Dr Edmund Newell Blog

One of the striking features of our recent Leadership Lab on the relationship between chairs and chief executives and the wider dynamic between boards and executives, was the pattern in the stories people told: a chair who stepped in so fully that the chief executive began to feel crowded out; a board so careful not to intrude that important warning signs were noticed too late; a leadership relationship that looked sound on paper, but which, under pressure, had never quite developed the trust needed for honest challenge. As the conversation unfolded, it became clear that we had touched on something that was familiar across very different organisations and governance systems. 

The discussion built helpfully on the insights in Emma FitzGerald’s earlier blog, which emphasised clarity in roles, responsibilities and governance arrangements, as well as the quality of the relationships that inhabit them. A central theme of the Lab — and of Emma’s blog — was that good governance is not only a matter of frameworks and delegated authority, but also of judgement, trust, timing, and the capacity to have difficult conversations well. 

One idea in particular gained traction during the Lab: the “Goldilocks” principle. Governance can be “too hot”, where a chair or board becomes so involved that executive responsibility is blurred and confidence quietly undermined. It can be “too cold”, where oversight is distant, encouragement sparse, and challenge arrives only when matters have already gone awry. Good governance therefore asks for something “just right” — not a rigid formula, but a way of working attentive to an organisation’s circumstances. 

One example shared in the Lab described a period of organisational strain in which the chair became far more present and involved. At first this felt like a gift: a source of steadiness, wisdom and perspective. Yet over time, because expectations had never been clearly spoken, that support began to feel like encroachment. Another story ran in the opposite direction: trustees so respectful of executive autonomy that they failed to ask difficult questions until too late. In neither case was the difficulty a matter of bad intent. It arose, rather, from the absence of an agreed way of adjusting the relationship as circumstances changed. 

This provided one of the most useful insights of the Lab: the right governance “temperature” is not fixed. There are moments in the life of an organisation when more frequent contact, stronger support from the chair, or a more active board presence may be exactly what is needed. A crisis, a leadership transition, a financial shock, or a period of strategic uncertainty may all require a different balance. But, if the heat is turned up, it must also be turned down again once the moment has passed. Several participants observed that difficulty often arises not because people are unwilling to do so, but because they have never explicitly discussed how their way of working should flex in response to changing circumstances. 

Another strong thread in the Lab was the danger of what might be called the “undiscussables” — those matters that are sensed, but never properly named. Often, they do not begin dramatically. They surface first as hesitation, a niggling concern, an unease about behaviour, performance, tone or decision-making. Yet when such matters remain unspoken, they rarely disappear. More often they migrate into private conversations, coded exchanges, and weakening trust - and thereby store up greater difficulty for later. Participants reflected on how easily this can happen, particularly where confidence is fragile, hierarchy inhibits candour, or the chair’s role is understood more as keeping things smooth than making challenge possible. 

What emerged here was a more demanding understanding of leadership in governance. A good chair does not simply preserve order or reduce friction; a good chair creates the conditions in which honest disagreement can be voiced constructively and for the sake of the organisation’s purpose. That means noticing what is not being said, drawing in those who may be less ready to speak, and making it possible to raise concerns before they harden into conflict. It also means recognising that silence carries its own cost. Avoidance may feel kind in the short term, but it often leaves a heavier burden for the organisation later.  

The discussion also underlined that while governance is deeply relational, the scope for relationship-building differs from one context to another. In some organisations, boards and executive teams have considerable freedom over appointments and team formation. In others, membership is shaped by constitutional arrangements, ex officio roles, political processes or other constraints. That matters, because the work of building trust, shared habits and mutual understanding looks different when people have not chosen one another or have limited control over how a board or executive is formed. Where this is so, investing time in building trusting relationships can pay dividends. 

The importance of relationship-building was especially evident in discussion of the chair-chief executive dynamic. Participants spoke of the value of “contracting” early: being explicit about expectations, patterns of communication, support, challenge, boundaries, and how disagreement will be handled when it comes. Such conversations can feel overly formal when a relationship is new or going well. Yet the Lab made clear that this early clarity often protects both trust and accountability later on. Several participants also pointed to the importance of clear annual objectives for the chief executive, so that the relationship remains anchored in purpose, priorities and delivery, rather than drifting into personality, preference or unspoken assumption. 

If there was a single lesson running through the Lab, it was that structures and relationships cannot be separated for long. Clear roles, sound governance processes and delegated authority matter greatly. But they do not compensate for lack of trust, poor communication, or an inability to handle challenge well. Equally, warm relationships without clarity can generate confusion and risk. Healthy governance depends on both: enough structure to sustain accountability, and enough relational maturity to ensure that challenge, support and judgement are exercised wisely. Good governance, in other words, is not simply a set of arrangements. It is a discipline of leadership. 

Questions for reflection 

• Where is the “temperature” of governance in your organisation right now: too hot, too cold, or about right?
• What in your current context might require the chair, chief executive or board to adjust how they work together?
• What issues in your organisation feel difficult to raise openly, and what makes them hard to name?
• How explicitly have the chair and chief executive agreed expectations around support, challenge, communication and disagreement?
• Are objectives and success measures clear enough to keep key relationships anchored in purpose rather than personality?
• What conversation would strengthen governance in your organisation if it happened now rather than later?