Leading Through Uncertainty: The False Certainty of Experience

It is an understandable reflex. As the world becomes less predictable, the desire for certainty in the boardroom increases. A leader with experience in the same sector, a similar career path and a proven track record feels like a safe choice.

But what if that certainty is, in fact, a false one?

Back in 2020, Managing Partner Kristien Kaldewaij explored this topic in her blog 'Results from the Past: A Guarantee for the Future?'. Six years on, the central question has only become more relevant: to what extent are past achievements a reliable predictor of leadership success when the context in which that success must be achieved is changing fundamentally?

This is far from a theoretical question. According to PwC’s Global CEO Survey 2026, conducted among 4,454 CEOs worldwide, only 30 per cent are confident about their company’s revenue growth over the next twelve months. For 42 per cent, the greatest concern is whether their organisation is transforming quickly enough to keep pace with technological developments, including AI.

Equally striking is that 42 per cent of CEOs say their organisations have begun competing in new sectors over the past five years. Business boundaries are therefore blurring faster than the career criteria by which leaders are still often assessed.

This creates a fundamental tension. The challenges organisations face today increasingly differ from those of the past, while leadership appointments continue to rely heavily on previous experience.

The diminishing value of precedent

For many years, experience was a logical predictor of success. An executive who had previously delivered international growth would be appointed to drive growth again. A CFO who had led an IPO was the obvious candidate for a similar process elsewhere. A CEO who had steered a business through a recession was seen as a safe pair of hands when conditions became difficult.

That logic holds only when the future bears a close resemblance to the circumstances in which those results were achieved. It is precisely that assumption which is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

Generative AI is transforming processes, roles and business models. Geopolitical developments are forcing organisations to reconsider their value chains. Cyber risks have become directly linked to continuity and reputation. Climate change, regulation and structural labour shortages are influencing investment decisions and competitive positions.

Many of the issues now appearing on board agendas have no clear historical equivalent. No leader has twenty years of experience dealing with the organisational and economic consequences of generative AI. Nor is there an established playbook for navigating the combined effects of geopolitical fragmentation, the energy transition, digitalisation and persistent labour market shortages.

This does not mean experience has lost its value. Rather, it means it must be assessed differently. The key question is no longer how much experience someone has, but which lessons, capabilities and decisions remain relevant in a new context.

For executive boards and supervisory boards, this means a proven track record deserves closer scrutiny. What contribution did the leader personally make? Under what market conditions were those results achieved? Which assumptions underpinned that success, and do those assumptions still apply in the next strategic phase?

From optimisation to adaptation

This shift is evident elsewhere too. McKinsey describes how organisations that thrive amid constant change treat renewal as an ongoing capability. Their leaders build systems that actively seek out change, foster a culture of experimentation and continuous improvement, and maintain an outward-looking perspective to identify new opportunities for growth.

The World Economic Forum likewise highlights the pace at which core capabilities are changing. Employers expect 39 per cent of employees’ key skills to change by 2030. Analytical thinking tops the list, followed by resilience, flexibility and agility, leadership and social influence, and creative thinking.

Leaders must be able to operate across multiple time horizons at once: delivering results today while building the organisation of tomorrow. This requires making decisions amid uncertainty without relying on false certainty. It means questioning established assumptions while continuing to draw on the strengths and knowledge already present within the organisation. At the same time, leaders must unite diverse interests around a direction that cannot yet be proven in full.

These qualities closely align with the 5 Ps, the five characteristics identified in Odgers’ research into future-ready leadership. A learning mindset, a broad perspective and the ability to connect people and viewpoints are central themes. Ultimately, what matters is how a leader responds when circumstances change and familiar answers are no longer sufficient.

The risk of familiarity

In leadership appointments, we often see a disconnect between an organisation’s strategic ambition and the profile that forms the starting point of the search. A company wants to transform, enter new markets or reinvent its business model, yet proceeds to describe an ideal candidate who closely resembles the departing executive.

That is understandable. Familiar profiles are easier to assess and defend. Shareholders recognise the CV, supervisory board members can justify the appointment, and management teams see a familiar career path. Yet a profile can appear logical on paper while being strategically too cautious.

