Record turnover has made CEO succession a live governance issue. The real test is not whether a board can name a replacement, but whether it has built credible options, matched the next leader to the next strategic chapter, and designed a transfer of authority that can survive reality.

By Frank Farnel | Responsible Public Affairs | August 11, 2026

A CEO succession is often presented as a search. That framing is already too late. By the time a board is interviewing candidates, it should have answered the more consequential questions: What strategic chapter is the company entering? Which experiences will the next leader need? Who inside the organization has been tested beyond a functional silo? How will the departing CEO relinquish authority without abandoning stewardship? And what evidence will tell the board, six months after the appointment, that the transition is working?

The urgency is visible in the numbers. Russell Reynolds Associates recorded 234 CEO departures across 13 major stock indexes in 2025, an eight-year high; 213 appointments followed, and 86% of those appointees were first-time public-company CEOs. Its first-half 2026 update counted 101 departures, down from 118 a year earlier and the lowest first-half total in its nine-year series.[1] The decline may offer boards breathing room. It does not remove the structural pressures that produced the turnover: shorter tenures, strategic disruption and more impatient stakeholders.

In the United States, Spencer Stuart counted 168 new CEOs across the S&P 1500 in 2025, the most since 2010. Sixty percent came from inside the company, 84% were first-time enterprise CEOs and nearly 40% of departing CEOs left within their first five years.[2] Europe showed a different pattern: 61 transitions among the companies tracked, with 56% of new leaders hired externally; yet among companies valued above $20 billion, 66% of appointments were internal.[3] Those contrasts should end the sterile debate over whether insiders or outsiders are always better. The decisive variable is fit between the leader, the strategic task and the transition system.

Executive Summary

• Succession is a continuing leadership system, not a vacancy-management event. It begins with strategy, develops several credible candidates and continues through the new CEO’s first year.
• The insider-versus-outsider choice has no universal answer. Internal candidates bring context and relationships; external candidates can bring independence and a different strategic repertoire. The board must choose against the next chapter, not the last CEO’s profile.
• Three current cases illustrate distinct models: Suncor’s long, staged handoff; JPMorganChase’s deliberate broadening of internal candidates; and Disney’s attempt to correct a failed 2020–2022 transition with a more board-owned process.
• The most dangerous ambiguity comes after the announcement. The outgoing leader’s role, the successor’s decision rights, stakeholder communication and first-year milestones must be explicit.

Succession Is a Leadership System

A board can have a succession document and still be unprepared. Many plans are lists of names assembled for emergency continuity. They answer who could occupy the office tomorrow, but not who should lead the company into its next strategic chapter. A credible system does four jobs at once: it protects continuity, creates competitive options, develops leadership capacity and transfers legitimate authority.

Research reviews have repeatedly warned against treating succession as a single event. Berns and Klarner argue that academic work has often focused on the appointment moment even though practice shows a multi-stage process; earlier reviews likewise describe succession as an organizational phenomenon shaped by context, power and performance.[11][13] Shen and Cannella’s study of 228 successions found that successor type interacted with post-succession executive turnover, while the outgoing CEO’s tenure also had a non-linear relationship with later performance.[12] The practical implication is not a formula. It is that the candidate cannot be evaluated separately from the team and transition that follow.

This is why the board’s leadership role is central. Management should develop talent; the incumbent CEO should expose candidates to difficult assignments; the CHRO should maintain evidence on readiness and gaps. But the board must own the criteria, the range of options, the timetable and the final decision. NACD’s 2026 Governance Outlook reported CEO succession planning as the board practice directors most wanted to improve. Only about one-third of respondents expressed strong confidence in their board’s collective skill set, a reminder that board capability itself shapes succession quality.[4]

The BRIDGE Framework for a Credible Handoff

A useful succession process should be easy to test under pressure. The BRIDGE framework turns six board responsibilities into an operating discipline. It is an analytical framework, not a claim that one sequence fits every company.

