Today’s boards find themselves dealing with leadership transitions more often, and in many cases with less warning, than they would prefer. Some departures are the result of sound, long-term planning and thoughtful succession processes. Others occur simply because boards determine the company needs a different type of leadership to navigate future changes in its business environment. Performance pressure, investor expectations, and shifts in strategy can all accelerate a decision that might otherwise have occurred years later.
With CEO turnover continuing to accelerate, CEO tenure continues to shorten. Among S&P 500 companies, recent median CEO tenure fell 20% in less than a decade. Yet, many boards still approach succession planning reactively, rather than strategically.
At the most fundamental level, one might say that the board’s primary responsibility tends to be deciding “who runs the company.” Yet, succession planning is still too often treated like something to be periodically revisited in an annual committee meeting, rather than a responsibility that lives and breathes alongside the business.
“Having a Plan” is Not the Same as “Being Prepared”
Most boards will tell you that “they have a plan.” And technically, many do. But there is a difference between having a planning methodology and recognizing a need for a transition requirement.
Still too often, succession planning is treated as a governance exercise “on paper,” instead of a real-time evaluation of future leadership readiness. The businesses that handle transitions well tend to do things differently. First, they maintain a real bench of executives that they are actively developing. Additionally, the board stays close to that bench. Not in an intrusive way, but in a way that allows directors to genuinely understand who is ready now, who might be ready later, and where leadership gaps may actually exist.
Additionally, strong boards recognize that succession planning is not about finding a clone of the current CEO. That perception, however, is often overlooked. Boards occasionally default to seeking a version of the leader they already have. In reality, the business may be entering a completely different phase of its evolution, such as transformation, restructuring, international expansion, or a period of heightened uncertainty. Such moments often require a new CEO possessing different leadership qualities, and perhaps, business instincts.
What Boards are Looking for in Their Next CEO
In the contemporary world, CEOs should be evaluated on much more than the company’s quarterly performance.While financial performance continues to matter significantly, boards should also be assessing CEO leadership through a qualitative lens. Consideration of performance factors such as strategic alignment, sound judgment, communication ability, adaptability, emotional intelligence, and the capacity to lead through uncertainty – all matter more today than they did a decade ago. “Operational expertise” is simply one of a number of important factors.
Not only are today’s strongest leaders expected to be capable of making difficult decisions under pressure, but also maintaining the confidence of shareholders, employees, customers, and the board itself. In a dynamic business environment, boards should value those executives who demonstrate high business acumen, while also demonstrating good judgment, resilience, humility, and the ability to comprehend long-term consequences.
Where Succession Planning Breaks Down
Succession failure is generally not the result of the succession plan itself, but in making the assumption that there “will always be more time in which to execute it.”
Many assumptions made at the front end do not hold up. Companies may assume that the current CEO, if leaving, will give plenty of notice regarding the transfer of power. The internal candidates will be fully ready when needed. The transition will unfold gradually and predictably.
To the contrary, leadership changes often happen quickly and under difficult circumstances. When organizations are unprepared, the consequences become inevitable. Strategic momentum slows down. Executive teams become uncertain. Investors begin questioning stability and direction. As a result, boards often find themselves conducting a reactive CEO search at precisely the moment that the organization needs clarity and confidence.
The strength of a company’s governance is most visibly tested during moments such as these.
For the Very Best Boards – Succession Planning is Considered an Ongoing Responsibility.
There is also a cultural piece to succession planning that is often overlooked and taken for granted.
Succession planning forces uncomfortable conversations concerning internal leadership, performance and longevity, future capability, and transition timing. The result? Boards often hesitate and delay these important discussions.
Delayed conversations regarding succession rarely reduce risk – more often, they increase it.
The organizations that tend to manage leadership transitions best are those where the board and CEO maintain an open and transparent relationship, built upon trust and ongoing dialogue. Succession planning should never feel adversarial. A strong board supports the CEO’s success, ensuring that the company is prepared for the future. It is engaged in the succession process, regardless of when the CEO leadership change will eventually occur.
Thoughtful balance matters. Boards should remain engaged and informed, but they must also avoid overstepping into the role of management. Good governance requires what I often describe as a “noses in, fingers out” approach. Directors should understand business assumptions, ask thoughtful questions, and ensure accountability without being tempted to assume an operational role.
CEO transitions, and occasional turnover, are not going away. If anything, a CEO transition has become a more normal part of a company’s evolution.
The question is not if, or when, CEO leadership transitions will occur. The real question is whether organizations will be prepared when they do.
The strongest companies are not those that can create a succession plan during a transition. Rather, they are the companies that deftly treat succession planning as a “strategic priority,” long before the transition.
Be the first to comment