The COO Is Not the Heir Apparent Anymore: What Boards Are Really Looking for in CEO Succession
By Shawn Cole, President & Founder — Shawn Cole is a nationally recognized authority on CEO recruiting. His insights regularly appear in Forbes, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, Fast Company, Entrepreneur, and other leading publications, delivering nuanced and critical analysis on executive recruitment, succession planning, enterprise transformation, and the evolving demands of modern C-suites.
For years, the COO role has carried an unspoken promise: run the operation well, and the top job is yours. Be reliable. Be close to the CEO.
Know the business better than anyone else in the building. When the time comes, the board will look across the table and see the obvious choice.
That logic still holds some truth. COOs made up nearly one-third of all 234 S&P 500 CEO appointments over the past five years, according to BCG’s 2026 analysis. The COO path to the top remains real and well-traveled.
But in 2025, for the first time in at least five years, outside CEOs were appointed more frequently than sitting COOs among S&P 500 companies.
That is not a statistical blip. It is a signal that boards are widening their search, raising their standards, and are increasingly unwilling to default to proximity as a substitute for readiness.
The era of automatic COO succession is over.
Why COO Capabilities No Longer Guarantee the Leap
The narrowing of the COO path is not just a function of boards looking outside more often. It is structural.
Standing COO roles are less common than they were two decades ago. The role’s loose contours mean that many COOs are developing depth in execution without developing the breadth the CEO seat demands.
At the same time, boards have expanded their definition of viable internal successors. CFOs who have evolved well beyond financial stewardship into capital allocation, investor relations, and enterprise strategy now present credible alternatives. Business unit and regional leaders with genuine P&L accountability and external market exposure offer a different kind of readiness that many internally-focused COOs simply don’t have.
The result is COO capabilities that are necessary but no longer sufficient. The question boards are asking today is not “who’s next in line?” It is “who’s actually ready?” And those are not the same question.
The Five Gaps Between Operator and CEO
There are five dimensions where COOs most commonly fall short when boards evaluate them honestly as CEO candidates. Each represents a capability that must be built deliberately rather than assumed from tenure.
1. Vision and long-term strategy.
COOs are skilled executors of a defined direction. What boards increasingly need is a leader who can originate that direction.
This is someone who can define where the enterprise is going, make a compelling case for it externally, and sustain conviction when the answer is contested. Execution fluency does not transfer automatically into strategic vision.
The board’s evaluative question: has this COO ever articulated an enterprise-level view of the future that wasn’t handed to them?
2. Digital and AI leadership.
Boards are no longer looking for a CEO who understands technology in general terms. They want a leader who has actively sponsored transformational technology bets, who has put enterprise credibility behind an AI or digital initiative, and owned the result.
The distinction BCG draws is between operational adoption and transformation sponsorship. Managing around a technology initiative and leading one are fundamentally different leadership acts.
The board’s evaluative question: Has this COO driven a technology transformation, or delegated it?
3. Governance and investor credibility.
COOs typically build authority inside the organization. The CEO must have credibility outside it with investors, analysts, lenders, and the press. That credibility is not transferable from the outgoing CEO’s reputation.
It has to be independently earned. COOs who have had limited exposure to board subcommittees, earnings conversations, or investor relationships are carrying a deficit that visibility alone won’t fix quickly.
The board’s evaluative question: Do outside stakeholders know and trust this person independently of their relationship with the departing CEO?
4. Strategic risk appetite.
COOs are trained to minimize operational variance. CEOs must balance that instinct against the obligation to make visible, high-stakes bets and to own them publicly when the outcome is uncertain.
This is a fundamentally different orientation, and it shows up under pressure in ways that are difficult to simulate inside a COO role.
The board’s evaluative question: Has this COO made a consequential, visible decision that carried real downside risk and owned the outcome?
5. External communication and public presence.
The COO’s credibility is almost entirely internal. The CEO’s credibility is built in public: in front of investors, in the press, at industry forums, on earnings calls. COOs who have operated almost entirely inside the building have not built the communication track record that boards will need to point to when justifying the appointment externally.
The board’s evaluative question: Is there a public record of this person thinking and leading at the enterprise level?
What a Rigorous CEO Succession Process Actually Requires
The board’s responsibility in CEO succession is not to anoint. It is to assess. And assessment requires a process that would survive scrutiny if the decision were ever questioned by investors, by the family, by the organization, or by the candidate who wasn’t chosen.
A defensible CEO succession process has four non-negotiable elements.
First, a leadership competency profile built for the next chapter of the company. This should not be a description of the current CEO, nor a mirror of the past. The company the new CEO will lead is not the same company the departing CEO took over. The profile must reflect the capabilities that the next phase demands.
Second, an objective assessment of all internal candidates against that profile. The board should be able to articulate specifically what each candidate has demonstrated against each dimension, not simply characterize them as ready or not ready.
Third, a structured comparison to what external candidates would bring. Even when the board’s preference is an internal appointment, understanding what the external market offers is essential context for evaluating whether the internal choice is genuinely the best available option or simply the most familiar one.
Fourth, a documented timeline with board ownership. Succession is not a management project that the board reviews annually. It is a board-level responsibility with a defined owner, a defined process, and a defined schedule.
Without these elements, succession becomes a popularity contest. And in a popularity contest, the most familiar candidate wins by default, not by merit.
The Question Every Board Should Be Asking
If your board’s succession plan begins and ends with “the COO is ready when the time comes,” you don’t have a succession plan. You have a presumption.
The COO may still be the right answer. In many organizations, they are. The COO path to the top remains well-traveled and productive, particularly in industrial, consumer, and operationally complex businesses where the COO’s depth is genuinely enterprise-relevant.
Yet that answer has to be earned, not assumed. And the process that earns it has to be rigorous enough to distinguish between a candidate who is genuinely ready and one who is simply closest to the chair.
The boards that execute strong CEO successions ask hard questions early, assess candidates against criteria that would survive outside scrutiny, and never confuse proximity to the CEO with readiness for the role.
Nationally Recognized Executive Search Firm Delivering Top Talent in All 50 States
Cowen Partners is a retained executive search firm advising boards, CEOs, and investors on C-suite and senior leadership recruitment for mid-market public companies, private equity–backed, founder-led, and Fortune 500 companies. The firm is ranked among the Top 100 Executive Search Firms by Forbes, Business Insider, and Hunt Scanlon.
Search engagements are led by senior partners and supported by total market access to proven executive talent. Through a rigorous search process, Cowen Partners delivers qualified candidate slates in 21 days from kickoff.
The firm has completed more than 500 executive placements nationwide and maintains a 99% candidate retention rate.
Successful placements span the entire C-Suite – CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and include vice president, general counsel, and other director-level leadership roles.
Through our proven retained executive search process, we find, vet, and deliver the top 1% of candidates for positions across the C-suite. Our process works for all industries, including technology, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, real estate, financial services, private equity, and more.
Learn how we deliver top talent, no matter the need, with our industry-leading research and resources. Discover the strategy behind so many glowing Cowen Partners’ reviews — and that’s made us the board-trusted retained executive search firm in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta, Dallas, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and beyond.
Schedule a Call.
Fill out the email request form to learn more about our approach.