BRIDGE element	Leadership test	Evidence to retain
B — Business chapter	Define the next three-to-five-year value-creation task before writing the candidate specification.	Strategic mandate, risk map, stakeholder expectations
R — Range of options	Maintain credible internal candidates and an external benchmark; separate emergency cover from long-term fit.	Readiness slate, market map, emergency plan
I — Immersion	Give candidates enterprise, P&L, transformation and external-stakeholder assignments that create evidence.	Assignment record, outcomes, 360-degree evidence
D — Decision rights	Keep criteria, timetable and selection board-owned; manage conflicts and incumbent influence explicitly.	Board calendar, criteria, recusal and escalation rules
G — Governed handoff	Specify when authority moves and what role, if any, the former CEO retains.	Handoff compact, communication plan, role end date
E — Early-year evidence	Support and assess the new CEO through a limited set of first-year strategic, team and trust indicators.	30/100/180/365-day milestones, board check-ins

BRIDGE makes one principle explicit: the appointment is the midpoint, not the finish line. A process can select the right person and still fail if the old CEO retains an informal veto, if unsuccessful candidates leave simultaneously, or if the board mistakes a smooth announcement for a successful transition.

Case Study 1: Suncor Designs a Long Runway

On August 6, 2026, Suncor Energy announced that CEO Rich Kruger would move to executive vice chair in April 2027 and that Peter Zebedee, then executive vice president of Upstream, would become president and CEO at the same time. The company also said Zebedee would become president and chief financial officer on September 14, 2026, taking responsibility for all non-operating functions during the transition.[5]

The architecture is notable. Zebedee had operating depth, including prior service as CEO of LNG Canada, but Suncor’s staged appointment is designed to widen his enterprise exposure before the formal handoff. The lead time gives the board several months to observe how he integrates operating and corporate responsibilities. It also allows stakeholders to understand the transition before authority changes hands.

The potential strength is deliberate preparation. The potential risk is dual authority. An incoming CEO who already carries the president and CFO titles will be highly visible, while the incumbent remains CEO and is then scheduled to become executive vice chair. The model succeeds only if decision rights change on a published internal timetable and if the executive vice-chair role is narrow enough to advise without shadow-managing. The announcement establishes the structure; it does not yet prove the outcome. That distinction between verified design and future performance matters.

Case Study 2: JPMorganChase Builds Optionality in Public

JPMorganChase took a different approach on June 25, 2026. It named Doug Petno and Troy Rohrbaugh co-presidents of the company. Petno became sole CEO of the Commercial & Investment Bank, while Rohrbaugh became CEO of Consumer and Community Banking. The company explicitly described the promotions as part of the board’s ongoing succession-planning process.[6]

This is succession through consequential assignments. Both leaders now carry enterprise-wide titles while running the bank’s two largest businesses. Their performance can be judged against real customers, regulators, capital decisions, technology execution and organizational complexity. The structure creates evidence rather than relying on interviews or reputation.

The strength of the model is optionality: the board can compare leaders tested in roles of comparable weight and still retain the ability to look outside. Its risk is the public horse race. Employees and investors may interpret every decision as succession theater; other strong candidates may disengage; co-presidency can blur accountability if roles overlap. Leaders can reduce those costs by making business accountabilities unambiguous, rewarding collaboration and treating all serious candidates as stewards of the institution rather than contestants for a prize.

Case Study 3: Disney Turns a Failed Transition Into a Governance Reset

Disney’s experience shows why succession does not end at appointment. Bob Chapek succeeded Bob Iger in February 2020. In November 2022, the board brought Iger back as CEO, effective immediately, saying the company was entering an increasingly complex period of industry transformation. The announcement gave Iger a two-year mandate that included helping the board develop another successor.[7] Whatever one’s view of the personalities involved, the institutional result was clear: the first handoff did not hold.

Disney then rebuilt the process. On February 3, 2026, the board unanimously elected 28-year company veteran Josh D’Amaro to become CEO on March 18. It also created a president and chief creative officer role for Dana Walden, said Iger had mentored internal candidates throughout the process, and set a boundary for Iger’s continued service as senior adviser and director through December 31, 2026.[8]

The second process appears to address several weaknesses that commonly damage succession: deeper board ownership, multiple developed candidates, a defined strategic rationale and a time-limited role for the former CEO. Yet this remains an early assessment. D’Amaro’s appointment is a fact; the success of the governance reset is not yet established. Boards should resist retroactively labeling a well-designed process a success before the new leadership team has delivered.

