Our research shows that from 2000 to 2020, approximately 77 percent of CEOs were appointed from one of these positions: chief operating officer (COO), which is frequently combined with the president’s title, accounted for the lion’s share of appointments, at 50 percent; divisional chief executive officer (DCEO) came in at 19 percent; and chief financial officer (CFO) accounted for 8 percent of appointments. Another 13 percent of appointments were of experienced CEOs. Leapfrog appointments accounted for only about 5 percent, with the remaining percentage including appointments from comparatively new C-suite roles, most commonly chief technology officer, which unsurprisingly were concentrated in technology firms.

Although extremely clear and compelling communication about results is always imperative, it’s especially important as recalibration unfolds. Actual results are, of course, paramount in assessing performance. But the perception of those results and of whether the CEO and leadership team are on top of the situation is at least as important.

The study analyzed the fortunes of nearly four hundred CEOs appointed to the helm of S&P 500 companies within the decade of 2004 to 2014. A set of the fifteen most effective early moves was identified. And out of those, the highest performers relied most on these five: operational improvements, launching new products, improving customer relationships, increasing employee engagement, and culture change.

In general, board engagement in the succession process is limited until the time of the decision, which is usually within a year of the transition. Then, they might rush to judgment based on just one or perhaps two interviews with candidates, people with whom they’ve often had little or no other interactions. So little hands-on knowledge of candidates fuels the numerous cognitive biases in their decision-making. One bias is the preference for simplifying narratives, or relying on stereotypes about what a CEO should look and sound like to privilege candidates who are super confident or have a powerful physical presence or can claim bold, even brash, achievements.

We confronted this bias when we were advising about a succession and recommended the board take a more serious look at a candidate. They’d dismissed Alex as not having the needed smarts and being just a solid “doubles hitter” rather than the star slugger they were looking for. But our assessments indicated he had the smarts in spades, and as a doubles hitter, he was a real standout. We brought some of his accomplishments that had been underappreciated back to the board’s attention. We also coached him to project a stronger image, including sprucing up his attire. The combination did the trick, and the board selected Alex, who went on to achieve a great deal of success in an eight-year tenure.

The merit of getting to know prospects to choose a good successor was evident in Charles’ case. He’d risen to the top of the heap of candidates through a long and rigorous process during which the board had gotten to know him well. They’d been presented with a wealth of information about his accomplishments and leadership talents, and they felt confident he was right for the job. But then he totally whiffed his interview with them by showing up in the manner of a direct report rather than speaking to the directors as a peer. He didn’t come across as the authoritative leader they could rely on to be forceful with them or to make the tough calls and bold moves that would take the firm where it needed to go. They were really taken aback, and they began to reconsider an external candidate.

But all that they had learned about Charles over the prior five years ultimately prevailed. Because of the experience they had with him, they agreed when we urged them to give him another chance to present. We gave him feedback and shared what the board had said about his prior performance before them. He took the feedback well and returned very much as the in-command CEO the board wanted to see. This ability to take feedback and adapt gave them even more confidence that he would continue to grow once in the role. Charles was appointed and has had a highly successful tenure.