Rosanne Ferrari, Partner in the Business & Professional Services practice at Odgers Netherlands, recognises this pattern from her own work. A striking number of assignments begin with the same sector background, a similar career path and the same criteria that applied to the previous executive. Once she compares that profile with the organisation’s strategic ambitions, the conversation often changes. More and more leadership teams recognise for themselves that something different may be required and become willing to revisit the brief.

At the same time, she still encounters situations where, despite numerous discussions, the list of criteria remains virtually unchanged.

A strong focus on sector-specific experience can also limit the talent pool. Candidates with relevant experience from adjacent markets, different business models or comparable transformation journeys may be ruled out at an early stage. Their qualifications are rarely the issue. Their careers simply do not fit the originally defined profile closely enough.

When candidates from outside the sector enter the conversation, Rosanne frequently encounters reservations, though rarely in the form of a specific question. More often, comments sound like: “The candidate doesn’t know the market” or “That is a risk.” Beneath those objections often lies something else: a concern about making a decision that may prove difficult to explain if things do not go to plan.

“What helps me,” says Rosanne, “is to seek out that discomfort. I keep asking until the doubt becomes a concrete question. What exactly is the concern? Where does it come from? Is it a substantive risk, or is it about the feeling that something familiar is missing?”

Once that concern has been articulated, client and adviser can assess together what is a real risk, what merely feels unfamiliar and what is required to carry that risk. Those conversations are not always comfortable, but they are often the point at which a leadership profile becomes sharper.

Sven Sauvé, former CEO of RTL Nederland, described in our Leading Through Uncertainty interview series how his own thinking about team composition has evolved:

His observation extends beyond management teams. Similar experience may accelerate decision-making, but it can also reinforce the same assumptions, reference points and blind spots. The value of diverse perspectives lies in stronger judgement: identifying outdated assumptions sooner, recognising underestimated risks and seeing opportunities that would otherwise remain outside the usual field of vision.

Sector expertise still matters

None of this suggests that sector experience is unimportant. In financial services, healthcare, energy and other highly regulated or technically complex sectors, knowledge of regulations, market structures, operational risks and stakeholder dynamics can be essential for particular board roles. Equally, where a newly appointed executive needs to establish credibility quickly, relevant sector experience may be valuable.

The real question is therefore which experience will matter most for success in the next strategic phase.

Sometimes that will be deep regulatory expertise. Sometimes it will be a proven ability to integrate international organisations, restructure portfolios or accelerate digital transformation. And sometimes the experience that matters most comes from working with a different business model, a different value chain or a different market dynamic.

Rosanne observes the same pattern across the broader business services sector. With private equity investing so actively in the market, the pace is high. More than half of Odgers Netherlands’ private equity-related assignments now sit within this sector, as she described in 'The Silent Takeover'.

That pressure can create a temptation to seek everything in a single leader: sector expertise, private equity experience, a proven growth record and cultural leadership all at once.

“The proverbial unicorn,” says Rosanne. “Everyone would like that, but let’s be honest: that person already has a company where they feel at home. You won’t bring them in, however appealing you think your own organisation is.”

For her, the challenge is not to lower expectations but to have a more thoughtful conversation about what is essential and what is mainly desirable. She also considers the perspective of the candidate. What opportunity does the role offer? What might they still learn? What do they bring that is not already present, whether in terms of experience, motivation or drive? Quite often, that is precisely what an organisation needs in its next phase.

This distinction calls for a different starting point in leadership selection. Strategy and future context should define the profile first. Only then should organisations consider which experiences, qualities and perspectives best support that need.

For executives, supervisory board members and investors, this is not an argument for taking greater risks. It is an argument for defining risk more accurately.
The apparently safe candidate on paper may, in reality, represent the greater risk if their experience is primarily suited to a context that is disappearing. By contrast, a less obvious candidate may provide more certainty because they have demonstrated the ability to learn quickly, make sound judgements and lead organisations through fundamental change.

A leadership appointment is not strong because a candidate’s past feels familiar. It is strong when their experience and leadership qualities align with the organisation that needs to be built. That requires a selection process in which future relevance, rather than familiarity, becomes the central point of reference.

_________________________________________________

At Odgers, we believe that the best advisers continue to evolve, continue to ask questions and continue to bring others along on that journey. Do these challenges resonate with you? Or would you welcome a conversation about leadership in complex environments? Please feel free to contact Rosanne Ferrari or Kristien Kaldewaij.