The Counterexample: When Urgency Compresses Choice

Intel provides a useful counterpoint. On December 2, 2024, it announced that Pat Gelsinger had retired effective the previous day, appointed David Zinsner and Michelle Johnston Holthaus as interim co-CEOs, and began a search.[9] On March 12, 2025, Intel appointed former director and semiconductor investor Lip-Bu Tan as CEO, effective March 18.[10] The board filled the permanent role in roughly three and a half months, but the abrupt first step forced the organization to govern through an interim structure while confronting a demanding strategic turnaround.

It would be inaccurate to infer from public announcements alone that Intel had no emergency plan. It did have leaders able to assume interim responsibility. The more limited lesson is that emergency continuity and strategic succession are different capabilities. An interim arrangement can stabilize authority; it cannot recreate the years of enterprise exposure, candidate development and stakeholder preparation that a sustained process provides.

What the Cases Reveal

Strategy must precede biography

Boards often write a specification that resembles the admired incumbent or an idealized outsider. A better starting point is the value-creation thesis for the next three to five years. A company moving from turnaround to disciplined growth may need a different leadership profile from one entering restructuring, geopolitical expansion or technological reinvention.

Candidate development must create evidence

Potential successors need roles that expose them to the whole enterprise: profit-and-loss accountability, capital allocation, regulatory scrutiny, workforce decisions and external stakeholders. Spencer Stuart’s 2025 U.S. data show why operating roles matter: 48% of incoming S&P 1500 CEOs came through president or COO positions and another 30% from divisional CEO roles.[2]

The outgoing CEO’s boundary is a design choice

A former CEO can preserve relationships and context, especially in regulated or capital-intensive industries. The same person can also weaken the successor if employees continue to seek the old approval. Executive chair, vice chair, adviser and director are not ceremonial labels; each requires written scope, duration and escalation rules.

The losing candidates are part of the transition

A board that develops several executives should anticipate what happens after one is selected. Some departures may be inevitable and healthy. A simultaneous exodus can strip the new CEO of institutional capability. Retention conversations, role clarity and dignified treatment are therefore governance issues, not post-announcement HR administration.

Diversity is a pipeline outcome

Only 9% of the 213 global CEO appointments tracked by Russell Reynolds in 2025 went to women.[1] The comparable Spencer Stuart figure for incoming S&P 1500 CEOs was also 9%, down from 15% in 2024.[2] Boards cannot repair such a gap at the final shortlist. They must examine who receives operating roles, international assignments, board exposure and sponsorship years earlier.

What Leaders Should Do Now

1. Define the next chapter before naming competencies. Write a concise three-to-five-year strategic mandate and identify the two or three leadership tensions the next CEO must manage—for example, continuity versus reinvention, global scale versus local legitimacy, or investment versus cash discipline.
2. Maintain three clocks. Keep an emergency plan for tomorrow, a medium-term readiness view for the next 12 to 24 months and a longer development horizon for leaders who may be three to five years away.
3. Test at least two credible internal candidates against the market. Internal development and external benchmarking should run together. A search that begins only when the incumbent departs destroys leverage and compresses judgment.
4. Give candidates consequential assignments. Rotate them through enterprise, P&L, transformation and external-stakeholder roles. Do not confuse presentation skill in the boardroom with readiness to carry the institution.
5. Write the handoff compact before the announcement. Specify who decides what during the transition, when authority moves, how the former CEO may advise, how disagreements are escalated and when any advisory role ends.
6. Protect the wider team. Identify retention risks among unsuccessful candidates and their direct reports. Design roles around enterprise need, not consolation titles, and communicate decisions with dignity.
7. Govern the first year with evidence. Agree a limited set of 30-, 100-, 180- and 365-day indicators covering strategy, team quality, operating performance, culture, external trust and board relationship. Support the CEO without turning milestones into micromanagement.

Conclusion: The Institution Must Outlast the Individual

Succession exposes what an organization truly believes about leadership. If the process begins with a vacancy, depends on one favored heir or leaves the departing CEO’s authority undefined, the institution is signaling that it confuses leadership with personality. If it begins with strategy, develops several people through real responsibility and continues into the first year, it treats leadership as an organizational capability.

Suncor’s long runway, JPMorganChase’s assignment-based optionality and Disney’s rebuilt process offer different answers to the same problem. Intel’s compressed transition shows the value—and the limits—of emergency continuity. None supplies a universal template. Together they reveal the board’s actual task: create a choice before a crisis, select for the future rather than the past, and transfer authority clearly enough that the new leader can lead.

