Why boards are getting CEO succession wrong, and what it’s costing them

Consider this: Russell Reynolds Associates’ 2025 Global Board Culture and Director Behaviours study found that only eight per cent of boards plan more than five years ahead for CEO succession. Half report succession horizons of just one to three years. And when the moment of truth arrives, only 44 per cent of directors believe their process will actually produce a successful candidate. For a decision that shapes a company’s strategy, culture, and market credibility for years to come, this points to a striking gap between how consequential succession is and how little runway most boards give themselves to get it right. In Singapore and across Asia-Pacific—where family enterprises, sovereign-linked entities, and fast-scaling tech companies are all wrestling with leadership transitions simultaneously—the stakes are arguably higher than anywhere else. The role has changed faster than the process The CEO role itself has changed. Tenures are shortening and turnover at the top is accelerating, but this isn’t simply a reflection of poor hiring decisions. It reflects a role that has fundamentally expanded. Today’s CEOs are expected to navigate geopolitical volatility, lead through perpetual transformation, satisfy an ever-widening circle of stakeholders, and do all of this under a level of scrutiny previous generations of chief executives never faced. Yet succession planning hasn’t caught up. It remains anchored to an old model: a process that begins only when a transition looks imminent, narrows quickly to a handful of familiar names, and defines the next leader in the image of the departing one rather than the needs of the business ahead. This is not a minor inefficiency. It’s a structural risk. When succession is compressed into months rather than cultivated over years, boards are forced into high-stakes decisions with a shallow bench and limited information. Confidence collapses under pressure—our research bears this out: just 38 per cent of CEOs and 28 per cent of other C-suite executives say they trust their board’s ability to manage this process well, while only 52 per cent of directors themselves are confident in their own ability to design a successful succession strategy. Also Read: The problem with ‘PM as CEO of the Product’: A myth that hurts more than helps From a single decision to a continuous discipline The shift that’s needed is conceptually simple, even if operationally demanding: succession should not be treated as an event. It should be a continuous organisational capability—one that starts almost immediately after a new CEO takes office, not years later when a transition is already on the horizon. This reframing matters for several reasons. First, it depoliticises the process. Succession conversations are often fraught precisely because they happen under time pressure, with high emotional stakes and limited room for candour. When leadership development becomes an ongoing institutional habit rather than a rare, charged event, boards can have more honest conversations about readiness, both with candidates and with each other. Second, it protects against a well-documented bias: the tendency to default to familiar profiles. Boards frequently gravitate toward candidates who resemble the outgoing CEO or who have the most conventional operating résumés. This feels like risk mitigation. In practice, it often has the opposite effect, narrowing the field just when broader options are most needed. Our data on women in the CEO role is telling: 41 per cent of sitting women CEOs say becoming a CEO was not originally a career goal of theirs, and 36 per cent didn’t consider the role until someone else suggested it—suggesting capable leaders are being overlooked simply because they don’t fit an inherited archetype of what a chief executive should look like. Third, and perhaps most importantly for boards operating in unpredictable markets, an ongoing approach builds genuine optionality. Rather than betting the organisation’s future on a single candidate identified late in the game, boards that invest in leadership development over multiple years can assess a wider pool of internal talent alongside a more informed view of the external market. This matters even more given that half of directors report they don’t have confidence in an internal CEO candidate—a gap far easier to close over years than in the final months before a transition. What change is needed None of this is easy, and it asks more of directors than the traditional model does. It requires defining what future leadership success looks like based on where the business is heading, not where it has been. It requires evaluating candidates against rigorous, evidence-based criteria rather than reputation or tenure. And it requires directors to resist the pull toward whichever candidate feels safest in the moment, particularly under pressure. Also Read: WhatsApp’s new CEO is the headline. India’s data is the story It also requires humility about the transition itself. The period immediately following a CEO appointment is arguably the most fragile stretch of that leader’s tenure. It’s a moment when trust with the board, credibility with investors, and internal alignment are all being tested simultaneously. Yet this phase is frequently under-resourced, treated as an afterthought once the “real” decision has been made. How well a new CEO is supported in their first year often determines whether the board’s choice fulfils its promise at all. The real cost of waiting Boards that treat succession as a five-year problem to be solved in five months are not simply taking on execution risk. They are quietly constraining their own optionality at precisely the moment they need it most: during market volatility, geopolitical uncertainty, or rapid strategic pivots, when the wrong leadership choice can be enormously costly to unwind. The organisations that navigate the next decade most effectively won’t necessarily be the ones with the most talented executive teams today. They’ll be the ones whose boards took succession seriously years before they needed to, building deeper benches, asking harder questions of themselves, and refusing to let urgency substitute for rigour. The question every board should be asking isn’t “who is ready to lead tomorrow?” It’s “are we actually building the conditions to know the answer to that question when it matters most?” — Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27 . Join us on WhatsApp , Instagram , Facebook , X , and LinkedIn to stay connected. The post Why boards are getting CEO succession wrong, and what it’s costing them appeared first on e27 .