In early March, Ian Munro and Wendy Lambourne, directors of Legitimate Leadership, made presentations on Legitimate Leadership’s approach to Building Strong Boards (or governing bodies of organizations) as part of a FluidRock online webinar on that subject.

Below is a summary of Wendy Lambourne’s presentation. A summary of Ian Munro’s presentation appeared in our March 2025 newsletter.

‘Bill Clinton famously said, “it’s all about the economy, stupid.” Legitimate Leadership thinks it’s appropriate, in reference to boards and executive teams, to say, “it’s all about the relationship, stupid.” The relationship more than anything else is what matters – when it is constructive and collaborative, the experience is fundamentally different from the opposite.

‘In any relationship the key issue is trust. Legitimate Leadership is based on seminal research into trust in the South African gold mines. In management-employee relationships, trust is key – but our experience is that trust applies in any relationship. It’s equally important within a team, between teams, and between customers and suppliers – and also obviously between boards or governing bodies and the organization’s executive team.

‘I want to make a distinction here between authority and what we refer to as legitimate power. Authority is based on the position you hold. If you are the chairperson of the board or the CEO of the company, you have that authority from day one. It’s given to you.

‘But you only have legitimate power – in other words your authority is only really accepted and hence people trust you, are willing to work for you and are loyal to you – when you earn that legitimate power. And you earn it primarily through giving not money but care and growth.

‘So trust is granted on the perception by each party (and this is important) of the degree to which the other party has its best interests at heart. This goes back to the founding research on which Legitimate Leadership is based. So it’s the executive team that actually decides whether to trust the board or not, and it’s the board that decides whether to trust the executive team. You cannot tell someone, “you must trust me.” They decide. And when we talk about the degree to which we are prepared to have their best interests at heart, another way of putting this is the degree to which you are prepared to suspend your agenda or your needs for theirs. The essence of it is who comes first; whose needs are met.

‘So the issue is intent or motive. In plain English it is: “Are you in the relationship to give or to take?” Clearly those are two absolutely extreme positions and nobody and no entity is 100% here to give or 100% here to take. We all have self-interest, we all have mixed motive in fact. But the critical thing that we’ve learned is: the degree to which you are prepared to give is a function of your maturity. As people individually and collectively mature, they develop an increasing capacity to give unconditionally.

‘So what do governing bodies which are immature (are here to TAKE) look like? They:

• have different expectations for themselves and for the executive team;
• tell the executive team what to do but do not set the example themselves;
• sit in judgement when the results are not achieved;
• micro-manage/interfere in the running of the organization;
• insist on endless reporting;
• place the executive team under constant pressure / threat;
• issue instructions;
• only focus on the results.

‘Critically, there is nothing in terms of give and take that is a matter of skill or competence. Essentially this is a choice that the party makes. The board chooses whether it is going to tell the executive team what to do and yet don’t actually set the example themselves.

‘Then there is the requirement for endless reporting. I was with one executive team which said – no exaggeration – they were spending 70% of their time preparing reports for the board and answering queries from the board. A second company that I worked with employed someone full-time who they told to “feed the beast – provide the information they keep requiring so that we can get on with running the business.”

‘So what does a governing body which conversely is here to give look like? They:

• give advice when asked for it;
• get to understand the challenges on the ground, not just the numbers;
• respect the executive team / see them as equals;
• set the example / are beyond reproach;
• work together with the executive team to align on strategy;
• take a long-term view;
• insist on excellence – growth, development and improvement.

‘It is a fundamentally different perspective. When we say that they respect the executive team / see them as equals, what we really mean by that is they absolutely respect the fact that both parties have a unique contribution to make. So being respectful means that you allow both parties to take accountability for and make a contribution.

‘Regarding being here for the long term, someone once said the only purpose of any business is to stay in business. So it is about saying, “We are building a business that is sustainable into the future and we’re not going to do that if we simply knee-jerk react on quarterly results.”

‘But there are two parties in this relationship and so equally you have executive teams who are here to take and here to give. I am reminded of my experience of many years in the relationship between management of which I was a member and the unions that we dealt with at the time. It was a fundamentally different experience dealing with a union that was mature and a union that was not.

‘If you are immature (or here to take), as an executive team, you are not here to care and grow the people below you, you are only concerned with getting results out of them.

‘On information, it’s not about giving the board too little information, it’s about keeping them informed within reason, so the degree of detail you feed them is very important. And you are open and transparent – you don’t try and hide the actual realities of the business, and what the challenges and difficulties are to succeeding on an ongoing basis.

‘Executive Teams who are here to TAKE:

• Focus on short-term quarterly results.
• Primarily concern themselves with maximising personal gains.
• Don’t lead but manage and control.
• Don’t invest in the care and growth of their employees.
• Are defensive and risk-averse.

‘Executive Teams who are here to GIVE:

• Keep the governing body informed.
• Consult the governing body / tap into individual and collective expertise.
• Focus on the enablers to achieve the results.
• Work with the governing body to develop and own the strategy.
• Are open and transparent.
• Take accountability.

‘We are saying: you can only look after your side of the transaction. You cannot determine the other party’s intent. Get your intent right, and let the other party take care of theirs.’