Are boards recycling retired leaders?

This article was first published in the last edition of People Matters Perspectives. 

As companies confront AI disruption, geopolitical uncertainty and mounting pressure on CEOs, boards are increasingly turning to leaders who have already been there. But does retaining experience strengthen resilience, or risk slowing leadership renewal?

A CEO retires, and soon a successor takes over. Then comes the detail that is increasingly familiar: the former CEO stays on the board, becomes vice chair or adviser, or in some cases returns to executive leadership later.

The trend raises a bigger question about how companies think about leadership.

In an uncertain business environment, experience has become a form of risk management. Former CEOs bring institutional knowledge, crisis experience and an understanding of decisions that cannot be acquired overnight. But companies are simultaneously calling for board renewal, AI expertise, digital fluency, diversity and stronger leadership pipelines.

The question, therefore, is not whether experienced leaders belong in the boardroom. It is whether organisations are using their experience to build the next generation, or delaying the need for it.

There are signs that proven leadership experience is becoming more valuable.

Russell Reynolds Associates' Global CEO Turnover Index found that in the first half of 2026, 30 of 130 incoming CEOs globally, about 23%, had previously led a public company, the highest H1 share in its nine-year tracking period. In the S&P 500, 11 of 32 incoming CEOs, or 34%, had previously led a public company, up from 22% in H1 2025.

Korn Ferry reported in 2025 that nearly 60% of new independent director appointments to S&P 500 boards went to retired executives. Its 2026 analysis also points to boards turning to retired CEOs amid disruption from AI, geopolitical tensions, inflation and limited growth.

The logic is clear. Former CEOs have navigated crises, restructurings, transformations and difficult stakeholder conversations. 

For boards dealing with uncertainty, that experience can provide continuity and confidence. But experience is not the same as future readiness.

PwC's 2026 Annual Corporate Directors Survey found that 55% of directors believe at least one fellow director should be replaced. Among those, 39% cited insufficient expertise, compared with 21% in 2025.

At the same time, 81% of directors said alignment with board culture and ways of working was very important when selecting directors, while only 27% gave the same importance to specialised expertise such as AI and cybersecurity.

That tension matters.

Because, a former CEO may bring decades of judgement and institutional memory. But that does not automatically translate into expertise in AI governance, cybersecurity, digital business models or emerging workforce structures.

The issue is therefore not whether a director is 55, 65 or 75. It is whether the collective board has the capabilities the organisation will need next.

Renewal does not necessarily mean replacing experienced directors with younger ones. Nor does age determine whether someone can learn or adapt.

The stronger question is whether boards have the right mix.

A veteran CEO may understand how an organisation survived its last major disruption. A newer director may understand the technology behind the next one. One brings decades of institutional memory; another may bring expertise in AI, cybersecurity or new workforce models. The board needs both leadership experiences.

PwC's 2026 research found that 71% of directors identify AI as the leading skill their boards need to strengthen. Yet 82% rate the information they receive connecting AI outcomes, risks and business performance as fair, poor or not provided.

AI therefore changes the definition of board readiness. It does not make experience irrelevant. It makes complementary experiences more important.

There is an important distinction between retaining a leader's experience and retaining their influence.

A former chief on the board can provide continuity while giving the new CEO space to run the organisation. But if employees, investors or even board members continue to turn to the former CEO whenever uncertainty emerges, the incoming leader can inherit the title without fully inheriting the authority.

That can become particularly difficult for younger executives stepping into senior roles.

Korn Ferry's succession research makes a related point: a retired CEO should not become a long-term solution. Boards need to use the period to strengthen their leadership pipeline rather than leave themselves without successors when that experienced leader eventually exits.

That principle should apply whether the former CEO is returning to the corner office or simply remaining in the boardroom.

The real question is: what is happening around that experienced leader?

Are future CEOs being developed? Are younger executives gaining strategic exposure? Is institutional knowledge being transferred? Is the next generation being given enough room to make decisions and build its own leadership identity?

If yes, retaining a veteran leader can become a bridge between generations. If not, continuity can become dependency.

The changing business environment also means succession can no longer be treated simply as a vacancy exercise.

Boards need to ask not only who can replace the CEO? but what will the organisation need its CEO to be capable of five years from now?

Today's CEO is expected to deliver growth while navigating AI, geopolitical uncertainty, cyber risk, workforce transformation, changing customer expectations and pressure for faster innovation.

No CEO can possess all of that expertise. That makes the board an increasingly important source of experience, challenge and perspective. But it also makes board composition more important.

The board itself must continue to evolve alongside the organisation.

Perhaps the most productive way to view the return of retired executives is not as a choice between old and new leadership.

Thirty or forty years of leadership experience can contain valuable lessons about resilience, crisis management, organisational culture, transformation and succession. The opportunity is to make that knowledge transferable.

Former CEOs can mentor emerging leaders, contribute to succession programmes and provide historical context without becoming a second management team.

That turns the retired executive into a knowledge bridge rather than a permanent safety net.

It also changes the central question. The issue is not whether boards should retain experienced leaders. They often have good reasons to do so.

The question is whether that experience is being used to create stronger leadership for what comes next.

The strongest boards will not necessarily be the youngest or the oldest. They will be the ones capable of combining institutional memory with new perspectives, business judgement with technological understanding, and experience with renewal.

In an AI-driven and increasingly uncertain business environment, the goal should not be to choose between generations. It should be to make sure one generation's experience helps the next generation lead better.