The shortening chief-executive tenure is a governance signal, not a scandal
Median time in the top job has compressed again. Boards are not becoming impatient — they are becoming explicit.
Every cycle produces a fresh round of commentary about the disposable chief executive. The data underneath is more interesting than the headline: median tenure is falling primarily in companies that have adopted structured succession planning, and holding steadier in those that have not.
That inversion matters. Where a board has a credible bench, replacing a leader is a normal act of portfolio management rather than a crisis. Where it does not, incumbents survive longer than performance justifies, because the alternative is a vacuum.
The practical instruction for directors is unglamorous. Build the bench first; the tenure question resolves itself. The companies now cited as ruthless are, on inspection, simply the ones that did the preparatory work.
For executives, the same logic applies in reverse. A shorter expected tenure raises the value of a clear first-eighteen-months agenda and lowers the value of long horizons that will outlive the mandate.