Is the sector’s leadership model evolving as quickly as the market around it?
The discussion at this year’s Housing Market Intelligence conference was understandably dominated by delivery: demand, affordability, planning, viability, safety, skills and the changing economics of development. All of these have a direct impact on the decisions housebuilders make. They determine whether sites are bought, homes are started, customers commit and capital is recycled.
However, if the industry’s operating model is changing, are the ways we select, develop and organise its leaders changing with it? I work with some outstanding executives across the sector so it’s not that housebuilding lacks good leadership. But I do wonder whether boards are being sufficiently explicit about which capabilities will matter most in the next cycle, and whether their succession plans reflect that answer.
There is a danger in treating this solely as a hiring issue. It is also about board composition, executive development, decision rights, incentives and the capacity of businesses to adapt without losing the disciplines that made them successful.
There are seven areas in particular that I think boards and leadership teams should be considering as a result of these changes:
1 | The CEO brief is more complicated
For decades, the sector has rightly valued leaders with a deep command of land, build, sales, cash and regional execution. On top of this, a CEO today may also have to navigate a more interventionist regulatory environment, higher expectations of building quality, more complicated partnerships, changing tenure exposure and institutional counterparties whose investment horizons differ from the traditional private-sale model.
This does not mean that a successful CEO must personally be an expert in every one of these areas. It means they must be unusually good at building teams with complementary skills, allocating accountability and knowing where established assumptions no longer hold. The question for a nominations committee is therefore not “Who has run the largest division?” but “Who has demonstrated judgement when the operating model itself needed to change?”
The strongest internal candidates may still be those who have progressed through regional and divisional leadership. Yet progression by scale alone is an incomplete test. Boards should look for evidence of cross-functional leadership, difficult capital-allocation decisions, partnership negotiation, customer outcomes and the ability to develop successors.
THE BOARDROOM QUESTION: If we were writing our CEO specification from a blank sheet today, which three capabilities would we add, and which would we stop over-weighting?
2 | The CFO is a strategic operator
Pressure on margins is changing executive decision-making. When affordability constrains pricing and the cost base is less forgiving, the margin for error in land assumptions, programme delivery and working-capital management narrows. A good CFO has always understood these issues; the difference is how closely financial leadership now needs to shape operational choices before commitments are made.
For Chairs, this suggests testing the quality of the CEO–CFO partnership rather than assessing the finance function in isolation. Does the CFO challenge underwriting assumptions early enough? Can they distinguish a temporary volume opportunity from attractive risk-adjusted returns? Are finance, land, commercial and construction functions using the same view of downside scenarios?
For aspiring CFOs, technical excellence and investor credibility are necessary but not sufficient. The most valuable experience may include operational exposure, capital allocation, scenario planning and influencing colleagues whose incentives are tied to completions or short-term performance.
THE BOARDROOM QUESTION: Does our CFO have the mandate, and the relationships, to shape commercial decisions, or are they mainly reporting on the consequences?
3 | One industry, several business models
The traditional housebuilding model is changing, with businesses considering different approaches to housing delivery. The 2026 HMI material examines these pressures driving these changes and the relevance of alternative routes to delivery, including partnerships and other tenure structures. This is an important talent question because the leadership requirements of land-led private-sale development, partnership delivery and long-term institutional residential ownership overlap, but are not identical.
A leader who excels at fast capital rotation and private-sale absorption may need different support when dealing with multi-year contractual relationships, affordable housing counterparties, forward-funded projects or long-duration customer relationships. Conversely, importing someone from institutional residential or infrastructure without sufficient appreciation of housebuilding execution can be equally risky.
The answer is not to declare one background superior. It is to define the actual business model, identify its critical capabilities and appoint leaders whose skills and experience complement each other. In some organisations that may mean developing existing divisional talent. In others it may justify selective recruitment from adjacent sectors, particularly into finance, partnerships, technology, customer or transformation roles.
THE BOARDROOM QUESTION: Are we recruiting leaders for the model we currently operate, or for how we expect to operate in five years?
4 | Succession development needs to be a strategic priority
The sector’s shortage of skilled workers is a widely recognised challenge. HBF’s 2026 research with Pluto Finance estimates that roughly 300,000 additional workers across the supply chain would be needed to support delivery of 300,000 homes a year. That is a workforce estimate, not a forecast of executive vacancies. Its relevance here is indirect but important: growth in delivery capacity requires experienced people to supervise, train, coordinate and lead.
At executive level, the succession problem is less about the absolute number of potential candidates than the breadth of their preparation. A regional MD may have delivered consistently in one market but had limited exposure to major partnerships, public-market scrutiny or organisational transformation. A strong functional director may have depth but insufficient experience managing enterprise-wide trade-offs.
