Who Gets Promoted to the C-Suite—and How That Has Changed Over the Decades
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,766,872 (+0.21%)       Melbourne $1,063,597 (+0.19%)       Brisbane $1,235,996 (-0.71%)       Adelaide $1,100,588 (+1.40%)       Perth $1,114,234 (+0.36%)       Hobart $869,301 (-0.74%)       Darwin $915,158 (+0.08%)       Canberra $1,030,597 (+1.34%)       National Capitals $1,197,064 (+0.25%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $817,869 (+0.11%)       Melbourne $552,138 (-0.21%)       Brisbane $784,920 (-1.69%)       Adelaide $585,744 (+1.59%)       Perth $658,340 (-1.87%)       Hobart $565,063 (-1.53%)       Darwin $494,206 (+0.53%)       Canberra $485,800 (-1.53%)       National Capitals $640,344 (-0.70%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 14,003 (-141)       Melbourne 16,852 (-119)       Brisbane 7,876 (+60)       Adelaide 2,794 (-13)       Perth 6,084 (+33)       Hobart 771 (-22)       Darwin 139 (+2)       Canberra 1,196 (+25)       National Capitals 49,715 (-175)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,308 (-9)       Melbourne 6,777 (-31)       Brisbane 1,556 (-5)       Adelaide 434 (-6)       Perth 1,292 (+16)       Hobart 154 (-9)       Darwin 198 (+7)       Canberra 1,191 (+1)       National Capitals 20,910 (-36)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $850 ($0)       Melbourne $600 ($0)       Brisbane $700 ($0)       Adelaide $650 ($0)       Perth $750 ($0)       Hobart $628 (+$3)       Darwin $850 ($0)       Canberra $750 ($0)       National Capitals $733 (+$)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $590 ($0)       Brisbane $670 ($0)       Adelaide $560 (+$5)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $503 (-$38)       Darwin $650 ($0)       Canberra $600 ($0)       National Capitals $646 (-$2)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,466 (-47)       Melbourne 6,685 (-129)       Brisbane 3,539 (-24)       Adelaide 1,337 (+2)       Perth 2,237 (-54)       Hobart 240 (+8)       Darwin 38 (-10)       Canberra 431 (+10)       National Capitals 19,973 (-244)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,715 (+45)       Melbourne 4,547 (+16)       Brisbane 1,877 (-18)       Adelaide 430 (0)       Perth 686 (+10)       Hobart 66 (-5)       Darwin 65 (-5)       Canberra 721 (+2)       National Capitals 17,107 (+45)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.50% (↓)       Melbourne 2.93% (↓)     Brisbane 2.94% (↑)        Adelaide 3.07% (↓)       Perth 3.50% (↓)     Hobart 3.75% (↑)        Darwin 4.83% (↓)       Canberra 3.78% (↓)       National Capitals 3.19% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 5.09% (↓)     Melbourne 5.56% (↑)      Brisbane 4.44% (↑)        Adelaide 4.97% (↓)     Perth 5.53% (↑)        Hobart 4.62% (↓)       Darwin 6.84% (↓)     Canberra 6.42% (↑)      National Capitals 5.24% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 1.5% (↑)      Brisbane 1.2% (↑)      Adelaide 1.2% (↑)      Perth 1.0% (↑)        Hobart 0.5% (↓)       Darwin 0.7% (↓)     Canberra 1.6% (↑)      National Capitals $1.1% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 2.4% (↑)      Brisbane 1.5% (↑)      Adelaide 0.8% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.2% (↑)        Darwin 1.4% (↓)     Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National Capitals $1.5% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND         Sydney 33.5 (↓)       Melbourne 32.6 (↓)     Brisbane 33.4 (↑)      Adelaide 26.4 (↑)        Perth 37.8 (↓)       Hobart 29.4 (↓)     Darwin 27.8 (↑)        Canberra 30.0 (↓)       National Capitals 31.4 (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND         Sydney 31.4 (↓)       Melbourne 29.8 (↓)       Brisbane 32.2 (↓)     Adelaide 26.2 (↑)        Perth 37.5 (↓)       Hobart 31.4 (↓)     Darwin 37.4 (↑)        Canberra 38.7 (↓)       National Capitals 33.1 (↓)           
Share Button

Who Gets Promoted to the C-Suite—and How That Has Changed Over the Decades

Among our findings: The average age of top executives started falling after 1980. But now it’s higher than it was 40 years ago.

