Is the Traditional Career Path to CEO Disappearing?

The familiar route through operational leadership still matters. Yet recent CEO appointments show that boards are considering a wider range of experience, and that the strongest path depends increasingly on what a business needs its next leader to do.

For decades, the conventional advice to an aspiring chief executive was straightforward: build a record of commercial success, take responsibility for a substantial business unit, become a chief operating officer or divisional leader, and then compete for the top job. The route was rarely as tidy in practice, but its underlying assumption was clear. Before leading the whole company, you should prove that you can run a significant part of it.

That assumption has not disappeared. Profit and loss responsibility, operational judgement and experience leading large teams remain valuable preparation for a CEO role. What has changed is the belief that every future CEO must follow the same sequence of jobs.

Boards are selecting leaders against a broader and more demanding brief. A company facing a difficult refinancing may prize financial leadership. One pursuing international expansion may need someone who has opened markets and managed different regulatory environments. Another may need a leader who has delivered a major technology transformation while keeping customers, employees and investors onside.

The traditional path to CEO is therefore becoming less exclusive, rather than disappearing. The title an executive holds immediately before becoming CEO tells only part of the story. The scope of their decisions, the results they have delivered and the challenges they have navigated matter just as much.

What was the traditional route to CEO?

The established route typically combined three forms of experience.

First came functional expertise: a grounding in sales, finance, operations, product, engineering or another discipline central to the business. Next came general management: responsibility for a division, geography or subsidiary with its own budget, people and performance targets. Finally came an enterprise-wide role, often as COO or president, providing exposure to the board, investors and decisions that cut across the organisation.

This progression had a practical purpose. A CEO must make decisions when the interests of different functions conflict. Running a business unit can teach an executive to weigh growth against margin, investment against cash flow, and short-term performance against longer-term capability.

It can also reveal whether a leader succeeds only within their specialist area or can build an effective team across disciplines. For boards, that evidence is difficult to replace with an impressive job title alone.

Recent appointments still reflect this logic. Spencer Stuart found that COO or president roles accounted for 48% of new CEO appointments across the S&P 1500 in 2025. In its analysis of major European listed companies, 43% of new CEOs had most recently been divisional CEOs. These are substantial shares, and they show why operational and general management experience remains a strong foundation.

Why does the route appear to be changing?

A CEO appointment is ultimately a decision about a company’s future, not a reward for completing a prescribed series of roles. As business priorities change, the experience boards seek can change with them.

Consider two organisations of similar size. One may need to restore confidence after years of weak execution. Its board might favour a leader who has improved operations across a complex group. The other may have sound operations but face a major shift in its market. Its board could place greater weight on strategic repositioning, product development or experience leading through technological change.

The implication is that CEO readiness is contextual. An executive may be exceptionally well prepared for one company’s next chapter and less suited to another company’s needs.

That helps explain why there is no single global trend towards either internal promotion or external hiring. Among the major European listed companies Spencer Stuart studied, 56% of CEO appointments in 2025 came from outside the company. Yet among S&P 500 companies making an appointment that year, 73% chose an insider. Company size, the strength of its succession pipeline and the nature of its challenges can all influence the decision.

These figures do not prove that boards have abandoned established career routes. They show that the market is more varied than a single account of “the path to CEO” suggests.

Is the CFO becoming a more credible CEO candidate?

The move from CFO to CEO illustrates both the widening of the field and the danger of overstating a trend.

Finance leaders often work closely with the CEO and board. They may understand capital allocation, investor expectations, acquisitions and the financial consequences of strategic choices better than almost anyone else in the business. During periods of uncertainty, those capabilities can carry particular weight.

UK and European data provide examples of the route’s relevance. Spencer Stuart reported that 21% of new CEOs in its 2025 European transitions study came directly from a CFO role. Its UK board analysis also highlighted CFO appointments among a small group of leading companies.

But the pattern is not uniform. Across the US S&P 1500, the proportion of new CEOs coming through the CFO role fell to 9% in 2025, from 16% in 2024. A strong year for CFO appointments in one market or period should not be mistaken for a permanent replacement of the COO or divisional CEO route.

For a CFO with CEO ambitions, the lesson is practical: financial expertise is an advantage, but a board will also want evidence of commercial judgement, people leadership and the ability to deliver outcomes beyond the finance function. A stretch assignment with operating responsibility may strengthen a candidacy more than another year of progressively larger finance budgets.

Can leaders from technology, product or other specialist functions reach the top?

Yes, but specialist expertise alone rarely settles a CEO appointment.

A technology leader might be well placed to lead a company whose future depends on changing its product, platform or operating model. A commercial leader may understand customers and growth opportunities exceptionally well. A people leader may have extensive experience of cultural change across a multinational organisation.

Each can offer a perspective that a conventional operating career might provide less directly. The question a board will ask is whether the executive can also lead the whole enterprise.

That means demonstrating how decisions in one area affect others. Can a product leader manage capital and risk? Can a technology leader make difficult choices about market positioning and profitability? Can a commercial leader deliver growth without overlooking execution, governance or organisational capacity?