Boards should distinguish between “ready now”, “ready with targeted exposure” and “promising but untested”. The middle category is where much of the value sits. Rotations, cross-regional assignments, involvement in major investment decisions, mentoring and explicit CEO/CFO succession milestones can turn plausible successors into credible ones. Without that investment, companies can find themselves paying a premium externally for experience they might have built internally.
The same logic applies to retention. A business that does not give its best emerging leaders visibility of a credible pathway risks losing them before the opportunity arrives.
THE BOARDROOM QUESTION: Could our board name two credible successors for each business-critical role, and explain precisely what experience each still needs?
5 | The divisional MD may be the most underestimated appointment
Much attention goes to group CEOs and CFOs, but the performance of housebuilders is heavily shaped by regional and divisional leadership. These executives reconcile land opportunities, planning realities, build programmes, customer demand, quality and local teams. In a difficult market, their decisions directly impact how successfully the business delivers its strategy.
The traditional scorecard of volumes, margin, cash and land remains necessary, but perhaps isn’t enough. Boards and CEOs should consider whether divisional leaders can build resilient management teams, challenge assumptions across functions, develop successors and adapt operating practices rather than simply pushing harder against the same targets.
This also has implications for how the industry develops divisional MDs. Promoting leaders with a functional specialism is a strength, provided they gain broader exposure beyond their original discipline.
THE BOARDROOM QUESTION: Are we evaluating divisional leaders only on what they delivered, or also on the leadership capability they’ve developed within their teams?
6 | Understand your technology requirement
AI, data and new methods of construction attract attention for good reason. For housebuilders, the practical opportunities may lie in better forecasting, land and planning information, procurement, customer communication, quality assurance and management reporting. Yet technology programmes fail as often through unclear ownership, poor adoption and fragmented processes as through the technology itself.
The HBF’s March 2026 AI research suggests the sector remains relatively early in adoption and that technology is more likely to augment many construction roles than remove the need for skilled workers. At the leadership level, the question is how to make the most of these opportunities: who owns the business outcomes, how are decisions made across functions, and how will adoption be measured?
The right answer will vary by size and complexity. Some businesses will need stronger technology leadership at executive level; others will benefit more from a commercially credible transformation leader with the authority to simplify processes and bring operational colleagues with them.
THE BOARDROOM QUESTION: Can our executive committee identify the three technology changes most likely to improve returns, quality or customer outcomes, and who is accountable for delivering each?
7 | Balancing commercial performance with customer trust
Building safety, quality and customer outcomes are sometimes discussed as compliance or operational issues. They are also matters of culture and leadership. The choices made on programme, subcontractor oversight, escalation, incentives and aftercare are influenced by what senior executives reward and what they are prepared to challenge.
A leadership team that prizes completions without equal attention to quality can create costs that appear later, in remediation, reputation, employee morale and customer confidence. Boards should expect executives to demonstrate that they can deliver strong commercial performance while maintaining quality and customer confidence.
For nominations and remuneration committees, this suggests looking beyond financial performance alone when assessing track records. How did a candidate respond to an adverse quality issue? Did they make escalation easier or harder? Were customer outcomes improved sustainably? These are revealing tests of judgement.
THE BOARDROOM QUESTION: What evidence do we require that our next generation of leaders can deliver growth without compromising customer trust?
What Chairs, CEOs and executives should do next
For Chairs and nominations committees
Refresh the CEO and CFO capability matrices against the future business model, not the historic job description. Commission a candid succession review that identifies experience gaps rather than simply ranking internal names. Test whether remuneration, risk and customer outcomes reinforce the leadership behaviours the board says it values.
For CEOs
Treat bench strength as an operating metric. Give high-potential regional and functional leaders stretch assignments before they are needed. Examine whether the executive committee contains enough complementary expertise across capital, partnerships, customers, people and transformation, and whether those perspectives genuinely influence decisions.
For divisional and functional executives
Build breadth deliberately. Seek exposure to land and capital decisions, complex counterparties, customer outcomes and enterprise-wide trade-offs. Demonstrate not only what you have delivered but the team, systems and successors you have built. In a changing market, the ability to learn beyond one’s original specialism may be a defining differentiator.
A final thought
The experience that has made UK housebuilding successful remains important. Strong land judgement, operational rigour and local market knowledge will always be valuable. But the strongest leadership teams of the next decade will likely be those with wider commercial perspectives, technological confidence, customer focus and more systematic succession planning.
I would encourage boards to consider whether their leaders are prepared for the market they hope will return, or the market they may actually have to navigate?
About the Author
James Paviour | Senior Partner, Real Assets
James specialises in executive search across UK housebuilding and the wider real estate sector. He works with boards, investors and leadership teams to appoint senior executives, including CEOs, CFOs and operational leaders.
Through his work with housebuilders, James advises on senior appointments, leadership capability and succession planning.
