That is significantly higher than peer markets such as the S&P 500 in the US and Germany\u2019s Dax, where just 27 per cent and 23 per cent of companies that appointed new bosses<\/a> plumped for external candidates, respectively. <\/p>\n A survey of UK board members by 25×25 suggested that companies turned to external candidates because they lacked leaders internally who could manage a period of sudden upheaval, or the need to reposition the organisation for dealmaking and growth. <\/p>\n The 25×25 initiative, which was set up to boost the number of female CEOs in the FTSE 100, said failures in succession planning could present a risk to the broader economy because relying on finding outsiders \u201cat the highest level of risk and remuneration\u201d was unsustainable. <\/p>\n \u201cNot enough forward-looking analysis is being done and much of it is based on what the company has done in the past,\u201d said Tara Cemlyn Jones, chief executive of 25×25, adding that having to look externally for a new leader could be risky and expensive for companies.<\/p>\n The majority of FTSE 350 bosses were themselves \u201coperators\u201d focused on operational matters such as restructuring or reducing costs, and tended to groom people with similar qualities, according to the report.<\/p>\n This meant boards were left to look externally if a sudden need for a new leader or strategy emerged.<\/p>\n The report also suggests that shorter CEO tenure in the UK might be to blame for giving companies less time to develop successors, with UK bosses tending to leave their posts after five years. That compared with 7.9 years for S&P 500 companies and 6.2 years for those in the Dax 40. <\/p>\n Recommended<\/p>\n
![\"Montage](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/https:\/\/www.ft.com\/__origami\/service\/image\/v2\/images\/raw\/https%3A%2F%2Fd1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n