Commitment is the lifeblood of the sector, but when does it become a barrier to growth? With up to a third of trustees serving ten years or more, charity governance specialist Suneet Sharma explores how to navigate the delicate politics of succession while turning longevity into lasting impact.
________________________________________________________________________

I once worked with a charity whose trustee had been in post longer than I had been alive. While they were an encyclopaedia of institutional memory, the question inevitably arose: does such longevity serve the charity’s best interests? And if not, how should succession be approached in a sensitive and constructive way? Entrenched trustees are nothing new in the charity sector. Research by the Charity Commission in 2025, conducted with Pro Bono Economics, found that almost a quarter (22%) of trustees had served for more than ten years on their charity board. Charity Excellence puts this figure higher, at 36% in its 2024 research.

The law does not prescribe a maximum length of trustee tenure, meaning trustees can serve indefinitely unless a governing document states otherwise. Although CC30 and template constitutions recommend fixed terms as good practice, this is not mandatory. The Charity Governance Code recommends that trustees serve no more than nine years; where charities depart from this, the decision should be rigorously reviewed and disclosed in the trustees’ annual report. In practice, it is not uncommon to encounter charities whose constitutions contain no term limits at all, making succession planning all the more pertinent.

Board succession is therefore a delicate undertaking. It requires balancing the retention of institutional knowledge with the need for fresh perspectives. Left unmanaged, tenure can become an arena for board politics, entrench groupthink, and skew interactions, ultimately hindering board effectiveness. Diverse voices may be stifled, opportunities for new talent reduced, and leadership pipelines weakened by prolonged incumbency.

Why trustees become entrenched

In my experience, long tenure most commonly arises in three scenarios:
· Founder syndrome: The founder identifies strongly with the cause and retains close oversight long after establishment, often driven by deep personal commitment.
· The comfortable chair: Authority consolidates over time, becoming resistant to challenge and reinforced by longevity.
· The institutional memory: The trustee is highly valued for their knowledge, which may rival an encyclopaedia in depth, but creates a single point of dependency that is difficult to unwind.

These situations share a common thread: board dynamics and effectiveness issues that inadvertently reinforce incumbency. Addressing them can be challenging, particularly when relationships are longstanding and sensitivities high.

Approaches to managing succession

Tackling trustee tenure typically involves a combination of governance process and interpersonal dynamics. A few practical approaches include:

Appraisals and informal check-ins
Regular reviews can create discreet opportunities to discuss succession. While formal appraisal frameworks are more common in larger charities, even informal conversations can help open the door to transition planning.

Committee Cadence
If you have a Nominations Committee, they are perfectly placed to set the tone and cadence of succession discussions and planning. Use it strategically and sparingly to tackle these issues. Have tenure as a standing item annually prior to any trustee annual review or check-in to provide a through line on the topic of succession. Consensus and focus of a Committee can be a powerful vehicle to move the needle on succession conversations and strategy. If you do not have a Committee and these issues are arising regularly consider forming a small temporary Working Group to provide succession matters the dedicated resource it needs, especially if there is conflict at Board.

Founder transition
Creating a patron or advisory role can retain the founder’s passion and knowledge while enabling governance renewal. Involving the founder in recruiting their successor can shift the narrative from loss of control to legacy building.

Chair succession
For larger charities, the Code’s recommended three-year external governance review can provide a neutral moment to surface succession. For smaller organisations, an away-day facilitator or consultant can play a similar role. Establishing a vice-chair can also create a clearer pathway to transition.

Knowledge transfer
Where institutional memory is concentrated, a structured transfer programme—mentoring, buddying, or shadowing - can reduce single-point dependency while recognising the incumbent’s contribution.

Turning commitment into continuity

Succession challenges are often the by-product of commitment. Whether rooted in a founder’s passion or a chair’s sense of duty, the “tenure trap” is usually paved with good intentions. The task for boards is to acknowledge that commitment while channelling it in ways that support renewal.

Charities that have navigated difficult transitions should reflect on the experience. Doing so can reveal important insights about governance culture and decision-making practices.

A diagnostic checklist for boards

When approaching succession, boards may find it helpful to ask:
1. What are our current trustee tenures?
2. What does our governing document say, and are we complying with it?
3. Have we considered CC30’s recommendations on term limits? If not, why not?
4. Are any trustees approaching or exceeding nine years’ service? What is the rationale?
5. What risks arise from long tenure (for example, concentration of knowledge or influence)?
6. How can these risks be mitigated?

For evaluation:
7. How did we arrive at the current position?
8. What worked well - and less well - in addressing tenure issues?
9. What changes will strengthen our approach to managing trustee succession in future?

Ultimately, healthy boards do not rely on longevity - they evolve with the charities they serve. Treating trustee succession as a normal part of governance, rather than an exceptional event, is what turns commitment into continuity and longevity into lasting impact.

---