For aspiring CEOs, the strongest response is to gain broader responsibility before applying for the top role. Leading a turnaround, taking charge of a region, managing a subsidiary or running a business unit can turn functional strengths into credible evidence of enterprise leadership.

Are boards taking more chances on first-time CEOs?

In one sense, yes. Spencer Stuart found that 84% of newly appointed S&P 1500 CEOs in 2025 were in their first enterprise CEO role. Its European study found that 82% of appointments went to leaders heading a listed company for the first time. Prior experience with the CEO title is clearly not a universal requirement.

However, “first-time CEO” should not be confused with an untested leader. Many of these executives had already run major divisions, held senior enterprise roles or worked closely with boards. In fact, Spencer Stuart reported no appointments from below the C-suite in its 2025 European transitions study, following some such appointments in previous years. Its S&P 1500 research similarly found no first-time CEO appointments in 2025 that bypassed the senior executive layer.

Boards may be willing to appoint someone who has never held the CEO title. They still usually expect substantial evidence that the person can handle its demands.

Does a less predictable route create more opportunity?

Potentially. A broader view of CEO readiness could allow boards to consider executives whose careers have crossed functions, sectors or company types. It could also benefit people who have built strong leadership records without following a familiar sequence of promotions.

But opportunity does not automatically follow from a wider theoretical choice. Executives need access to assignments that let them prove their capabilities. If a company repeatedly gives profit and loss roles, international postings or board exposure to the same narrow group, its future CEO candidates will reflect those earlier decisions.

The appointment figures show how much work remains. Women accounted for 10% of new CEO appointments in Spencer Stuart’s 2025 study of major European listed companies and 9% across the S&P 1500. A company that wants a broader succession pool needs to examine who receives the experiences that make a candidate credible years before a vacancy opens.

What should an aspiring CEO do differently?

There is no reliable checklist that guarantees a CEO appointment. There are, however, useful ways to build a stronger case.

Seek responsibility for outcomes, not only a larger team

A promotion can increase status without greatly widening accountability. Look for roles in which you must make trade-offs, own results and explain performance to demanding stakeholders. A smaller division with full responsibility may provide more relevant preparation than a large functional role with limited decision-making authority.

Fill the gaps in your experience

Ask what a board would still need to learn about you. If your record is strongest in growth, seek exposure to cost control, cash management or operational delivery. If you come from finance, build a record of leading customers, products and people beyond your function.

Learn to work at enterprise level

CEOs must bring together competing perspectives. Experience contributing to group strategy, major investment decisions, acquisitions, risk discussions and board meetings can help demonstrate that you can think beyond your current remit.

Show how you develop other leaders

A CEO is responsible for more than their own decisions. Boards will want to know whether you can build a capable executive team, handle disagreement and create successors. The performance of people you have developed is part of your leadership record.

Match your candidacy to the company’s needs

An aspiring CEO should be able to explain where they have delivered results and which business challenges those results prepare them to address. “I am ready to be a CEO” is a broad claim. “I have led a complex turnaround while retaining key customers and rebuilding the leadership team” gives a board something concrete to assess.

What should boards and recruiters look for?

For boards, a wider range of potential candidates is useful only if the selection process remains rigorous. A compelling specialist background should prompt deeper assessment, not a shortcut around it.

Start by defining what the company will need from its next CEO. Which strategic decisions are likely to matter most? What must the incoming leader preserve, change or build? Which capabilities can be supported by the executive team, and which must the CEO bring personally?

Then assess candidates against evidence. Look at the scope of their decisions, the conditions under which they delivered results, the quality of the teams they built and their judgement when circumstances changed. This can reveal strengths that a job title obscures, as well as gaps that an impressive title disguises.

Succession planning should begin early enough for promising internal candidates to gain the experience they lack. External search remains valuable for testing whether the company’s assumptions about its internal pool are sound. Heidrick & Struggles’ 2026 European research argues for developing multiple potential leaders while continually reassessing their fit against changing strategic needs.

Recruiters can support that process by presenting candidates’ relevant achievements clearly: the scale of their accountability, the decisions they owned and the results they delivered. That gives boards a stronger basis for comparison than career chronology alone.

So, is the traditional career path to CEO disappearing?

No. General management, operational leadership and profit and loss accountability remain among the clearest ways to prepare for the role. The latest appointment data offer little support for the idea that boards are routinely bypassing senior leadership experience.

What is disappearing is the certainty that one sequence of titles is the only credible route. CFOs, experienced external leaders and executives with varied backgrounds can all become strong CEO candidates when their experience fits the company’s needs.

For aspiring leaders, the aim is not to collect the “right” titles in the “right” order. It is to build a convincing record of leading across an enterprise, making sound decisions under pressure and delivering the outcomes a future employer needs. For boards, it is to recognise that evidence wherever it appears—and to give promising leaders the chance to develop it before the CEO role becomes vacant.

AdvertisementAdvertise here