Navigating Today’s CEO Turnover Trends from Pressure to Progress

Leadership change at the top is accelerating, but not every CEO exit is a failure. How can directors confront today’s turbulent CEO turnover in ways that create opportunity for C-suite growth?

CEO departures are on the rise, but behind the numbers lies a complex mosaic of shifting pressures and market inconsistencies. While headlines may suggest a wave of executive failures, the reality is far more nuanced. Some CEOs are stepping aside to make way for next-phase leadership; others are responding to strategic misalignment or personal priorities. 

According to The Conference Board’s 2024 CEO Succession Practices report, CEO turnover rates have climbed steadily post-pandemic, with forced successions at S&P 500 companies reaching their highest level since 2011. Claus Hartmann, Partner at Signium in Copenhagen, comments:

“We see boards acting more decisively – not because leadership has failed, but because business contexts change faster than ever. The shift is from reactive crisis management to intentional leadership renewal, a natural evolution in a world of constant transformation.” 

Top 3 market and macro drivers for CEO turnover 

The C-level movement can be attributed to several external forces that are amplifying the pressure CEOs face daily, including economic volatility, technological acceleration, and rising geopolitical risk. On the ground, this presents in some of the following challenges: 

1. Investor pressure has intensified  

While boards are formally responsible for succession decisions, the underlying pressure to deliver results, especially in environments dominated by short-term investor horizons, can accelerate leadership transitions. Even in the absence of clear performance failure, rising investor impatience and public scrutiny – often intensified by media coverage – can push boards to act more swiftly than strategy alone might justify. 

2. M&A and restructuring often trigger shifts in leadership  

Mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructuring often sit at the epicenter of structural and strategic shifts that unsettle leadership continuity. This is especially true when integration challenges, stakeholder uncertainty, or new governance expectations emerge. CEO turnover is common in target companies, where CEOs may be sidelined, but even acquiring-company CEOs face heightened scrutiny, as boards and investors closely monitor whether the value promised on paper actually materializes. 

“It really depends on the deal,” says Hartmann. “In cross-border or transformational M&A, leadership stability becomes a strategic asset. When there’s uncertainty – whether operational or cultural – it’s often the executive suite that absorbs the first shock.” 

3. Sector disruption reshapes the leadership profile 

When industries undergo major disruption, such as new technologies, regulatory shifts, or changing consumer expectations, boards may reassess whether current leadership is equipped to navigate the new terrain. In sectors like automotive, healthcare, and financial services, disruption has accelerated changes at the top as companies pivot from legacy models to more agile, innovation-driven strategies.  

“Even when numbers look good, boards are re-evaluating what leadership means,” comments Hartmann. “Resilience, digital fluency, and empathy are increasingly seen as core capabilities – not soft skills – especially in times of accelerated change”. 

Beyond governance: Interpersonal dynamics at the top 

Not all CEO departures are externally triggered. Internal misalignment remains one of the most common sources of tension between CEOs and boards. As business conditions shift, directors may push for new priorities or a change in direction, whether that’s exiting a market, doubling down on innovation, or accelerating transformation. If the CEO doesn’t share the same sense of urgency or strategic vision, friction sets in. Over time, this can erode trust, leaving all parties frustrated and uncertain about the future. 

Activist investors have also added a new layer of complexity to boardroom dynamics. These shareholders often arrive with firm views on how to unlock value, like implementing cost reductions or bold ESG pivots. The CEO role is often in their line of sight, seen as a means to accelerate their agenda. Even when a CEO still has the board’s support, activist investors can create uncertainty by changing the board’s focus and exposing concerns about the CEO’s leadership that weren’t being fully addressed before. 

Who’s on the board and how often they engage also makes a difference. Boards that meet only occasionally or strictly adhere to formal meeting schedules can miss early warning signs. On the other hand, boards with a mix of perspectives and regular interaction are better at spotting issues early and handling tension proactively and without rushed decisions.  

“Leadership is often described in metrics,” says Hartmann. “But behind every decision sits a person, with history, emotion, and judgment. Ignoring that human dimension is one of the biggest risks in boardroom dynamics today.”  

Is the right leader today wrong for tomorrow?   

A CEO suited to one stage of a company’s journey may not be right for the next. “This tends to show up most during times of major change, like scaling, business rescue, or digital transformation.  

“In the bustle of day-to-day business, these mismatches aren’t always obvious at first,” says Hartmann. “That’s why boards need practical ways to assess whether the current CEO is still aligned with where the business is going. And if not, what needs to change – the strategy, or the person leading it?”  

Lifecycle mismatch is a growing reality  

Founders or growth-phase leaders may struggle in regulatory-heavy or efficiency-focused environments. Likewise, restructuring experts may falter in periods requiring long-term vision and brand stewardship. 

Capability frameworks facilitate more objective decisions  

Structured leadership frameworks help boards define what “fit” looks like for their business. These tools provide a clear way to evaluate whether a CEO’s strengths align with the current and future demands of the role. With a defined framework in place, boards are better equipped to assess fit objectively, spot misalignment early, and plan transitions with foresight. 

Capability fit should be revisited often 

Fit isn’t a one-time decision. Boards must treat capability alignment as an ongoing conversation, not just an annual review. They regularly revisit leadership needs, especially after key decisions such as acquisitions or restructures, and ensure the CEO’s strengths continue to align with the evolving business context. 

Pressure at the top: Why CEO well-being matters 

Amid performance pressures, the human side of CEO turnover is often overlooked. Yet burnout, family priorities, and public scrutiny are real and rising contributors to CEO turnover. 

