The Governance Library curated by Matthew Doyle
Board Room · Board–CEO Dynamics
Case study · NatWest Group
00:00
Board Room · Practice · The Chief Question
Board–CEO Dynamics
How chair and CEO handle each other when the stakes rise.
Case · NatWest Group · the partnership
09:00, 25 July 2023 → February 2024
The central governance partnership described in NatWest's 2022 annual report.
By early 2024 — it was over. Rose resigned. Davies followed. Haythornthwaite took the chair.
Not what the board does in aggregate — but how chair and CEO handle each other when the stakes rise.
Demb & Neubauer · 1992 · The Corporate Board
Four models · Demb & Neubauer + Leblanc
Four working patterns of the chair–CEO relationship.
I
Partnership
Peers. Complementary. Close daily contact.
II
Oversight
Chair leads accountability. CEO runs company. Formal distance.
III
Confrontational
Functionally opposed. Temperament — or loss of confidence.
IV
Weak-chair
CEO dominates both sides of the board. Identified in retrospect, after failure.
Two theoretical lenses
Both earn their keep on this relationship.
Agency theory
Jensen & Meckling · 1976
Chair as principal's monitor.
Constitutional independence. Performance management. Reduce agency costs.
vs
Resource dependency
Pfeffer & Salancik · 1978
Chair-CEO pair as primary conduits.
Information flow. Succession signalling. Market positioning.
Partnership emphasises resource dependency. Oversight emphasises agency. Confrontational and weak-chair fail on whichever dimension is most needed.
Seven days in July
The relationship shifted faster than either party could renegotiate.
Partnership → oversight → confrontation — in under a week.
Three things to notice
What actually happened in the relationship.
I
Protection was the chair's default. Partnership chair under pressure — Pettigrew & McNulty.
Default
II
CEO position weakened before the chair's posture shifted. The protection lag.
Lag
III
SID · UKGI · PRA · FCA · Treasury became visible because the pair was no longer sufficient.
External
Five dimensions of the working relationship
Each visible through one of the two lenses.
I
Constitutional independence
Agency-lens. Too close → co-responsibility. Too distant → under-informed.
II
Information flow
Resource-dependency. Formal pack + informal interpretative conversation.
III
Performance management
Agency-lens. FRC 2023: the area where UK practice is most uneven.
IV
Succession signalling
Resource-dependency. Chair's view carries SMCR weight in regulated firms.
V
Daily transactional layer
Where moral authority is actually earned. Roberts, McNulty & Stiles.
The dynamic sits at the centre.
Chair–CEO
Note 01
Chair's authority built here
Note 03
Exec sessions = structural counterweight
Note 04
Agenda is negotiated here
Note 06
Succession lives in the pair
Note 02
Committee chairs work under patronage
Note 07
Jurisdictional models differ — kaicho, Aufsichtsrat
Four honest qualifications
Where the practitioner literature over-reaches.
I
Bicephalous illusion
Krause et al. 2014: separation helps in crises, regulated industries, weak-rights firms. Not a universal.
II
Survivor bias
Retrospective narratives from pairs that remained in post. Collapsed pairs under-studied.
III
Cultural variance
Japanese kaicho, German Aufsichtsrat. UK/US dyad does not capture this.
IV
Pioneering appointments
Davies Review · FTSE Women Leaders · Kanter 1977. Asymmetric scrutiny is a live question.
Three things to carry forward.
A reading
Demb & Neubauer, The Corporate Board (1992). Paired with Roberts, McNulty & Stiles, British Journal of Management (2005) — for the accountability-asymmetry argument.
A question
If your chair and CEO were each asked separately which model their relationship is on — partnership, oversight, confrontational, weak-chair — would they give the same answer?
The wider library
Note 01 Chair · Note 03 Sessions · Note 04 Agenda · Note 06 Succession — and Strategy Room Note 11 for the agency-stewardship split.
Board Room 05 · The Governance Library curated by Matthew Doyle · mæd partners
00:00 · 13:38