According to Fortune, both Walmart CEO Doug McMillon and Target CEO Brian Cornell announced they’re stepping down on February 1st after nearly a decade leading their respective retail giants. McMillon delivered a 300% stock gain during his tenure, growing Walmart’s revenue by nearly $200 billion to $681 billion, while Cornell managed only 60% share growth with Target struggling with merchandise missteps, supply chain problems, and empty shelves. The key difference lies in their succession plans – McMillon is leaving Walmart’s board entirely by June, handing full control to longtime company veteran John Furner, while Cornell is becoming Target’s executive chairman, essentially remaining as his successor Michael Fiddelke’s boss. Walmart shares have held steady on the news, but Target’s stock has dropped 15% since the announcement as investors question whether an insider can fix the company’s deep-rooted problems.
Clean Break vs. Entrenched Leadership
Here’s what really stands out about these two transitions. Walmart is making what looks like a textbook-perfect CEO handoff. McMillon isn’t just stepping down – he’s leaving the board entirely within months. That sends a powerful message: “We’ve got this handled, the next leader is ready, and we’re not looking back.” It’s the corporate equivalent of a parent finally taking the training wheels off the bike and letting the kid ride solo.
Target’s approach? Well, it’s more like keeping the training wheels on, holding the handlebars, and running alongside while shouting instructions. Cornell moving to executive chairman means he’ll essentially be Fiddelke’s boss. And that’s raising serious questions about whether Target can actually make the changes it needs. When you’ve got the same leadership team that got you into trouble still calling the shots, how much real change can we expect?
Performance Divergence Explained
Looking at their track records explains why investors are reacting so differently. McMillon transformed Walmart from a traditional retailer into a legitimate tech and e-commerce competitor that can actually go toe-to-toe with Amazon. He modernized operations, embraced technology, and positioned the company for what’s coming next with AI-powered shopping. The guy started as a warehouse worker unloading trucks – he understood the business from the ground up.
Target under Cornell started strong but basically fell apart post-pandemic. They had merchandise that didn’t resonate with price-conscious shoppers, they botched their diversity efforts by first pushing too hard then backtracking too quickly, and they’ve had chronic supply chain issues leading to empty shelves. Fiddelke, as COO, hasn’t been able to fix those supply problems. So promoting the guy who couldn’t solve the operational issues to CEO? That’s a tough sell for Wall Street.
Wall Street’s Verdict
The market reaction tells you everything you need to know. Walmart’s transition got praised as “bittersweet change happening in a time of strength” by analysts. They see Furner as continuing McMillon’s successful strategies with a similar “servant-leader mentality.” Meanwhile, Target’s move has analysts openly questioning whether Fiddelke can execute the needed turnaround. As one analyst put it, this doesn’t fix Target’s “entrenched groupthink and inward-looking mindset.”
Now, not everyone thinks Target made the wrong choice. Some experts argue that insider CEOs historically outperform outsiders, and that writing off Fiddelke just because he’s an insider is premature. They suggest he might make bold moves and rip off the band-aid. But honestly? When your stock drops 15% on the announcement, that’s Wall Street voting with its wallet. Investors were clearly hoping for fresh eyes and a clean break from the current leadership team.
What Succession Planning Reveals
These two transitions reveal something fundamental about corporate culture and confidence. Walmart’s smooth handoff suggests a company that’s been systematically developing leadership talent for years. They’ve got what sports teams call a “deep bench” – multiple qualified people ready to step up when needed. Target’s approach suggests either a lack of confidence in their internal pipeline or an unwillingness to let go of established leadership.
Remember that 2015 moment when Cornell had that Jumbotron chart and everyone was cheering? That early success might have created a sense of invincibility that’s now coming back to haunt them. Meanwhile, Walmart under McMillon just kept quietly executing, building systems and developing people. The result? One company gets a victory lap while the other gets a vote of no confidence from investors. It’s a masterclass in how to – and how not to – handle leadership transitions.