According to a study by Vistage, 68% of CEOs reported experiencing exhaustion and burnout at work over the previous three months. An HR Dive article also warns of a potential “leadership crisis”, with 40% of CEOs thinking of leaving their leadership roles to improve their well-being.  

Hartmann elaborates, saying, “Many CEOs operate in isolation, carrying immense emotional weight, 24/7 visibility, and the pressure of being the organization’s anchor. That human load is rarely visible until it becomes too heavy to carry.” 

Boards must recognize that well-being isn’t just a personal matter. It has real implications for leadership continuity. Building resilience and care into the leadership journey can help sustain performance and reduce the risk of unexpected departures. 

Top proactive and reactive strategies to manage CEO change 

Most CEO transitions don’t come out of nowhere. Boards that pay attention to early warning signs are better positioned to respond thoughtfully and with confidence. Yet, many still wait too long, relying on late-stage signals or avoiding tough conversations until the misalignment is too far gone. 

Warning signs often include: 

• Rising boardroom tension 

• Increased senior turnover or talent flight 

• KPI slippage or inconsistent delivery 

• Negative investor sentiment or reputational noise in media and analyst reports 

• Cultural drift and breakdown in internal communication 

• Failure to adapt to new market realities 

Preventative measures 

These proactive efforts can help boards manage CEO transitions with foresight, rather than urgency. 

• Pair the CEO with a board-level mentor who can offer feedback and sponsorship. This relationship provides a safe space for open dialogue, early course correction, and mutual understanding. 
  

• Conduct scenario planning for succession on an annual basis, not just during a crisis. Regularly exploring “what-if” leadership scenarios helps ensure the organization is prepared for both planned and unexpected transitions. 

• Conduct annual 360-degree reviews that include input from the executive team. Incorporating feedback from those who work closest with the CEO offers valuable insights into leadership effectiveness, team alignment, and early signs of disconnect. 

• For new CEOs, design a structured onboarding journey that goes beyond the first 90 days. A thoughtful onboarding process should extend into the CEO’s first year, supporting their integration into the culture, strategy, and board dynamics. 

Reactive measures 

When the early indicators have been missed, the following measures can help an organization react to an unexpected CEO transition as quickly as possible:  

• Deliver unified messaging across leadership, investor, and media channels. When an unplanned CEO transition is underway, especially under pressure, consistent communication is essential to maintain stability and safeguard the company’s reputation. 

• Appoint credible interim leadership to maintain confidence and continuity. Whether sourced internally or externally, interim CEOs must be trusted, capable figures who can stabilize operations and reassure employees, investors, and partners during the transition period. 

• Re-engage senior leaders to prevent cultural drift and preserve alignment. Leadership transitions can unsettle executive teams, so it’s crucial to reaffirm direction and ensure that the broader leadership remains committed and connected. 

“Boards can’t prevent every exit,” says Hartmann. “But they can prepare for it, and respond with purpose and composure when it happens.” 

Shifting seats: Recent CEO departures in focus 

CEO turnover has become increasingly public, driven by a wide range of internal and external pressures. The following recent examples illustrate just how varied the reasons can be. 

Unilever – A move to accelerate change 

In early 2025, Unilever announced the departure of CEO Hein Schumacher, less than two years after his appointment. While Schumacher had initiated a restructuring plan that included the spinoff of the company’s ice-cream division, the board stated that a leadership change was necessary to accelerate delivery. 

Though officially described as a mutual decision, the speed of the transition raised questions about strategic urgency and the board’s patience. It’s a clear example of how performance alone doesn’t guarantee stability when key stakeholders expect pace and momentum. 

Entain – Fit over tenure 

Gavin Isaacs stepped down as CEO of Entain in February 2025, just five months into the role. Though not framed as a failure, the move followed growing scrutiny over the company’s strategic direction and leadership cohesion. 

Isaacs, who came out of semi-retirement to take the position, may have faced challenges in cultural or operational fit. This departure highlights how quickly boards may act when the expected chemistry or capability alignment doesn’t materialize, even in the absence of a public crisis. 

Intel: Navigating disruption at the top 

Pat Gelsinger’s retirement from Intel in late 2024 came after a complex tenure marked by strategic reinvention and competitive pressure. Despite ambitious moves to reinvest in manufacturing and regain chip leadership, Intel continued to lose ground to rivals.  

The leadership transition occurred against a backdrop of sector-wide transformation and mounting investor expectations. Gelsinger’s exit underscores how macro disruption and performance pressure can accelerate the departure timelines of even long-standing leaders, especially in industries undergoing seismic change. 

Building board habits that bridge leadership change 

Resilient boards navigate change well, but they also practice habits that help prevent misalignment from taking root in the first place. In summary, the following methods form part of a high-functioning board’s playbook: 

• Hold quarterly CEO alignment reviews using shared performance metrics. These check-ins help ensure strategic clarity, surface tensions early, and give the board a more accurate read on the CEO’s evolving priorities and challenges. 

• Prioritize executive well-being in regular chair-to-CEO conversations. Making space for honest discussion about stress, bandwidth, and support strengthens trust and reduces the risk of burnout over time. 

• Rehearse succession scenarios and leadership contingencies every year. Treating succession planning as a living process instead of a crisis response keeps the board prepared for both planned and unexpected departures. 

• Embed coaching and peer support into the CEO’s development journey. Access to external coaching and trusted peer networks can offer CEOs much-needed perspective and resilience. 

• Maintain a shadow bench of internal successors with active development plans. Identifying and investing in internal talent gives the board more options when change becomes necessary. 

“CEO transitions are not just about succession,” concludes Hartmann. “They’re moments of cultural recalibration. How a board manages that change defines the company’s resilience for years to come.”