(quán)投資者開放的?！本瓦B擁有最受歡迎品牌、規(guī)模最大的公司現(xiàn)在也是可以攻擊的對象。

行業(yè)資深人士指出，在這種情況下，公司董事會(huì)無疑會(huì)鼓勵(lì)一些CEO早早離職。以泰森食品為例，該公司已經(jīng)表示湯姆?海斯有可能接替長期擔(dān)任CEO的唐尼?史密斯?！度A爾街日報(bào)》則報(bào)道，交接工作“已經(jīng)提速，部分原因是業(yè)績前景更為黯淡?！保ㄌ┥称穱?yán)詞否認(rèn)了這種說法，它在聲明中表示，此項(xiàng)決定“和公司的業(yè)績前景毫無關(guān)系，實(shí)際上公司的業(yè)績前景非常樂觀。宣布史密斯離職的消息時(shí)，泰森食品的年度業(yè)績剛剛創(chuàng)下紀(jì)錄。同時(shí)，該公司預(yù)計(jì)2017財(cái)年的表現(xiàn)還會(huì)再創(chuàng)新高，而且目前正在朝著這個(gè)目標(biāo)順利邁進(jìn)。”）

其他CEO則可能就是筋疲力盡了。億滋國際的羅森菲爾德不得不應(yīng)付兩名維權(quán)投資者。宣布退休計(jì)劃后，她在《財(cái)富》雜志的一次采訪中曾兩次表示，自己很高興跟這個(gè)沒有頭的工作說再見：“我不會(huì)想念那些永不停息而且必須要做的‘救火’工作。” 石原農(nóng)場董事長加里?赫什伯格說：“現(xiàn)在的困難要大得多。他們不僅僅是被迫離開。他們也累了?，F(xiàn)在干這一行并不輕松?！苯衲?月，達(dá)能把石原農(nóng)場轉(zhuǎn)讓給了法國乳制品公司Lactalis。默里透露，跟他合作的一位上市公司CEO曾提出過這樣的請求：“他說，‘艾爾，我已經(jīng)累了。把我弄出去吧，體面地弄出去?！?/p>

那么，董事會(huì)可能會(huì)選誰來填補(bǔ)這些越來越有挑戰(zhàn)性的職位呢？實(shí)際情況表明，繼任者和那些離職的CEO非常像。幾家高管獵頭公司表示，雖然董事會(huì)在招人時(shí)變得更加嚴(yán)格，但在大多數(shù)情況下他們還是會(huì)挑選內(nèi)部人士。瑞士信貸銀行分析師羅伯特?莫斯科說：“讓我感到意外的是董事會(huì)挑的人就是現(xiàn)有管理團(tuán)隊(duì)的成員，而且是不會(huì)顯著背離既定策略的人。”以可口可樂的詹姆斯?昆西和通用磨坊的杰弗里?哈梅寧為例，升任CEO前，兩人都在各自的公司待了20多年。赫什伯格說，有些公司“對在自身文化中成長起來的人感到放心，后者要非常忠誠和小心，但那不一定意味著他們會(huì)成為最好的增長引擎。”

有那么幾家公司不落窠臼。湯姆?海斯2014年隨著被收購的Hillshire Brands進(jìn)入泰森食品。和選擇公司老人相比，人們認(rèn)為選他做CEO接班人是比較激進(jìn)的做法。億滋國際選的是加拿大冷凍薯?xiàng)l制造商McCain Foods首席執(zhí)行官德克?范德普特，同樣出乎行業(yè)觀察人士意料。同時(shí)，雀巢的新CEO是來自醫(yī)療保健領(lǐng)域的“外行”，這也被視為令人震驚而又大膽的選擇。

不過，這個(gè)行業(yè)的大部分思路依然狹隘。管理咨詢公司柯爾尼（A.T. Kearney）零售行業(yè)首席合伙人格雷格?波特利說：“如果把大食品和零售相比，那么零售是個(gè)炙手可熱的行業(yè)，甚至熱得發(fā)燙。因此他們開始從外面找那些真的有不同見解的人?！毙前涂诉h(yuǎn)沒有經(jīng)歷過其他同類公司那樣的磨難，CEO霍華德?舒爾茨則親自把科技行業(yè)資深人士凱文?約翰遜指定為自己的繼任者。舒爾茨今年春天對我說：“我覺得我在內(nèi)心里已經(jīng)意識(shí)到自己充分相信凱文在把控星巴克的未來方面會(huì)比我更合適?！?/p>

這批新CEO或許要為較短的任期做好準(zhǔn)備。策略咨詢公司Kotter International總監(jiān)戈拉夫?古普塔說：“改變的步伐加快了這么多?，F(xiàn)在企業(yè)的需求和五年之后的需求會(huì)大相徑庭?！蹦镎J(rèn)為，這會(huì)引發(fā)第二輪CEO離職潮，而且新的CEO就不那么像是從同一個(gè)模子中刻出來的了。他說：“60歲的人把指揮棒交給同一所學(xué)校培養(yǎng)出來的50歲的人。那他能讓需要做出的改變成為現(xiàn)實(shí)嗎？如今人們的耐心已經(jīng)少了很多。”

人們擔(dān)心，當(dāng)?shù)诙x職潮到來時(shí)，將找不到填補(bǔ)這些位置的人才。大食品的嚴(yán)重滑坡已經(jīng)造成業(yè)內(nèi)公司對應(yīng)屆MBA的吸引力顯著下降。這些企業(yè)也將不再是可以創(chuàng)新的領(lǐng)域。更糟糕的是，新一茬的少壯派甚至有可能對自己吃什么不感興趣。

譯者：Charlie

審稿：夏林

The past year and a half has been open season for headhunters in the food industry.

It started back in May 2016 when Mark Smucker became CEO of the family’s namesake jams and jellies maker, replacing his uncle who had served in the top job for 15 years. Then that fall, a wave of leadership change began at Big Meat: First Hormel orchestrated a passing of the chief executive baton in October, and Tyson followed in December. At the end of the year Whole Foods co-CEO Walter Robb officially stepped down, leaving John Mackey as the high-end grocer’s sole head honcho. That same day, Paul Bulcke abdicated at Nestlé after eight-plus years on the throne.

As the months progressed so did the departures—and among them some of the industry’s lions. Muhtar Kent left his post at the pinnacle of Coca-Cola this spring after more than eight years on the job; Ken Powell did the same at General Mills at the end of May as he crept up on a decade tenure; and some two months later Mondelez CEO Irene Rosenfeld announced her plans to retire from the maker of Oreo, Cadbury, and Trident after more than 10 years as the head of the $26 billion snacking giant.

By the end of August, 17 CEOs of public Big Food manufacturers and retailers had departed, or announced their intention to, in almost as many months. “This is a pretty unprecedented situation where you see that level of turnover in such a short space of time,” says Bernstein analyst Alexia Howard.

Mondelez’s Rosenfeld announced in August she would step down as CEO this fall. She began her reign as head of Kraft, where she spun off the North American grocery business in 2012 to create the global snacking giant with remaining powerhouse brands like Cadbury, Oreo, and Nabisco crackers. Romain Gaillard—REA/Redux

Is this coincidence, or evidence of some meaningful moment in the nearly $1 trillion U.S. grocery industry? The answer may be a bit of both. Some of the CEOs were Big Food veterans just following the normal course of succession as they approached the age of 65. But for years now they had also been under an enormous amount of pressure. “There’s never been a time that’s more challenging for a CEO in the industry,” says David Garfield of consultancy AlixPartners. “They’re facing unprecedented change.” Howard believes the rash of departures is clearly linked to the deterioration in the broader Big Food climate. The former industry executives she talks to are telling her “it’s really changed,” Howard says. “They’re relatively unbiased at this point, and they’re saying it’s really tough out there.”

For one thing, the old tricks of the trade have stopped working. The outgoing class of CEOs rose up through the ranks during the glory days of big brands, a period when what Boston Consulting Group partner Jim Brennan calls the “model for winning” came simply from economies of scale in manufacturing and advertising, plus an annual boost from population growth.

But over the past decade, this “historically safe, stable insular industry,” as Howard deems it, became much less so. For one thing, shoppers started avoiding the center of the supermarket, eschewing the canned and boxed offerings—and the artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives inside them—in favor of the perimeter’s fresh fare. Consumers, and in particular those coveted millennials, wanted what they considered natural goods. No matter what Big Food does to reengineer its products, they can’t seem to convince shoppers that anything has changed. “Consumers have lost trust in legacy food products,” says Howard. “As a result we’re seeing big packaged-food companies attacked from all sides.”

If one side of the battle is what’s in Big Food’s products, the other is how they’re being sold. To compete with the aggressive expansion of discounters in the U.S. like German entrants Aldi and Lidl, supermarkets have pressured their suppliers to slash prices. Walmart and Amazon are following the same playbook as they face off in a battle over the future of retail. Amazon further upped the ante—and the sleepless nights for Big Food CEOs—when it acquired Whole Foods this summer for $13.7 billion. It promptly slashed prices on key items the day the deal closed. This has all left legacy CEOs with some dire choices. “You have to reshape the portfolio,” says Boston Consulting’s Brennan, “or you’re going to die.”

The only thing more worrisome to Big Food CEOs than consumers’ new penchant for green juice is 3G Capital. The Brazilian private equity group is the specter looming over the industry.

When 3G acquired Heinz and subsequently merged it with Kraft, it immediately implemented what Fortune’s Geoff Colvin has described in these pages as a “blitzkrieg of cost cutting.” Kraft Heinz now has the highest margins among its Big Food brethren, proving to some that management teams should be able to increase earnings despite the sector’s intense pressures. “Companies have been on edge ever since,” says Andrew Hayes of executive search firm Russell Reynolds Associates. “They’re concerned that they might be the next victim and have tried to 3G themselves to preempt it.” The $58 billion Unilever found itself in the eye of the 3G storm when Kraft Heinz made an unsolicited bid for the Anglo-Dutch company in February. Though Unilever’s board roundly rejected the overture, the company did later move to cut spending and improve profitability. But in the packaged-goods realm, the Brazilian threat remains. 3G is “able to cut costs in a very unemotional and clinical way,” explains food industry veteran Alan Murray, who has operated in both the Big Food and startup worlds. Since much of the industry’s management has come up through the ranks, “they cannot cut as brutally,” he says.

This Is The Most Difficult Ingredient to Remove From Food

Tyson and Campbell's CEOs agree.

If legacy food companies don’t adopt the 3G model themselves, activist investors have shown they will do what they have to in order to force the company’s hand. Nelson Peltz’s Trian has agitated for change over the years at Cadbury, Heinz, PepsiCo, Danone, and Mondelez, where Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square has also held a stake. Jana Partners pushed for a shake up at Whole Foods, which led the grocer to its deal with Amazon. Meanwhile Daniel Loeb’s Third Point recently disclosed a stake in Nestlé. “There is no quadrant or zip code in the industry that’s off-limits to activists,” says Garfield of AlixPartners. Even the biggest companies with the most cherished brands are now fair game.

Amid this backdrop some CEOs were no doubt encouraged by their boards to leave early, industry veterans say. Tyson, for example, had signaled that Tom Hayes would likely succeed longtime CEO Donnie Smith, but the Wall Street Journal reported that the transition was “expedited partly because of the dimmer outlook on profit.” (Tyson vehemently denies this characterization, saying in a statement that the decision “had nothing to do with the company’s profit outlook, which was very positive. When his departure was announced, Tyson Foods had just completed a record year, and we were projecting a record fiscal 2017, which we’re on track to attain.”)

But others may simply have been worn out. Rosenfeld, who had to deal with two activist investors at Mondelez, told Fortune twice in an interview upon the announcement of her retirement that she was happy to say goodbye to the nonstop nature of the job: “I won’t miss the 24/7 fires that have to be fought.” “It’s getting a lot harder,” says Stonyfield chairman Gary Hirshberg, whose company was sold by Danone in August to French dairy Lactalis. “They’re not just getting forced out. They’re tired. It’s not an easy business now.” Murray says he was working with a public company CEO who had one request: “He said, ‘Al, this is not fun anymore. Get me out of here. Get me out of here elegantly.’?”

So who could boards possibly select to fill these increasingly challenging roles? It turns out they look a lot like their predecessors. Several executive search firms said that while boards are being more rigorous in their search process, they are still for the most part selecting insiders. “What surprises me is the board is putting in people who are part of the existing management team, who will not depart radically from the pre-existing strategy,” says Credit Suisse analyst Robert Moskow. Take Coca-Cola’s James Quincey and General Mills’ Jeffrey Harmening, who both were at their companies for more than 20 years before taking the top job. Some companies are “comfortable with somebody who grew up in their culture who is going to be very loyal and careful,” says Hirshberg. “That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to be the best engine of growth.”

A few companies have broken the mold. The selection of Hayes, who joined Tyson in 2014 through its acquisition of Hillshire Brands, was considered more radical than going with a company lifer. Mondelez surprised industry watchers with its pick of Dirk Van de Put, CEO of Canadian frozen french-fry company McCain Foods. And Nestlé’s new CEO, an outsider and health care executive, was considered a shocking and bold choice.

The industry, however, is still thinking mostly inside the box. “If we compare Big Food to retail, retail is a sector that’s on fire, and it’s burning. Therefore they’re bringing in people from the outside who can really take a different view,” says Greg Portell, lead partner in the retail practice at A.T. Kearney. Howard Schultz of Starbucks, which hasn’t even suffered close to the trials of the rest of the industry, hand-picked tech veteran Kevin Johnson to replace him. “I think I had my own private moment of realizing I honestly believed that Kevin would be better suited to run the future of Starbucks than myself,” Schultz told me this spring.

This new batch of CEOs may want to prepare itself for a shorter tenure at the top. “The pace of change is increasing so much,” says Gaurav ?Gupta of strategy firm Kotter International. “What business needs today and five years from now are going to be dramatically different.” Murray believes that will lead to a second wave of CEO turnover in which the next generation isn’t made quite so much in the same mold. “The 60-year-old guy passes the baton to the 50-year-old guy who’s grown up at the same school. Can he effect the changes that need to take place?” he posits. “The patience is now much shorter.”

When that second wave comes, there’s concern there won’t be the talent to fill it. The Big Food slump has made the industry’s companies far less sexy for graduating MBAs. They’ll no longer be the innovative place to go. And even worse, this new crop of young guns might not even be interested in their food.