1. A strong board-CEO relationship is key to navigating today’s uncertainties.
Effective governance depends on a healthy partnership between the CEO and the board. Attendees indicated that today’s uncertain environment has necessitated more frequent, as well as higher quality board-management interactions, helping to establish more trusting relationships between boards and management. Boards are expecting more from CEOs and management teams for guidance and partnership on scenario planning given the unpredictability of the global political climate and the potential for policy changes.
Our Measure of Leadership research reinforces this trend. Our 2024 study found:
- 63% of CEOs reported communicating more frequently with their boards.
-
33% of CEOs were holding more one-to-one meetings with their board chairs.
- 30% of CEOs were involving C-suite leaders more regularly in board discussions.
And in 2025, 83% of CEOs who reported having effective board support also said they had an excellent relationship with their chair or lead director.
In our experience, high-performing boards balance support and accountability and give CEOs, both experienced and first-time, the time and backing to build strong ties. Regular communication and expectation-setting are essential: 68% of CEOs who engage in these conversations feel effectively supported by their boards, compared with just 50% of those who had not. In order to strengthen the board/CEO relationship, boards can clarify where their input is most valued, how strategic and operational reviews will be conducted, and how performance and major decisions, such as acquisitions, will be evaluated.
2. CEO succession planning is key — especially when the transition is unexpected.
Managing CEO succession is one of the board’s most critical responsibilities. In our annual nominating/governance chair survey, succession consistently ranks as a top priority. Several directors shared recent experiences managing quick and unexpected CEO transitions, where their longer-term planning was put to the test.
Our attendees agreed that CEO succession planning should always include both internal and external candidates, with circumstances determining which is most appropriate. For example, market leaders or companies with distinctive business models and cultures may find external candidates less compelling or relevant. In these situations, the board has a critical responsibility to ensure that the company is identifying and developing internal talent through a deliberate, multi-year process and should have a role in ensuring high-potential leaders get the experience, exposure and time required to be the next CEO.
Yet concerns persist. Spencer Stuart’s 2024 director pulse survey on CEO succession found:
-
45% of directors are concerned they won’t have at least one internal candidate ready when the time comes for that transition.
-
66% don’t believe they will have two or more candidates ready.
- More than one-third (37%) said they have delayed CEO transitions due to a lack of internal candidates.
In our experience, which was validated by our dinner participants, the best prepared boards start their succession planning early and revisit their succession plans often, ensuring they reflect the company’s shifting context and leadership needs.
3. As time commitment, fiduciary pressures and activist risks rise, will more opt against directorships?
Much of our discussion focused on increasing pressures that public company boards are facing today. One is the time committed to board work. Past Spencer Stuart pulse surveys on directors’ time commitment show that directors average about 20 hours per month on their most demanding board, though that figure can rise or fall depending on the business environment. Our attendees reported that, amid rising macroeconomic and geopolitical volatility, they have made greater time commitments to their boards to navigate higher-complexity situations.
Today, independent directors on S&P 500 boards serve on an average of 2.1 boards, unchanged from a decade ago. While the SEC and stock exchanges do not prescribe limits on how many boards one person can serve on, institutional investors and proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis have established “overboarding” thresholds in their voting guidelines. Most institutional investors set a limit of service on no more than four public boards, and some reduce that number for directors serving as board chair, lead director or audit committee chair.
Additionally, a growing number of boards have responded to investor input by establishing their own “overboarding” policies. According to the U.S. Spencer Stuart Board Index, 86% of S&P 500 boards reported in 2025 having limits on outside directorships, up slightly from 84% in 2024 and 77% in 2015. Against this backdrop, it is worth asking whether holding three to four public directorships will be realistic in the near to medium term future.
As public company board roles require more time and address increasingly complex issues and risk, our attendees expressed concerns that the next generation of qualified leaders may think twice before serving, and whether that could lead to a dearth of qualified candidates. To sustain high-performance boards, Nominating & Governance committees may need to rethink how they recruit, onboard and support directors for long-term effectiveness. Proactive director development, refreshed onboarding, and new ways to operate more efficiently, ranging from technology to how the board is organized, will be even more essential to ensuring that boardrooms remain well-equipped to meet the rising demands of shareholders.
• • •
Amid heightened uncertainty, boards are being tested on multiple fronts: from maintaining a constructive and accountable relationship with the CEO, to managing the growing personal and fiduciary pressures of board service, to ensuring robust long-term succession planning for leadership continuity. These challenges underscore the need for boards to be proactive, adaptable and deeply engaged.
Strong governance isn’t just about oversight; it’s about anticipating risks, fostering trust, and preparing for the unexpected. Boards that embrace these responsibilities with clarity and commitment will be best positioned to guide their organizations through volatility and toward long-term resilience.