Boards across the UK are entering the most unstable period for senior leadership on record, and Executive Recruit, a UK executive search firm, warns that too few are ready for the moment a chief executive leaves without warning. PwC’s UK CEO Survey 2026 found that 61% of UK chief executives now face heightened scrutiny over their leadership, while 33% question whether they have the right team around them. How a board handles the first two days after a sudden exit will shape the organisation for years to come.
The CEO churn at the top of business in the UK has been climbing for several years. Vestd’s C-Suite Churn Report 2025 found CEO departures rose 16% year-on-year across FTSE 100 companies in 2024, with the technology sector recording turnover 50% above its six-year average. The same report states that average tenure across the five main C-suite roles in the FTSE 100 is four years and five months. The Office for National Statistics recorded a 9.8% year-on-year rise in the UK’s temporary workforce to 1.6 million in the three months to April 2025. It shows organisations are increasingly relying on flexible and interim arrangements at every level, and the boardroom is no exception.
When a chief executive departs without warning, boards face an immediate choice between two very different mandates. An internal interim can step in within hours and bring established institutional credibility. An external interim offers an objective reading of the situation, unconstrained by existing relationships or politics. Selecting the wrong type at the wrong moment can deepen the instability rather than contain it.
“A leadership vacuum arrives more often, with less notice and in front of a full audience. Organisations that manage that crucial 48- to 72-hour window well will protect more value than those that pause to deliberate,” said Mark Geraghty, Partner at Executive Recruit.
Geraghty, who has spent years placing senior leaders in UK organisations at their most exposed moments, points to a global shift. Boards are now demanding faster results from new appointees and are no longer offering extended settling-in periods. “Boards have become more willing to act decisively on underperformance, which is an appropriate response, but it increases risk if there is no clear succession plan in place,” said Geraghty.
The decision of whether to appoint an internal or external interim is, in Geraghty’s view, the first and most consequential call a board makes after a departure. “The right interim is not a replacement for the person who left,” he said. “They are someone who can read the organisation quickly and move the business forward without needing months to find their footing.”
Getting that appointment right, however, is only part of the challenge. In Geraghty’s experience, boards underestimate the importance of agreeing terms before the engagement begins rather than once it ends. “Whether the interim converts to a permanent role, returns to their substantive position or exits cleanly must be agreed in writing by both parties on day one, not negotiated at the end when everyone is tired and the organisation needs to move on,” he said.
Geraghty argues that what brings experienced leaders to interim work is rarely circumstance. Many have chosen to work this way, drawn by the clarity of a fixed mandate and the autonomy of moving between organisations. “Treat an interim as a temporary hire and you will get a temporary performance,” said Geraghty. “Boards that grasp this are better placed to deploy interim leadership effectively and protect the organisation when pressure starts to build.”
The post When a CEO leaves without warning, boards have 48 hours to protect the business first appeared on HR News.