By PETER CAPPELLI
Wed, Jan 17, 2024 9:13amGrey Clock 5 min

Here’s the face of the new C-suite: older, with broader industry experience and increasingly female.

These are some of the most surprising findings my colleagues and I have uncovered about how C-suite leaders have changed over time. My co-researchers—Rocio Bonet and Monika Hamori—and I have been tracking the attributes of the leaders of the world’s biggest corporations, the Fortune 100, since 1980, when many of the key forces shaping business today began.

The findings, in some cases, seem to be at odds with each other. That is because many factors are pulling the business world in different directions. For instance, executives change jobs a lot more than in the past and don’t stick with one employer or industry for their entire careers. On the other hand, C-suite executives do less job hopping later in their careers after moving around a lot early on. In many ways, there is more stability in the corporate world now than we would ever imagine from the tales of intrigue within individual executive suites.

Here is a closer look at our key findings

  • The youth movement is over. Our study—which will appear in the California Management Review—found that C-suite executives are getting older. It’s a reversal of a long trend: Executives were getting younger after 1980—with the average age falling six years to 51 in 2001—but now the top leaders are back to where they were in 1980: 57 years old on average.
  • Executives are doing more job hopping. The number of different companies where executives worked, including their current job, rose each decade—to 3.3 in 2021 from 2.2 in 1980, a 50% rise. Likewise, the number of years the executives worked elsewhere before joining their current company jumped by a third, to 15 years, over that same period. As a result, more outsiders are being hired directly into executive roles. In 1980, 9% of C-suite executives fit that bill. In 2021, 26% did.
  • Executives are less likely to be lifers. The percentage of executives who spent their whole careers at one company dropped in every period in our data, especially between 2011 and 2021. Now just under 20% of executives are lifers, less than half the level in 1980 and about the same as in 1900. There is a big exception to that finding, though: legacy companies. These 17 companies—which have been in the Fortune 100 since 1980—have more than twice the percentage of lifers as the others.
  • Eventually, executives do settle down. While executives may move around more early in their careers, when they do settle on a job, they stay there longer. Average tenure in executive roles is now back up to where it was in 1980, close to four years, after falling to two years in 2001. This may have to do with tech companies: As the industry has matured, it has become more stable. (At legacy companies, though, average tenure has dipped to three years from four.)
  • They have broader experience. Executives used to get training in-house in various aspects of the business: operations, finance, logistics and so forth. It was a way for companies to train potential leaders from within, especially important since there weren’t a lot of outside hires for executive roles. Now companies are seeking people from outside who have experience in different niches, and putting them in roles that fill those niches. In 1980, the average top executive had worked in 1.4 different industries. Now that figure is 2.3.
  • Legacy companies aren’t exempt from big changes. The C-suite at legacy companies looks more traditional—that is, more like 1980—than it does at other companies. Even so, these older corporations have seen some big changes.
    First off, let’s look at the traditional side. Not only do legacy C-suites have a higher percentage of lifers, these executives get more training in-house and have less experience in other industries. At the same time, though, legacy executives have been affected by some trends that make them look different than in 1980. The executives have less tenure, as we have seen, and outsiders hired directly into executive roles went to 18% in 2021 from 1% in 1980.
  • More executives come from finance. Financial markets and investor interests took on a greater role after the 1980s, and that change is reflected in the proportion of executives with a finance background: The figure has been above 30% since 2001, up from 19% in 1980.
  • More executives have law degrees. The proportion of executives with a law degree has risen, going to 17% in 2001 from 11% in 1980, and staying near that higher level in 2021. This may be a response to increased corporate regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank that drive the need for more legal expertise in the C-suite.
  • Business degrees aren’t as prevalent as you would think. For years, there was huge growth in M.B.A. graduates in the overall population—63% from 2001 to 2011. But the growth rate of M.B.A.s in Fortune 100 C-suites was considerably lower: just 6%. The period from 2011 to 2021 had even less upward movement. The number of M.B.A.s in the C-suite rose by just 4% over those years, as M.B.A. graduates in general rose by 8% during that time.
  • Ivies are still influential. Even as the growth rate of M.B.A.s goes down overall in the C-suite, the dominance of graduates from Ivy League business schools in the executive ranks remains strong. Ivy League M.B.A. programs represent less than 1% of all such programs in the U.S. Meanwhile, as of 2021, 35% of C-suite executives had M.B.A.s, and 23% of those got the degree in the Ivy League. That’s in the same ballpark as 2001, when 30% of C-Suite executives had M.B.A.s, and 20% of those were from Ivies.
    A couple of factors may be at play: These top jobs have become more attractive for elite graduates as executive pay has soared—and more outside hiring by companies has made it possible for M.B.A.s to make lateral moves that offer a chance at the C-suite. Previously, graduates of those elite programs disproportionately moved into higher-paying investment careers.
  • Women are landing more executive jobs. The proportion of women in Fortune 100 top executive ranks rose from roughly zero in 1980 to 12% in 2001 and 18% in 2011, by about the same percentage as the proportion of women in all management jobs. After that, the proportion of women in these top executive ranks rose to 28% of jobs in 2021—while women executives in the overall ranks of management rose to just 18% of jobs from 17%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This indicates that it did not take an increase in the pipeline of women managers to add more to the executive suite.
  • Women are also advancing quicker than men. Women executives got to executive jobs faster than their male counterparts—four years faster into their careers in 2001, slowing to 1.5 years faster in 2021.
  • Foreign-born executives have also made gains. Something similar happened with executives from outside the U.S. Until this past decade, the percentage of foreign-born people in top executive ranks—2% in 1980, for instance—had lagged behind the proportion of foreign-born people in the U.S. as a whole. Now, foreign-born people make up 15% of top executive ranks—larger than their proportion in the overall population. This increase, though, doesn’t seem to be associated with any greater globalization of top corporations: Instead, it may reflect an increase in foreign-born students in elite U.S. postgraduate programs.

