I recently came across an Harvard Business Review summary of a study in the Journal of Management that examined something I’d never thought much about before: the timing of a CEO’s start date. The researchers found that when new CEOs begin at the start of a company’s fiscal or calendar year, their organizations perform better.

The effect was even stronger for “atypical” CEOs, who they characterizes as individuals either under 46, women, or members of racial or ethnic minorities. The authors suggest that these leaders are more likely to initiate strategic change, and starting at a natural reset point gives them a cleaner slate to do so. The study focused on planned transitions, not emergency or crisis successions, which adds an interesting layer to the findings.

Both of my CEO roles began off cycle. I can confirm that it’s challenging. Boards often expect visible progress within the first 100 days, but when you start midyear, many of the key decisions like budget allocations, staffing plans, and strategic priorities are already locked in. Depending on how the year has gone, you may be operating within constraints shaped by your predecessor or by circumstances you didn’t control.

That doesn’t mean success is impossible. A flexible and supportive board can mitigate these challenges by allowing midyear adjustments or pilot initiatives that set the stage for bigger shifts in the next cycle. It also helps if both sides acknowledge that the “first 100 days” may look different for an off-cycle start.

Timing may not always be within your control, but understanding how it shapes your early momentum is valuable. For boards, it’s a reminder that when planning a CEO transition, when the leader starts can matter as much as who you choose.