Perspectives on Leading Through Change: The CEO as Chief Reinvention Officer

An interview with Raj Gupta, Former Chair and CEO, Rohm and Haas and Founder, Gupta Governance Institute

Raj Gupta is a globally respected business leader whose career spans operational leadership, corporate governance, and long-term institution building. He spent nearly four decades at Rohm and Haas, ultimately serving as Chairman, President, and CEO from 1999 to 2009, leading the company through significant reinvention and globalization. Following his CEO tenure, Gupta became one of the most experienced public company directors and board chairs of his generation, serving on the boards of companies including DuPont, HP, Airgas, Tyco, Avantor, and Aptiv. Gupta also founded the Gupta Governance Institute. He spoke during the Directors Dialogue session “Perspectives on Leading Through Change: The CEO as Chief (Re)invention Officer” about leadership, overlooked talent, reinvention, and the boardroom decisions that shape innovation.*

You’ve said that leadership doesn’t just evaluate talent, it creates it. What do you mean by that?
Much of it comes from my own experience. I never imagined I would become a CEO. I was a mechanical engineer entering a highly technical chemical company. But mentors saw something in me that I didn’t yet see in myself and gave me opportunities to grow.

Do organizations sometimes unintentionally filter out talent?
Absolutely. Many systems unintentionally favor familiar profiles or predictable career paths. Organizations often over-index on past performance or pattern recognition. But reinvention requires something different.

What allowed leaders at Rohm and Haas to see talent that others may have missed?
Part of it was culture. The company had very strong values around doing the right thing, innovation and long-term thinking. But we also built systems that tried to minimize bias. A two-decade engagement with Executive Coach Dr. Karol Wasylyshyn focused on a holistic approach to leadership development that included an optional spousal module and ongoing 360-degree feedback. The top leadership talent in the company was reviewed collectively by the executive committee. High-potential people were treated as enterprise assets, not as the property of a specific business unit or geography. The difference isn’t capability. It’s being seen.

The best leaders do not simply evaluate talent. They create conditions where talent can emerge.

How important are stretch assignments in developing leaders?
They are critical. Many people only discover their own capabilities after someone gives them a difficult opportunity and the confidence to succeed.

Rohm and Haas believed in giving people diverse experiences, moving them across functions, countries and challenges. When I was asked to move to England, I was uncertain. My boss said, “If after six months you don’t like it, call me and I’ll bring you back.” That support mattered enormously.

This led to assignments that were considered unconventional at the time like women leading major regions in the chemical industry and a Korean American executive leading Japan. We didn’t do those things to make statements. We simply believed they were the best people for the roles.

When does pattern recognition start to work against companies?
Pattern recognition works well in stable environments. It becomes dangerous during periods of disruption or reinvention because companies begin selecting people who resemble past success rather than future adaptability. Past performance matters, but promotion decisions are always about the unknown. You cannot predict leadership potential entirely from history.

Past performance doesn’t always, or on its own, predict future leadership success.

How did this way of thinking influence strategic reinvention at Rohm and Haas?
When I became CEO, we realized we were operating in too many businesses, and many had become commoditized. Over a relatively short period, we transformed the portfolio significantly, exited businesses, and invested heavily in semiconductor and advanced materials markets. Those decisions involved substantial risk and debt. They were only possible because leadership, the board, and ownership trusted one another and were aligned around long-term value creation. Trust enables long-term bets.

How did you define “potential” when evaluating leaders?
Potential was not simply about doing your assigned job well. We looked for people who thought beyond their jobs—people who contributed ideas, challenged assumptions, and looked for ways to improve the company overall.

Do boards sometimes miss this dynamic when reviewing succession or talent?
Yes. Boards often see the final candidate slate but not necessarily the filters that shaped it. A board should ask whether the slate reflects the future needs of the business or simply mirrors the past. Are all the candidates coming from similar backgrounds? Similar experiences? Similar leadership styles?

Sometimes the ‘safe’ choice feels less risky in the moment but ultimately limits innovation.

What role does public company pressure play in these decisions?
Quarterly expectations can encourage safer decisions and shorter-term thinking. One thing we tried hard not to do was sacrifice long-term investment simply to manage short-term stock price expectations. This balance requires trust, transparency and board alignment.

What does a “multiplier” leader look like in practice?
A multiplier leader creates opportunity for others. They sponsor people, stretch them, mentor them honestly, and expand the definition of who can succeed.

Once people experience trust and opportunity, they often multiply that behavior for others.

What kind of mentorship has stayed with you most?
Two moments stayed with me throughout my career. One manager told me, “Speak up. You have great ideas.” Another mentor told me, “Take the idea of white men at the top out of your head.” Both were saying the same thing: I was limiting myself more than others were limiting me. Honest mentorship changes people and unlocks growth.

What is the biggest risk to reinvention inside organizations?
The biggest board decisions are the biggest innovation levers, especially decisions around leadership development and succession planning. Organizations sometimes fail to reinvent because they continue selecting leaders based on familiarity, comfort, or historical pattern matching instead of adaptability, curiosity and long-term potential.

If every CEO or director made one change in how they assess talent, what would have the biggest impact?
Create a climate where everyone truly enters with equal opportunity. Cultures become self-enforcing over time. Once people experience fairness, trust and possibility, they tend to extend those opportunities to others.