2026 U.S. Spencer Stuart Board Index

Top Key takeaways By sector Boardroom library

Key takeaways

Boards are operating in a more complex, politicized and tech-driven environment. How can they ensure their governance practices are equipped for today’s challenges and structured to adapt as those challenges evolve?

For decades, Spencer Stuart has researched board composition and governance practices among the largest U.S. companies and how they support effective governance. What themes ring true today? The highest-performing boards take an “always-on" approach to strategy and risk oversight, CEO succession and board refreshment and embrace a continuous commitment to strengthening how the board governs, engages, learns and evolves.

Here is what these boards do differently.

1. Adopt always-on risk and strategy oversight

Whether it’s AI, cybersecurity, geopolitics or business model transformation, today risks emerge and opportunities shift at a pace beyond what boards were traditionally built for. An annual strategy offsite or choreographed meetings that are long on reviews and short on discussion are insufficient. Instead, strategy should be an ongoing board conversation, informing every decision made and how every director shows up, supplemented with external perspectives as appropriate.

With boards already meeting seven to eight times a year annually it’s unlikely that many boards will opt to add more to their calendar to accommodate more future-focused discussions. Boards may be able to free up time by redesigning meeting structure to use time together more effectively, moving some oversight work to committees and leveraging AI and other technology for information sharing.

7.5

Average number of board meetings

53^%

Boards meeting 6-9 times in 2026

18^%

Boards meeting 10+ times in 2026

2. Make board refreshment a strategic discipline

Having the right people in place, especially board leaders, is the bedrock for board excellence and impact. And the right composition starts with strategy; boards should continually assess whether their collective experience, perspectives and leadership are aligned with the company’s future direction and evolve accordingly. The highest-performing boards treat board succession as an ongoing strategic priority.

While boardroom continuity is valuable, many U.S. boards are still taking a too-cautious approach to refreshment. New S&P 500 director appointments in 2026 are at the lowest level in a decade, and director turnover declined year over year to 0.7 new directors per board.

A director skills matrix is one tool for evaluating and disclosing the relevance of directors’ experience and backgrounds, and it’s one that more S&P 500 boards are employing; 80% of S&P 500 boards disclosed a director skills matrix in their most recent proxy. But a skills matrix is only as valuable as the information it includes. A skills matrix should reflect the boardroom’s most critical needs and directors’ current, most relevant expertise.

Board succession planning should also include board leadership. The independent board leader, whether a board chair or lead director, plays a critical role in setting the tone, culture and focus of the board. Compared to lower-performing boards, members of top-performing boards are significantly more likely to say the board leader fosters high-quality discussions and that their boards make timely decisions.

More boards have independent chairs

The number of boards with independent chairs has increased by 14 percentage points since 2016

3. Embrace board evaluation as a tool for continuous improvement

A continuous improvement mindset is more important than ever in a business environment defined by disruption, compressed decision cycles and mounting stakeholder expectations. Rigorous and regular board evaluations are an effective tool for ensuring directors’ skill sets remain relevant to company strategy, the board operates at a high level with a future focus, and its work supports company performance. Board evaluation has become a standard feature of governance: all but five S&P 500 boards (99%) conduct an annual evaluation, nearly half (49%) disclose evaluating individual directors, and one-third report working with an external partner, up from just 3% a decade ago. An experienced adviser can help boards identify opportunities they may not otherwise recognize, introduce proven practices and provide recommendations that strengthen board effectiveness.

To capture the full value of an evaluation, boards must turn insights into action, particularly around strategy oversight, director performance, board composition and renewal. Boards that act on feedback, monitor progress and assign accountability will be better positioned to support the CEO, oversee risk and strategy, and remain fit for purpose.

Almost all boards conduct some form of annual performance evaluation …

But less than half do it for the full board, individual directors and committees

4. Build CEO succession into the board’s strategic agenda

Amid market volatility and accelerating business transformation, boards have less patience for underperforming CEOs. While average CEO tenure rose in 2025 due to the departure of several long-serving leaders, median tenure was just 7.8 years and nearly one-quarter of CEOs left within five years.

High-performing boards treat CEO succession as a continuous strategic discipline. They regularly assess CEO performance, are prepared to make difficult leadership decisions when necessary, maintain strong internal successor options and monitor the external talent market. By focusing on leadership pipeline strength, future capability needs and continuity risks, these boards are better positioned to navigate CEO transitions and support long-term company performance.

Outgoing S&P 500 CEO tenures in 2026

• • •

Every board, regardless of where it stands today, has an opportunity to achieve excellence by becoming more dynamic — by sharpening its focus, refreshing its expertise and creating more space for forward-looking debate. The companies best positioned to compete will be those whose boards are not just well governed, but fully engaged, future-oriented and able to move at the speed the moment requires.

