It seems strange for a headhunter to name their team office room after a man who advocated against external senior hiring – but there you go, the FMCG room at MBS is the AG Lafley room. In truth, it’s a doff of a cap to both one of the most revered FMCG CEOs in history, but also an expression of our admiration for such a phenomenal FMCG school. Procter & Gamble (P&G) is unique in its talent approach and should be recognised for such – however this weekend we wanted to explore this further. Are P&G missing out?
P&G has developed one of the most distinctive hiring models in global business by committing to the principle of building almost all of its leaders from within. For most of its history the company avoided senior external recruitment altogether, focusing instead on hiring at entry level and developing people through its graduate scheme, creating a structure where careers begin with tightly managed training and stretch over decades, producing leaders who share a consistent outlook and a common understanding of how the company works. This approach has become so embedded that it is often said (and I’m one of them) to be the most powerful training ground in FMCG.
“Employees understand that progression is earned through performance and longevity rather than by being leapfrogged by outsiders.”
The current leadership illustrates this continuity. CEO Jon Moeller, who will step into the role of Executive Chairman in 2026 after more than thirty-five years with the company, started as a Cost Analyst in 1988 while his successor, Shailesh Jejurikar, joined in 1989 as an Assistant Brand Manager in India and has since led multiple businesses and regions before becoming Chief Operating Officer. Andre Schulten, now Chief Financial Officer, also began as a Cost Analyst in 1996. This pattern is replicated across most of the 35-person senior team and ninety-nine per cent of leadership roles are filled through internal promotion, a level of consistency that few global companies of P&G’s scale have managed to sustain, making the business as much a school as a corporation.
Leaders who have grown up inside the business know the brands, the markets and the culture with unusual depth and succession planning is smooth with little of the disruption that often accompanies external appointments. Employees understand that progression is earned through performance and longevity rather than by being leapfrogged by outsiders, creating a strong sense of loyalty and stability while communication is more straightforward because leaders share the same training and reference points. This cultural alignment has been an asset in delivering consistent performance over decades.
The internal approach has also allowed the company to excel in areas beyond operational consistency. It has maintained strong financial performance, consistently outperforming many peers in the consumer goods sector while its marketing and commercial execution remain widely regarded as best in class. P&G has also been a leader in diversity and inclusion, setting benchmarks for the industry and demonstrating that a deeply internalised culture does not preclude progress in critical areas of modern business, illustrating that the advantages of an internal talent model can be combined with broader success across both financial and social dimensions.
The model, however, carries risks that mirror its strengths. When everyone has been trained by the same system and shaped by the same experiences, the range of perspectives naturally narrows and institutionalisation becomes a risk, with established practices repeated rather than challenged. I remember well the great P&G candidate call-in in 2012 when the model showed strain as the number of high-potential employees exceeded the available senior roles and a bottleneck occurred, with promotions slowing and few lateral opportunities leaving many ambitious leaders feeling blocked, prompting a significant number to leave. This highlighted the vulnerability of a system where progression depends almost entirely on an internal pipeline that inevitably narrows at the top. However, one way the company has naturally had to introduce new perspectives is through acquisitions, bringing in both brands and talent, yet the record here has been mixed.
The acquisition of Gillette in 2005 brought valuable brands and talent, but integration proved difficult and many executives who joined through the deal left once their lock in periods ended or gradually over time, underlining how hard it can be to absorb people into a culture as defined and disciplined as P&G’s, which has remained heavily reliant on its own system even when external opportunities presented themselves.
In recent years there have been glimpses of incremental change. Former CEO David Taylor sought to open the company up to more external hiring, particularly in functions where the internal pipeline was less developed, and the appointment of Seth Cohen as Chief Information Officer in 2024, after senior technology roles at PepsiCo and Reckitt, showed a recognition that digital leadership required skills not yet fully formed inside the business. Similarly, the arrival of Paul Gama in 2017 as President of Personal Health Care suggested that exceptions could be made when specialist expertise was required. These hires remain limited, but they indicate that the rigid boundaries of the past have softened as the company acknowledges the need for external insight in certain areas.
The reputation of P&G alumni outside the business reflects these dynamics. On one hand they are admired for their training, particularly in brand management and commercial execution, while on the other many hiring companies are cautious of potential institutionalisation, preferring to see evidence that individuals can adapt to a new culture and transition beyond P&G before hiring them in senior roles. I have had hundreds of conversations with exceptional P&G leaders with 20+ year tenures, and they are never easy in terms of highlighting the potential difficulty that these leaders will face in terms of securing a first time move beyond the business. The concern is not about capability but about flexibility, and decades inside such an institution can make it difficult to adjust to environments with less structure. Many anecdotes of P&G jargon and only using a specific font come to mind. This can lead to headhunters and employers often wanting to see at least one successful transition before considering P&G alumni for their most critical positions, making the company both the best finishing school in FMCG and the hardest place to graduate from.
Looking at leadership history shows how this model plays out in practice. A.G. Lafley, who served as CEO from 2000 to 2010 and again from 2013 to 2015, delivered some of the most successful years in the company’s history and his return after a period of weaker performance showed how valuable a deeply embedded insider could be while also highlighting the reliance a company can develop on individuals who are products of the culture.
“When everyone has been trained by the same system and shaped by the same experiences, the range of perspectives naturally narrows and institutionalisation becomes a risk.”
Digital capabilities are now central and structural efficiencies are already underway, and while the company’s faith in its own system has been justified for decades, the context in which it operates is less predictable and more demanding than ever.
P&G’s approach has been one of the most disciplined talent strategies in global business, delivering stability, cultural cohesion and long-term financial performance while its leadership shows that the company can combine internal development with broader business success. Yet the same design that has made it strong has also created barriers to fresh thinking, challenges in absorbing acquisitions and a stigma that can make it harder for alumni to thrive outside the company. The balance between preserving the advantages of continuity and avoiding the risks of insularity will determine whether P&G’s distinctive approach continues to be a competitive advantage or becomes a constraint in the years ahead.
