For boards, investors and chief executives
Ten questions to ask before your next C-suite hire
For PE operating partners, chairs, chief executives and People leaders in UK mid-sized and PE-backed businesses. Each question comes from our review of the research. Use them whoever you work with.
Why ask them before the search
Most of the risk is set before the leader arrives
27 to 46%
of new C-suite leaders fail or leave within two years of appointment.
Keller, McKinsey 2018About 213%
of the executive's annual pay is what a failed C-suite appointment costs.
Keller, McKinsey 2018More than twice
as likely to succeed when a new leader has both a tailored plan and coaching. Yet only 32% get both.
Chandran et al., McKinsey 2015The questions
The ten questions
-
Have the board, the chief executive and, if PE-backed, the sponsor agreed in writing what this role must deliver at 90 days and at 12 months, before the search starts?
Most failures begin with a mandate nobody agreed.
Field guide, chapters 3 and 6 -
Which version of this role are we hiring for right now, and have we told the candidates?
The same title means different jobs in different businesses.
Field guide, chapter 6 -
Will the new executive have both a tailored plan and a coach, rather than one or the other?
Together, they more than double the chance of success.
Field guide, chapter 4 -
Who, by name, owns the success of this transition?
If the answer is "everyone", it is no one.
Field guide, chapters 4 and 9 -
Does support start before day one, and on a PE timetable, from the verbal offer?
Support that starts on the first day has already lost ground.
Field guide, chapter 7 -
Have we protected the first month for listening, rather than filling it with early deliverables?
Diagnose, then set direction, then act.
Field guide, chapter 5 -
Will the executive say plainly what they will stop doing?
Leaders who do are 1.8 times more likely to succeed.
Field guide, chapter 5 -
Is the direct-report team their first priority, ahead of the board and outside work?
It is the early task leaders themselves rate most important.
Field guide, chapter 5 -
Does the executive have someone outside the business, with no stake in the outcome, who has done this job before?
Experience without a stake is hard to find inside the business.
Field guide, chapter 9 -
Do the chair and the new leader have an agreed way of working for the first 100 days, and does the board review succession at least once a year?
The first year is the board's job too.
Field guide, chapter 8
Chapter numbers refer to our field guide, The Transition Gap.
How to use them
Ask more than one person, and look for the gaps
In our own work, we ask the questions of at least three people who own the appointment: usually the chair or chief executive, the People lead and one other member of the board or executive team. In a PE-backed business, include the sponsor.
Where their answers differ, that difference is the most important finding. It is far cheaper to resolve before the search than after the appointment.
Our method
How we built the evidence base
Every research claim on this site comes from a structured review of published evidence, screened and rated against a written protocol based on the PRISMA approach used for systematic reviews.
508
records found by our searches
390
passed screening on title and abstract
123
read in full, each with a completed extraction form
91
included in the final review
A separate review of the research on mentoring for senior leaders, run in 2026 under the same protocol, added 53 sources. Its main conclusion is a caution: no study compares mentored and unmentored C-suite leaders on transition outcomes.
We graded every finding on the strength of the evidence behind it. The grades decide what we state with confidence, what we treat as a sound basis for action, and what we treat as a design choice still to be tested. The citations across the site point to the main sources.
| Grade | What it means |
|---|---|
| Established finding | Supported by several strong, independent sources that point the same way. |
| Evidence suggests | Supported by credible research, but with a smaller base, a single main source, or questions about method. |
| Direction for practice | A sound basis for action, resting on practitioner experience, a narrow evidence base, or our synthesis of the review. Not yet tested. |
| Horizon signal only | An early sign worth watching. Not yet a basis for firm decisions. |
| Our design choice | A feature of the ETC programme that no study has tested. |
The limits of this evidence
- Most research comes from large companies, mainly in the US and UK. We have found little reliable published research that studies C-suite transitions in UK businesses of 250 to 2,000 staff as such. We intend to examine this area ourselves, drawing on our own experience and that of our clients.
- Few controlled trials. Most studies are surveys, interviews or practitioner analyses. They show what goes with success more often than what causes it. This is another reason we bring real-world experience into the programme, rather than depending on theory.
- Some sources sell what they study. Several come from consulting and search firms that offer services in this area. We rated them on their method. We sell what we study too, so we hold our own programme to the same test: we say which parts rest on evidence and which rest on our design, and we review them as we learn.
- Some roles are barely studied. The reliable published evidence is strong for the CFO, useful for the CHRO and technology roles, thin for the CEO and COO, and absent for the CMO. We do not claim role-specific evidence where none exists. Instead, we draw on the real-world experience of coaches and mentors who have lived these transitions.
Next step
Want the full evidence?
Our field guide, The Transition Gap, sets out the evidence behind each question, chapter by chapter. Register to receive it when it is published.