The finest compliment to a departing CEO is not that the organization cannot imagine life without them. It is that they helped build an institution capable of choosing, supporting and ultimately following someone else.

Key Evidence

Across 13 major indexes, 234 CEOs departed in 2025, the highest total in Russell Reynolds’ eight-year historical comparison; 101 departed in the first half of 2026, the lowest first-half total in its nine-year series.[1]

Spencer Stuart counted 168 new S&P 1500 CEOs in 2025, the most since 2010; 60% were internal appointments and 84% were first-time enterprise CEOs.[2]

In Europe, 56% of new CEOs tracked in 2025 were external hires, but 66% of appointments at companies valued above $20 billion were internal.[3]

Only 9% of global CEO appointments tracked by Russell Reynolds in 2025 went to women; Spencer Stuart reported the same 9% share for new S&P 1500 CEOs.[1][2]

Suncor announced its April 2027 CEO handoff eight months in advance and gave the successor an expanded president-and-CFO role beginning September 2026.[5]

Glossary

Emergency successionA continuity plan for an unexpected inability of the CEO to serve. It prioritizes immediate authority and operational stability.Planned successionA board-owned process that aligns future strategy, candidate development, selection, transition and first-year support.Inside-outside candidateA leader recruited from outside and deliberately given time inside the organization before being considered for the CEO role.Enterprise exposureExperience across the whole company, including P&L responsibility, capital allocation, people leadership and major external stakeholders.Handoff compactA written agreement defining decision rights, communication, advisory boundaries and timing during the transfer of authority.

References and Further Reading

Current Data and Governance Research

1. Russell Reynolds Associates. Global CEO Turnover Index. Updated through the first half of 2026.
2. Spencer Stuart. 2025 S&P 1500 CEO Transitions: Behind the CEO Moment. 2026.
3. Spencer Stuart. CEO Transitions in Europe 2025: Behind the CEO Moment. 2026.
4. National Association of Corporate Directors. Boards Prioritize Strategic Execution, Technology, and People in 2026. December 11, 2025.

Corporate Primary Sources

1. Suncor Energy. Suncor Energy Announces Executive Leadership Changes. News release, August 6, 2026.
2. JPMorganChase. JPMorganChase Names Doug Petno and Troy Rohrbaugh Co-Presidents of the Company. News release, June 25, 2026.
3. The Walt Disney Company. Board of Directors Appoints Robert A. Iger as Chief Executive Officer. News release, November 20, 2022.
4. The Walt Disney Company. Josh D’Amaro Named Next Chief Executive Officer of The Walt Disney Company. February 3, 2026.
5. Intel Corporation. Intel Announces Retirement of CEO Pat Gelsinger. News release, December 2, 2024.
6. Intel Corporation. Intel Appoints Lip-Bu Tan as Chief Executive Officer. News release, March 12, 2025.

Academic and Theoretical Works

1. Berns, K. V. D., and P. Klarner. A Review of the CEO Succession Literature and a Future Research Program. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(2), 2017.
2. Shen, Wei, and Albert A. Cannella Jr. Revisiting the Performance Consequences of CEO Succession: The Impacts of Successor Type, Postsuccession Senior Executive Turnover, and Departing CEO Tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 2002, 717–733.
3. Kesner, Idalene F., and Terrence C. Sebora. Executive Succession: Past, Present & Future. Journal of Management, 20(2), 1994, 327–372.

Source and Methodology Note

Research cut-off: August 11, 2026. The quantitative findings are drawn from Russell Reynolds Associates, Spencer Stuart and NACD; their universes, definitions and time periods differ, so the figures should not be combined as if they described one global population. Company facts are based on official announcements. Public sources show the declared structure of each transition but not confidential board deliberations, candidate assessments or internal decision rights. Statements about the potential strengths and risks of each design are the author’s analysis. Suncor’s planned handoff and Disney’s 2026 transition are too recent to judge as performance outcomes.

Suggested Internal Links

Authentic Leadership: Building Trust and Influence Through Inclusivity and Storytelling

Leading Through Uncertainty: Uniting Battlefield Grit and Boardroom Vision

Public Affairs Belongs in the Boardroom

Skills-Based Organization: The Future of Work, Talent Management, and AI Workforce Transformation