The 9% Problem: Why Boards Leave Chair Succession Too Late

Chair succession is one of the clearest tests of board maturity.

The readiness, the runway, the plan and the investment - all of it reveals whether a board is thinking long term. On that measure, most boards are falling short.

Our latest Quarterly Insights data shows that only 9% of directors globally believe their board is performing strongly on Chair succession.

Nine percent.

That means 91% of boards are, at some level, kicking Chair succession down the road. The cost of this approach is lost options.

Chair succession works best when there is time: time to develop potential successors; to test different leadership profiles; and to adapt the board’s thinking as the organisation evolves. When boards defer the conversation, flexibility is impacted and choices decrease.

This happens because internal candidates haven’t been developed, or external candidates haven’t been researched. Criteria might be vague, or trade-offs are rushed, which means decisions get shaped purely by availability.

And if the board is choosing based only on availability, there’s a high risk of a significant strategic cost. What if the board doesn’t have the leadership it needs for the organisation’s next phase?

Conversely, early succession work creates options.

And it needs to be an ongoing concern. What a board needs from its chair during a turnaround is different from what it needs during steady growth. Different again during major M&A, heightened regulatory scrutiny or activist pressure. These differences are about judgment, credibility, relationships and temperament. And they take time to prepare for.

When the environment is volatile, boards often defer succession because it feels non-urgent. Why add uncertainty when there is already so much to manage? But volatility is precisely when optionality matters most. Deferral does not stabilise the board. It leaves it exposed.

Effective succession is not a name in an envelope. It is an ongoing investment.

It involves developing potential candidates, internal and external. Clarifying what leadership the next chapter will require. Stress-testing assumptions about the future. Revisiting criteria as conditions change. Building depth so that transition does not depend on a single individual or moment.

None of this can be done well in the final six months. It requires years. And it requires the topic to be part of normal board conversation, not a contingency plan.

The most effective chairs treat succession as stewardship, not self-reference. They name it early. They normalise it. They ensure the board has time on its side.

This does not mean announcing a departure date. It means asking better questions while options still exist. What capabilities should we be developing now? What leadership profiles might we need next? How could we expand our future choices rather than narrow them? What would we regret not having invested in if the transition came sooner than expected?

These questions do not destabilise boards. They strengthen them.

They signal maturity. That the board understands timing matters. That it recognises options decay. That it is willing to invest early to preserve choice later.

Nine percent is not a statistic about process. It is a statistic about foresight.

Succession will happen. The only question is whether the board will meet it with options, or with urgency.