Not enough time to read the full article? Listen to the summary in 2 minutes.
Boards often frame the choice between an interim CEO and a permanent CEO as a leadership preference. The discussion quickly turns to experience, fit, vision, and long-term credibility.
In that framing, waiting for the right permanent CEO feels careful and responsible, while appointing an interim can feel like a compromise.
What this misses is the cost of waiting.
In many real-world situations, the most expensive CEO decision is not choosing the wrong leader. It is allowing the organization to drift while no one clearly leads it.
Why waiting feels like the safe option
Waiting for a permanent CEO feels defensible because it follows a familiar script. A search is launched, internal candidates are considered, advisors are engaged, and the organization is told that continuity is being managed.
During this period, boards often assume the business is “holding steady.” In reality, something more subtle is happening.
Authority weakens without visibly collapsing. Senior managers hesitate to commit to decisions that may be reversed. Committees expand to share responsibility. Advisors are asked for input, but signing authority becomes cautious and conditional. Everyone is busy, but very little is decided.
Waiting feels calm. What it actually creates is slow erosion.
What the price of inaction really looks like
The cost of delay rarely appears as a single dramatic failure. It accumulates quietly across multiple fronts.
Typical symptoms include:
- customers sensing uncertainty and delaying commitments
- suppliers tightening terms or reducing flexibility
- banks increasing scrutiny and shortening tolerance
- internal teams deferring decisions “until the new CEO arrives”
None of these effects are catastrophic on their own. Together, they change behavior across the organization. Execution slows. Risk aversion increases. Cash leaks through inefficiencies no one owns explicitly.
Most damaging of all, authority decays. When leadership is perceived as temporary, the organization shifts from execution to self-protection. By the time a permanent CEO is appointed, the business is often in a weaker position than when the search began.
Waiting is not neutral. It is an active choice with consequences.
Why interim and permanent CEOs serve different purposes
The mistake boards often make is treating interim and permanent CEOs as substitutes competing for the same role. They are not.
A permanent CEO is chosen to define long-term direction, culture, and strategic ambition. An interim CEO is appointed to restore control, execution, and decision-making capacity when the organization is exposed.
Problems arise when these roles are inverted. Boards ask interim CEOs to provide long-term vision, while expecting permanent CEOs to fix short-term instability immediately. The result is hesitation on both fronts.
The real question is not who should lead forever, but who should lead now.
What an interim CEO actually changes in practice
An interim CEO does not remove uncertainty. What they change is behavior.
With a clear mandate, an interim CEO can:
- decide and sign without waiting for future alignment
- execute actions others rationally postpone
- absorb pressure without managing internal career optics
This does not magically solve structural problems, but it restores momentum. Decisions move again. Sequencing becomes clearer. External stakeholders respond differently because accountability is visible.
The value of an interim CEO is not speed for its own sake. It is the restoration of authority while time is being bought.
Why permanent CEO searches often work better with an interim in place
Boards often worry that appointing an interim CEO will delay or complicate the permanent search. In practice, the opposite is usually true.
When execution is stabilized, the board gains time without losing control. Performance data becomes more reliable. Internal candidates are assessed under calmer conditions. External candidates engage with a business that is functioning, not drifting.
Permanent CEO decisions made from stability tend to be stronger and more durable than those made under pressure.
Interim leadership does not replace the permanent CEO. It protects the conditions under which the permanent CEO can succeed.
The comparison boards should actually be making
The real comparison is not interim CEO versus permanent CEO.
It is action versus delay.
Waiting for certainty feels responsible, but certainty rarely arrives on schedule. In the meantime, authority erodes, execution slows, and value leaks quietly. Acting early to stabilize leadership does not eliminate risk, but it prevents inaction from becoming the most expensive decision of all.
Boards that understand this do not treat interim leadership as a compromise. They use it as a control mechanism, acting early to stabilize authority and choosing permanent leadership from a position of strength rather than urgency.
That is the real price of inaction.
