Collective responsibility, uneven power: what boards need to understand about leadership and accountability

Who has the most power on a board?

It is one of those questions that often catches people out. The technical answer is simple: no one does. Trustees are collectively responsible for the governance of their organisation, and no individual trustee carries more formal authority simply because of their title.

But the reality is often much more complicated. In practice, power on boards is rarely distributed evenly. People defer to the chair, the treasurer, the person with financial or legal expertise, or sometimes simply the loudest voice in the room. Formal equality does not automatically translate into equitable participation.

That gap between how governance is meant to work and how it is actually experienced is where many of the most significant risks and opportunities for boards sit.

The reality behind collective responsibility

Boards are built on the principle of collective responsibility. Decisions are made together, and accountability is shared. This is one of the strengths of trusteeship: it creates a system where different perspectives, experiences and forms of expertise can be brought together to guide an organisation.

However, this principle can sometimes be misunderstood.

Boards often operate through delegation. One trustee may take the lead on finance, another may liaise with legal advisers, while the chair shapes agendas and facilitates discussion. This is both necessary and effective. Without it, governance would quickly become unmanageable.

But there is an important distinction that is easy to lose sight of:

Boards can delegate tasks, but they cannot delegate responsibility.

Every trustee remains accountable for the decisions the board makes regardless of who took the lead on a particular issue. Relying on another trustee or on professional advice does not remove that duty. Expertise should inform judgement, not replace it.

This point has been brought into sharp focus by a recent high-profile case involving Naomi Campbell’s charity, Fashion for Relief. In appealing regulatory action, the argument advanced was, in part, that responsibility sat with others, including fellow trustees and professional advisers. The case underscores a persistent misunderstanding in governance: that responsibility can be transferred alongside tasks or expertise. It cannot.

For boards, the lesson is not about the specifics of one case, but about the principle it highlights. Accountability sits with the whole board, and with each trustee individually.

Where power really sits

If formal responsibility is shared equally, why does power feel uneven in practice?

The answer lies in how influence operates in group settings. Power on boards is shaped not just by formal roles, but by a range of informal dynamics, including:

• Positional authority – chairs and committee leads often carry implicit influence

• Professional expertise – financial, legal or technical knowledge can be given disproportionate weighting

• Confidence and communication style – those who speak more, or more assertively, may shape outcomes more strongly

• Experience and tenure – longer-serving trustees may hold more sway

• Identity and representation – who feels able to speak, and who is heard, is not neutral

  
  

These dynamics are not inherently problematic. In many cases, they reflect valuable strengths within a board but they should not go unexamined or unchecked.

When boards assume equality of voice simply because equality of responsibility exists, they can overlook how decisions are actually being shaped and fail to take the steps needed to build it into their cultural reality.

The risks of deference

One of the most common ways this imbalance shows up is through deference.

This might look like:

• accepting financial recommendations without full scrutiny because they come from the treasurer

• avoiding challenge because advice has come from a lawyer or specialist

• allowing a confident voice to close down discussion prematurely

  
  

Deference can feel efficient and respectful of your colleagues. But it shifts decision-making away from collective judgement towards individual influence.

Over time, collective responsibility remains, but collective decision-making is weakened.

From shared responsibility to shared practice

If boards are serious about collective leadership, they need to move beyond treating responsibility as a formal principle and start treating it as an active practice.

This means being more explicit and intentional about how decisions are made.

In practical terms, that includes:

• Reinforcing accountability

  Regularly emphasise that all trustees share responsibility for decisions, regardless of who leads the work

• Encouraging active engagement

  Ensure all trustees are expected to understand, question and contribute to a range of issues, not just to “their” areas

• Valuing challenge

  Position questioning and dissent as essential to good governance, not as disruption

• Reflecting on dynamics

  Make space to discuss how influence operates within the board, not just what decisions are made

• Avoiding over-reliance on individuals

  Be alert to where too much weight is placed on one person’s expertise or authority

These are not structural fixes alone. They are cultural practices that need to be maintained over time.

Reframing the question of power

So, who really holds power on a board?

Formally, it is shared. In practice, it is uneven.

Good governance does not ignore that reality. It recognises that while structures define responsibility, it is behaviour that determines how that responsibility is exercised.

The goal is not to eliminate differences in influence but to ensure they do not undermine assurance and collective accountability.

A final reflection

Boards often focus on how work is divided: who leads, who advises, who holds responsibility for specific areas.

But the more important question is how responsibility is carried.

• Are decisions genuinely collective, or shaped by unspoken hierarchies?

• Are trustees engaging fully, or relying on others to carry the weight?

• Are tasks being delegated clearly, without blurring accountability?

Governance is not just about showing up. It is about sharing the work and the responsibility.