I’ve written about the high rate of leader turnover before. (See, for example, my two posts linked below.) It’s not a phenomenon limited to one sector or another, it’s across the board. Or to be more precise, in democracies it’s across the board. In autocracies, the tenure of political leaders, of strongmen, is as long as its ever been. To wit in Egypt, Turkey, and Hungary and, of course, in Iran, Russia, and China.
Democracies are different. In recent years British prime ministers have turned over at an almost embarrassingly rapid rate. In Germany Olaf Scholz, the chancellor before the current one, Friedrich Merz, lasted less than four years. His immediate predecessor, in contrast, Anglela Merkel, served for more than sixteen years. Even in the United States has been churn. Bill Clinton was president for eight years. His successor, George W. Bush, was president for eight years. And his successor, Barack Obama was also president for eight years. But his successor, Donald Trump, was voted out by the American electorate after four years. As was his successor, Joe Biden. Turnover in Congress, heading into the 2026 election, is also high, with over 10% of members not seeking reelection. Which represents a “significant, accelerated transition.”
In the private sector the churn has been even greater, and it has been faster. “Turnover in CEOs is Most in Over a Decade” ran a recent headline in the Wall Street Journal. The reasons why? Given my insistence that leadership is a system not a person – a system that has three parts, the leader, the followers and the context – I find the explanations the Journal provides necessary but not sufficient. The Journal claims the reasons for the high rate of turnover at the top are contextual. Changes in the context that include, “the swift rise of artificial intelligence, the unraveling of long-established trade practices, and an unsettled economy and geopolitical order.”
All true. Each of these pertains. But context is not the only reason for the change. The other reason is the third cog in the system – the followers. Who more precisely am I talking about? Who needs to follow CEOs for CEOs to get their jobs done? Who needs to fall into line not just literally but rhetorically? To, in other words, go along with the leader without incessant bitching and moaning, without incessant belittling and complaining?
The list is not long, but usually it’s large. The list is especially large when we are talking about CEOs of large publicly held companies. In which case the list of those who must follow the leader for the leader to do their work includes boards of directors, C-suite executives, rank and file employees, stockholders, clients and customers, and supply chain providers. Again, not a long list but a list that could consist of followers numbering in the tens and hundreds of thousands, even in the millions and tens of millions. Most of whom must acquiesce to CEOs – or at least not resist them – for them to do what they were hired to do.
But what if some or, worse, many among this long list of people refuse to follow? Or, what if they follow but they do so only grudgingly and reluctantly, while carping and criticizing whoever their leader? Not a pretty picture. Not a circumstance calculated to satisfy or gratify the leader or to make their position tenable for long.
Which is precisely what’s happening. The reasons for the high rates of leader turnover are not then just about context. They are also about followers who are bolder and ruder than they used to be; less patient and quicker to pull the trigger; armed with more information, and with ample outlets, especially social media, for registering their complaints and airing their grievances.
For leaders – leaders in every sector – times are tough. While their financial compensation is often outsized and sometimes outrageous, their other compensations tend to be fewer and further between.
—————————————————————