Read the 2026 U.S. Spencer Stuart Board Index

Read now

Download the highlights

A 10-minute overview of the findings

download

Industry sector analysis

Board composition

								Underrepresented minorities							Audit committee		Compensation committee		Nominating committee												CEO/chair/president/COO			Underrepresented minorities

Sector	Companies	Average board size	Ind. directors	Average age	Average tenure	Women directors	3+ Women directors	Black/AA	Asian	Hispanic/Latinx	3+ URM	Total URM*	Total diverse directors**	Average # of committees	Average size	Average meetings	Average size	Average meetings	Average size	Average meetings	Separate chair/CEO	Executive chair	Independent chair	Female ind. chair	Lead/presiding director	Female lead/presiding director	New Directors	Added >1 director	Average age	First time	Active	Retired	Women	Black/AA	Asian	Hispanic/Latinx	Total URM*	Total diverse directors**	Average board meetings	Average committees	Mandatory retirement	Average retirement age	Term limits	Average term limit (years)	Annual elections	Majority voting
Communication Services	19	10.3	81%	62.7	8.6	31%	58%	12%	7%	7%	63%	29%	49%	3.8	3.4	7.4	3.6	6.7	3.5	4.4	53%	5%	32%	0%	63%	33%	14	16%	61.2	29%	7%	21%	36%	0%	0%	0%	0%	36%	9.1	3.8	74%	73.7	5%	15.	95%	63%
Consumer	82	10.7	84%	62.5	8.1	36%	89%	11%	7%	7%	59%	26%	51%	4.	4.4	7.8	4.	5.8	4.3	4.7	68%	22%	38%	29%	55%	24%	62	18%	58.	21%	23%	29%	26%	5%	5%	3%	16%	34%	7.2	4.	83%	73.8	16%	14.8	91%	80%
Energy	20	10.8	86%	65.8	6.9	30%	80%	10%	4%	4%	35%	20%	42%	4.3	4.7	6.6	4.4	4.8	4.7	4.7	50%	10%	40%	13%	60%	33%	12	10%	64.3	8%	0%	50%	17%	8%	0%	0%	8%	17%	9.2	4.3	85%	75.2	15%	12.3	85%	85%
Financials	72	11.7	86%	64.4	8.1	35%	92%	13%	6%	4%	54%	24%	50%	4.7	4.8	9.4	4.7	6.1	4.6	4.8	43%	11%	28%	15%	68%	12%	60	25%	61.1	22%	10%	25%	38%	10%	12%	5%	27%	52%	8.5	4.7	90%	74.3	7%	14.4	92%	94%
Health Care	58	10.6	88%	64.4	7.7	35%	84%	11%	9%	4%	57%	25%	50%	4.4	4.2	8.4	4.2	5.7	4.2	4.5	60%	14%	45%	23%	57%	21%	54	28%	61.1	20%	19%	24%	30%	2%	6%	2%	9%	35%	7.7	4.4	78%	74.4	9%	15.4	86%	93%
Industrials	105	10.5	87%	63.8	7.6	33%	90%	12%	4%	4%	34%	21%	47%	4.1	4.7	7.3	4.4	5.1	4.7	4.4	64%	11%	47%	18%	52%	13%	60	10%	59.8	20%	27%	27%	22%	5%	12%	5%	22%	40%	6.8	4.1	92%	74.5	12%	14.9	87%	85%
Information Technology	72	9.7	85%	63.5	8.1	35%	83%	7%	16%	3%	44%	26%	52%	3.6	4.	9.1	3.8	5.9	3.8	4.7	58%	7%	44%	25%	57%	32%	64	21%	60.	23%	13%	17%	28%	2%	20%	3%	25%	44%	7.3	3.6	71%	74.6	6%	16.8	83%	89%
Real Estate	31	9.9	84%	64.4	8.7	36%	97%	11%	5%	5%	29%	21%	47%	3.7	4.4	6.5	3.9	5.7	4.	4.1	84%	19%	55%	29%	52%	13%	17	10%	59.	53%	18%	12%	35%	6%	6%	0%	12%	41%	6.1	3.7	71%	74.9	10%	14.	97%	94%
Utilities	31	11.1	90%	64.4	7.1	36%	100%	16%	3%	7%	65%	27%	52%	5.2	4.8	6.5	4.6	5.5	4.3	4.7	45%	3%	42%	8%	61%	53%	21	16%	59.4	43%	19%	29%	29%	0%	10%	5%	14%	38%	7.6	5.2	100%	74.6	19%	14.7	97%	94%
Total S&P 500	490	10.6	86%	63.8	7.9	34%	88%	11%	7%	5%	48%	24%	49%	4.2	4.5	8.	4.2	5.7	4.3	4.6	59%	12%	41%	21%	58%	23%	364	18%	60.1	24%	17%	25%	29%	4%	10%	3%	18%	40%	7.5	4.2	84%	74.4	11%	14.8	89%	87%

* Our analysis uses definitions in Nasdaq's former Board Diversity Rule , with URM "underrepresented minority" defined to mean an individual who self identifies as one or more of the following: Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander or two or more races or ethnicities.

** Our analysis of diverse groups uses definitions in Nasdaq's former Board Diversity Rule, with a “diverse director” defined to include: Female, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth (“female”), one or more of: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or two or more races or ethnicities (“underrepresented minority”) and Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or a member of the queer community (“LGBTQ+”)

The U.S. Spencer Stuart Board Index examines the latest data and trends in board composition, board governance practices and director compensation among S&P 500 companies.

We have compiled key data from each S&P 500 sector into our Board Index Sector Comparison Chart below, where you can compare aggregated data by sector across a wide range of measures, including board composition, independent director representation, board leadership, organization and committees.

Explore each S&P 500 sector in more detail

Download a breakdown of findings for each S&P 500 industry sector

Communication Services Consumer Energy Financials Healthcare Industrials Information Technology Real Estate Utilities