The Pitfalls That Undermine CEO Succession Planning

Even the most successful companies struggle to choose their next leader. They’re having to do it more often, too, now that the average CEO tenure is declining. Choosing the CEO is one of the board’s most significant, high-stakes responsibilities. Yet many boards fail at this important task. Our research—based on a survey of 49 public directors as well as 44 in-depth interviews with corporate directors, investors, and executive search consultants—found 10 common pitfalls that undermine CEO succession. Our survey and interviews also shed light on how an engaged chief human resources officer (CHRO) helps boards avoid these pitfalls. Boards with solid succession practices reported significantly greater CHRO engagement—particularly around defining the process, shaping criteria, and objectively evaluating candidates. Here are the common pitfalls—and how a trusted CHRO can help boards avoid them: 1. A Hesitant CEO CEO resistance is a big barrier to effective succession planning. Some CEOs avoid the topic of succession out of discomfort with retirement, concern over legacy, or fear of losing control. Some CEOs undermine the process, essentially saying, “I’m not ready to go, so I’m going to make sure there’s nobody who can do the job I do now,” as one director told us. This hesitation can stall the entire process. Boards may struggle to evaluate internal candidates, map out development plans, or set clear timelines. Worse, it can erode momentum and morale—leaving potential successors frustrated, unprepared, or disengaged. In an interview, one director discussed how CEOs feel they might be forgotten once the succession process gets under way. “The CEO must be willing to be vulnerable and trust that if the board puts out a date, they will not immediately pivot and say ‘Let’s get going on the new person.’” A trusted CHRO can diffuse CEO hesitation by positioning succession planning as an act of leadership, helping them feel secure, supported, and in control of the process. They can serve as a discreet facilitator, keeping communication open between the board and CEO, while depersonalizing the work through rigorous, data-driven planning. 2. A Reactive Process Many boards wait too long to start succession planning and underestimate the time required to identify, prepare, and develop candidates. When planning begins only after a transition seems imminent, the result is often a compressed, reactive process. “Boards often do not think about the time needed to prepare someone to take on the CEO role,” said one director with experience on several CEO successions. “For one company, someone needed three roles before they could become CEO, and each role would need three years. That was an aha moment that we needed to get started immediately.” A trusted CHRO will help the board embed ongoing CEO succession into the company’s annual talent cycle, complete with tracking tools and readiness metrics. 3. A Misaligned CEO Profile One of the most consequential yet overlooked pitfalls is facility to align the CEO profile with the company’s future strategy. Too often, boards default to legacy templates or the traits of past leaders, favoring familiarity over foresight. Our research found most directors say their boards have analyzed the company’s expected future strategy (72%), but only 58% agree that their CEO profile reflects future needs. One experienced director emphasized the need for boards to be specific, saying: “Do you need a turnaround person? A tech innovator? CEOs today face incredible demands. Beyond strategy, they must demonstrate integrity, inspire confidence, and lead with political savvy.” The CHRO should facilitate strategy-driven profiling, sparking discussions that tie future business direction to leadership needs and helping the board envision what success will require. 4. An Imperial Incumbent It’s the CEO’s responsibility to select the executive team and develop organizational talent, and their insights in evaluating internal succession candidates are valuable. However, without clear boundaries, the CEO can exert outsized influence over a process that should reflect the board’s independent judgment and long-term stewardship. As one director told us, “I don’t want the CEO to tell me who the successor should be. That’s the board’s job.” The CHRO can build trust with both sides, engaging the CEO and eliciting their contributions while helping the board establish clear boundaries and ownership of the process. 5. Shallow Board Discussions Boards typically devote significant time to long-term strategy, but succession planning often receives less attention. According to our research, just 35% of directors believe their board has ample time to complete CEO succession planning. Among boards that say they are focused on succession, only 26% feel confident about the time available. “If you asked most board members to name the most important things about their role, they would say strategy, risk, CEO succession,” a director told us. “If you ask what they are doing, they could tell you about strategy or risk, but they are not sure what the board should do to address CEO succession.” The CHRO should bring structure to the process, equipping the board with tools and timelines, such as frameworks that clarify director roles and define a clear succession timeline with decision points. 