Most senior transitions don’t fail because someone hired the wrong person.
They fail because expectations harden early — before they’ve been surfaced, tested, or agreed.
In many senior roles, that process starts before day one.
The mandate sounds clear.
The role looks familiar.
The organisation believes it knows what it has hired.
The Data on Transition Risk Is Sobering
Underperformance
Research from Spencer Stuart and McKinsey suggests that roughly 33% to 50% of senior executive appointments are regarded as unsuccessful or underperforming within 18–24 months.
The Financial Hit
Analysis from the Corporate Executive Board (now Gartner) indicates that failed executive transitions can cost up to 10 times the executive’s salary, with total replacement costs frequently exceeding £500K–£1M when search fees, disruption, lost momentum, and cultural impact are accounted for.
The Wellbeing Factor
Deloitte’s 2022 C-Suite Outlook highlights sustained pressure at the top, with a significant proportion of C-Suite leaders reporting that they have considered leaving their role for one that better supports wellbeing.
These are not capability gaps.
They are mandate and expectation gaps.
By Day 90, direction is usually set — whether consciously or not.
At the same time, judgements are already forming — about how decisions will be made, how risk will be handled, and what “good” looks like under pressure. Those judgements rarely show up in the job description, and they are not always voiced directly.
This is where transitions start to narrow.
Not because the leader performs badly.
But because they are delivering against one set of assumptions while being assessed against another.
If you’ve hired a senior leader in the last 6–12 months, this dynamic is already shaping perception — whether you’ve named it or not.
If you’re the one in transition, it’s worth asking whose expectations you’re actually delivering against.
Most experienced leaders default to what has worked before. They focus on delivery, momentum, and visible contribution. In earlier roles, that usually earned trust and latitude.
In a senior role, scrutiny shifts.
The question becomes less about output and more about judgement: what you prioritise, what you escalate, what you let run, and how you frame decisions when information is incomplete.
The risk isn’t making mistakes early.
It’s sequencing things incorrectly — doing the right work before the criteria have been made explicit.
By Month 12, consequences are visible.
- Authority consolidates — or narrows.
- Trust deepens — or thins.
- The mandate strengthens — or quietly shrinks.
High-performing transitions are disciplined around a small number of drivers: strategic clarity, cultural alignment, early wins, leadership presence, and sustained focus. They are not methodology — they are discipline.
A pattern which I see repeatedly is senior leaders waiting for the organisation to initiate support.
Some organisations are mature enough to offer structured transition coaching as standard. Many are not.
At earlier career stages, development is often provided.
At a senior level, executive judgement includes recognising mandate risk and acting on it.
A CEO does not wait to be told to stress-test liquidity when volatility rises.
A CFO does not wait for permission to scenario-plan in uncertain markets.
They act because the risk warrants it.
Mandate clarity is no different.
Waiting for sponsorship may feel reasonable.
But at this level, ownership of transition risk sits with the individual as much as the organisation.
In my experience working with leaders in transition, we start with Month 12 — what must be visibly different by then.
From there, we work back to Day 90.
- What assumptions are already forming?
- What patterns of judgement are emerging?
- Where could mandate drift already be taking shape?
In practice, that often means pressure-testing the mandate before Day 90 — while assumptions are still movable and before perception solidifies.
Outcome clarity first.
Pattern recognition second.
Alignment early.
Transitions rarely fail on Day 90.
But by Day 90, the direction is usually set.
Three questions worth testing now — whether you’re the hiring sponsor or the person in role:
- Do you know what “good judgement” looks like to the people assessing you — not what the job description says, but what earns trust under pressure?
- If asked today what must be different by Month 12, could you answer confidently — and would your sponsor agree?
- Has anyone actually said, out loud, what would cause them to question whether this appointment is working?
If you are sensing judgement without feedback, the issue is rarely performance. It is usually alignment that was never established.
📩 If you’re within your first 90 days — or sponsoring someone who is — message me directly for a short Mandate Pressure-Test conversation.
Craig Pattison FCIPD
Executive Coach & Fractional CPO | Creator of the Root-to-Result® model
Most senior transitions lose clarity of mandate within the first 60 days. Don’t let yours be one of them.
Subscribe to The Elevatexec Brief for the frameworks that help leaders get ahead of this.
