Key Insights
-
What to look for if you want 20% higher annual revenue growth
-
How a CEO’s ability to empathize impacts how long they’ll stay
-
Why you need to conduct 360-degree reference checks
The boardroom buzzed with optimism.
After months of searching, countless interviews, and heated discussions, the directors at a Fortune 500 company had finally chosen their new CEO.
The candidate had an impressive resume, glowing references, and had charmed everyone during interviews.
Yet what began as a moment of triumph ended in disappointment. Just 18 months later, the CEO was gone, leaving behind a demoralized workforce, confused stakeholders, and a stock price in free fall.
This worst-case scenario plays out too often. About 11% of CEOs depart their organizations within their first year. By year three, that figure jumps to 34%.
When CEOs leave early, it's rarely because of poor performance. Our research shows they were often never the right fit in the first place.
The problem lies in how boards make these critical decisions. Too many continue to prioritize pedigree over potential, stellar backgrounds over leadership competencies, and gut instinct over rigorous assessment.
The costs of getting it wrong can be staggering, and the ripple effects can persist for years, making the total cost exponentially higher than any severance package.
Progressive boards are recognizing this reality and changing their approach.
They're moving from intuition-driven decisions to evidence-based ones, using scientific assessments and structured evaluation to identify the leadership qualities that actually predict CEO success and prevent issues like early departures.
This guide outlines how boards can strengthen their CEO candidate evaluations.
A Billion-Dollar Mistake
What it costs when boards choose the wrong CEO:
Choosing the wrong chief executive doesn’t just sour the boardroom—it can seriously shake shareholder value. Boards that misfire on leadership forgo an average of $1.7 billion in shareholder value compared to organizations that planned their succession more strategically, according to one estimate.
And there are ripple effects, too:
- Major projects getting derailed mid-execution
- Key executives exploring other opportunities
- Employee engagement taking a hit across the organization