6. Overlooked Internal Talent Directors often have limited direct exposure to emerging leaders and must rely on inputs from management that might be incomplete, curated, or biased. We found boards with stronger succession planning practices engage directly and deeply with internal talent. They identify candidates with CEO potential, have first-hand interaction with potential successors, and provide targeted coaching and mentoring. An experienced director told us the most effective board is one where “we’ve been thinking about people well down in the organization, the 20 to 30 people who are stars.” The task is to “get the board to know them, track them, and think about them over their careers. These are strong people; how do we get them the right jobs, the right training, the right exposure they need?” The CHRO should offer a clear, honest view of internal candidates, not just high-level summaries, and create structured ways for directors to meet and observe talent deeper in the organization. 7. Mismanaged Transitions Succession planning doesn’t end with the announcement of a new CEO. The transition phase is a critical period that if mishandled can weaken investor confidence, destabilize leadership teams, and cause lasting confusion between the incoming and outgoing CEO, particularly if the predecessor remains involved in governance. Our research found that boards with stronger succession practices are more likely to have clear transition plans in place (42% vs. 12%). Yet overall board confidence in managing transitions remains low, with an average rating of just 2.8 out of 5. “Even if the board gets the pick right,” said one director, “if we mismanage the handoff, we lose all the value of that choice.” The CHRO is important to protecting continuity while also setting both the outgoing CEO and the board up for success. They should help the board design a comprehensive transition plan to ensure onboarding, mentorship, and stakeholder alignment are built into the process from the start. They can also provide resources, coaching, or explore next-step opportunities for the outgoing CEO that create a purposeful off-ramp and preserve dignity and legacy. 8. Underdeveloped Candidates Preparing internal leaders for the CEO role requires deliberate development, including stretch assignments that push candidates beyond their functional expertise, making sure they’re exposed to enterprise-level challenges. These experiences are essential to gauge readiness but can also disrupt performance, spark resistance, or leave successors feeling unsupported. The CHRO should create individualized development plans, with timelines, milestones, and clear goals for each candidate. They should also assume a high-level view of leadership rotations to reduce disruption and ensure continuity while building readiness. 9. A Preordained Successor Boards can fall into a trap of path dependence, where a single front-runner—often supported by the outgoing CEO or a vocal faction of directors—emerges early in the process. This can lead to confirmation bias, where the board highlights strengths in the favored candidate while overlooking signs of misalignment or underestimating lesser-known internal or external contenders. “The board must be disciplined enough to avoid being fixated on one candidate too early,” said one director. The CHRO should help the board broaden its field of vision by providing regular, objective updates on a wider slate of internal candidates beyond those already on the board’s radar. Getting to know talent two or three steps away from being a potential CEO can give the board a sense of the talent that may be CEO-ready at different succession time horizons. Structured evaluations can allow for side-by-side comparisons of internal candidates and identify any capability gaps in a presumed front-runner. 10. Superficial Assessment of External Talent Boards often demonstrate a strong preference for internal candidates, leading to limited or cursory evaluation of external talent. Without a structured methodology or sustained commitment, external candidates are often dismissed quickly or bypassed altogether. Directors in our study consistently pointed to the cultural alignment and trust that internal candidates bring—but acknowledged that these same advantages can discourage broader consideration of external talent unless business conditions demand it. One director emphasized the importance of comparing internal candidates with industry peers, saying it is important to “give the board an assessment of candidates within your industry [and] how your internal talent compares to external talent.” The CHRO should ensure the board has access to real information on external candidates, facilitating a structured, evidence-based view of the external market by compiling objective data, conducting comparative assessments, and designing consistent evaluation frameworks. By helping the board maintain visibility into the broader talent market, CHROs preserve optionality, surface blind spots, and ensure the final decision reflects both internal readiness and external standards. . . . The CHRO has a vital role to play in succession planning, supporting the board by bringing structure, objectivity, and clarity to the process. A trusted CHRO can help the board avoid the pitfalls and set the stage for a successful CEO succession. Ultimately, trust between the CHRO and the board is the foundation for success. Without this, a CHRO cannot successfully lead or influence the succession process.

The Pitfalls That Undermine CEO Succession Planning

Summary.

Partner Center