Peter Cappelli is a professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Our Least Important Asset: Why the Relentless Focus on Finance and Accounting is Bad for Business and Employees.”



MOST POPULAR

As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.

Sydney Children’s Hospitals Foundation CEO Kristina Keneally says Australia’s culture of large-scale philanthropy is becoming more sophisticated as Gold Dinner raises $75.5 million for children’s health, research and innovation.

Related Stories
Money
Everything You Need to Know About the SpaceX Trading Debut
By CORRIE DRIEBUSCH 12/06/2026
Money
REVEALED: WHAT EVERY PROPERTY INVESTOR GETS WRONG
By Jeni O'Dowd 12/06/2026
Money
Gold Dinner Raises $75.5 Million As Australia’s Philanthropy Culture Evolves
By Jeni O'Dowd 12/06/2026
Everything You Need to Know About the SpaceX Trading Debut

Shares in Elon Musk’s rocket maker are set to begin trading at midday Friday.

By CORRIE DRIEBUSCH
Fri, Jun 12, 2026 4 min

Elon Musk’s   SpaceX is set to make its stock-market debut Friday in the largest IPO ever—and perhaps the most closely watched. The company sold an outsized portion of the offering to individuals. Its performance on Friday will be a crucial gauge of investor appetite for mega-offerings from OpenAI and Anthropic expected later this year.

The rocket maker, which derives most of its revenue from its satellite internet unit and has a nascent artificial-intelligence business, will trade under the ticker “SPCX.” It sold 555.6 million shares at $135 each, raising about $75 billion in a deal that valued the company at roughly $1.77 trillion.

When will shares open for trading?

SpaceX executives are set to ring the Nasdaq’s opening bell in New York, but shares in buzzy initial public offerings don’t tend to start trading until later in the day.

Bankers leading an IPO typically want to match buyers and sellers for about 10% of the shares sold before opening trading to lessen volatility. For SpaceX, that would be about 55 million shares, or roughly $7.5 billion worth.

Because pre-IPO investors are restricted from selling shares for a while, it can take time to find willing sellers among those who bought shares in a high-demand IPO.

