By Richard Sterling, Partner at AltoPartners Australia.

This article was first posted on LinkedIn. To read the original post, click here.

The truth of a CEO role reveals itself in the first conversation with the Board. It’s there, in how the Board sees its mandate and the space it is genuinely prepared to give a leader to lead.

The arts organisation I recently worked with had genuine momentum with a growing reputation and strong community presence. It had also burned through two CEOs. As our conversation progressed, the reason became clear.

Board members remained closely involved in programming, maintained direct relationships with artists and partners and expected the CEO to lead while they stayed embedded in operations

Then another organisation. Different sector. Same dynamic.

The board of a small charity appointing its first-ever CEO was hesitant in a way that was entirely understandable. Every relationship, decision and donor conversation had passed through their hands.

They kept returning to the same instinct: staying close, being available, remaining involved. But what they were describing without quite saying it was a CEO who would carry the weight of the role without the full authority of it.

In both cases, the role was clear. The transition was not

The success of a CEO appointment depends not only on the quality of the candidate but on the board’s readiness to transfer authority. Without that transfer, the appointment proceeds, the title is conferred and the organisation continues to function as it always has.

Staff work out quickly where authority actually sits and take their decisions accordingly. The CEO is left accountable for outcomes they cannot control.

Capable leaders recognise this quickly. When authority and accountability are misaligned, experienced CEOs leave or simply refuse to join. The result is shorter tenures and repeated searches. Boards begin to wonder why the right candidate keeps proving elusive. In these situations, the candidate is not the problem.

The board’s motivation for holding on vary. The effect on the organisation does not.

When the board won’t step back, the CEO cannot step in. The organisation doesn’t necessarily fail. It stalls.

The most useful conversation a board can have before beginning a CEO search is not about the candidate. It is about themselves.

What are we genuinely prepared to hand over? What does the CEO need from us in order to lead effectively?

Boards that cannot answer those questions honestly are not yet ready to hire and appointing ahead of that readiness is a cost that falls on the organisation, the incoming leader and ultimately, the community the organisation exists to serve.