Shares of Alibaba , the largest U.S. IPO until SpaceX, opened for trading a little before noon in its 2014 offering. Last year, one of the highest-profile offerings was that of software maker Figma , whose shares started trading just before 2 p.m.

It is possible that SpaceX’s bankers will decide to start trading without matching the typical portion of orders to ensure the shares have several hours of trading on their first day, people familiar with the matter say.

How volatile will the stock be?

Bankers and traders expect SpaceX’s share price could be volatile in initial trading, thanks in part to the large portion of its shares expected to be held by individual investors. Some who anticipate individuals will rush into the shares worry they could just as easily get spooked and rush out.

Any sharp movement in stock price could trigger so-called circuit breakers that could pause trading. For most newly listed companies, a 10% swing in either direction prompts a five-minute pause. Companies that had their shares halted include Figma and Cerebras Systems , the chip company whose shares soared in its May debut.

These forced timeouts applied to single stocks came after the so-called flash crash in 2010, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 700 points in eight minutes before recouping much of the loss.

What is all the talk about the ‘green-shoe’ option?

If the stock starts trading erratically, bankers have a secret weapon to attempt to calm things down.

Underwriters typically sell more shares to investors than an IPO’s total offer size, colloquially called the green shoe. In SpaceX’s case, they sold about 15% more shares than the stated offering size.

Because this means they technically allocated more than the offering amount, the so-called stabilisation agent, in this case, Morgan Stanley , needs to buy back the excess number of shares to deliver them. If the stock starts to fall, the bank will buy the shares in the open market, which helps buoy the stock price. If the stock isn’t faltering, the stabilisation agent can buy the additional shares they need to deliver to investors directly from the company.

The term “green shoe” comes from the first company to employ a version of this method years ago, a shoemaker that was a predecessor to Stride Rite. When Meta Platforms , then known as Facebook, went public in 2012, its shares started dropping and its bankers stepped in to buy more shares.

How will Elon Musk’s take-it-or-leave-it pricing fare?

Like all things Musk, SpaceX’s IPO bucked the norms. Instead of approaching prospective investors with a possible price range for shares ahead of the IPO and incorporating their feedback, the company set an exact share price from the beginning: $135.

The idea was to limit drama for what is already the biggest IPO of all time. It did, however, remove what many see as an important step along the way: price discovery. The success of this approach will partly be judged by how SpaceX’s shares trade Friday. If the stock surges, critics will say SpaceX left money on the table by not pricing shares higher. If the stock falls or trades flat, there will likely be critiques that SpaceX and its advisers overestimated demand.

Will the machinery hold up—and what will be the wider market impact?

The sheer size of SpaceX’s IPO will test the trading infrastructure at Nasdaq and could have ripple effects in the broader market.

Nasdaq has practiced with mock openings to make sure its trading platform is prepared. When Facebook went public, some investors who tried to change or cancel orders ahead of trading didn’t get confirmations because of a technology malfunction. The confusion contributed to Facebook shares dropping on the first day of trading. They didn’t return back above their IPO price for more than a year.

Meanwhile, some market watchers expect added activity Friday in stocks that individual investors might sell to buy SpaceX shares, such as those of technology companies and Musk’s electric-car maker Tesla . Such sales already appeared to be under way earlier in the week, when individual investors dumped single-stock holdings on a net basis for two days in a row, according to Vanda Research. (To be sure, those sales came on days that were poor showings for tech stocks broadly.)

It will take several days for SpaceX shares to show up in any major index funds , so the offering’s wider impact on the market could play out over the next several weeks or longer.

MOST POPULAR

Exclusive eco-conscious lodges are attracting wealthy travellers seeking immersive experiences that prioritise conservation, community and restraint over excess.

A cluster of century-old warehouses beneath the Harbour Bridge has been transformed into a modern workplace hub, now home to more than 100 businesses.

Related Stories
Property
DOUBLE-DIGIT HOUSE PRICE GROWTH ARRIVES AHEAD OF EXPECTATIONS
By Staff Writer 04/11/2025
Money
In a Sea of Tech Talent, Companies Can’t Find the Workers They Want
By CALLUM BORCHERS 02/10/2025
Motors
ROLLS-ROYCE TURNS CULLINAN INTO MOVING ART
By Jeni O'Dowd 27/05/2026
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop