Boards often assess leadership potential through familiar signals like confidence, experience, resilience, strategic thinking and a record of delivering results.

All of these matter, but they don’t tell a board how an executive will use power once they have it.

Two leaders can hold the same title and possess similar authority, yet experience their roles very differently. One feels able to challenge convention, the other might feel hemmed in by bureaucracy, board oversight or fear of failure.

Their motives can also differ. One sees power primarily as a means of protecting status or advancing a career. Another treats it as a responsibility to the organisation, its people and wider stakeholders.

Our ongoing research examines this through the Discretion–Orientation Leadership Matrix. It considers two questions: How much freedom does a leader believe they have, and who is their leadership ultimately directed towards?

This isn’t a test that places executives into permanent boxes. Leadership behaviour changes with context, pressure and organisational culture. The matrix is better understood as a way for boards to recognise patterns, and the conditions encouraging them.

When discretion and purpose pull apart

Perceived discretion is not the same as formal authority. A chief executive can possess considerable power on paper but feel constrained by investors, regulation, internal politics or an interventionist chair. Another executive with the same formal remit might feel entirely free to act.

Orientation describes the direction in which that freedom is used. A self-oriented leader prioritises personal security, recognition or advancement. An ‘other-oriented’ leader gives greater weight to colleagues, the organisation, stakeholders and society. High discretion can enable valuable change. It can also allow self-interest to run unchecked. An outward-looking leader may be trusted but unable to achieve much if given no room to act. The danger lies in the relationship between the two.

Four patterns boards should recognise

Leaders who combine high discretion with a strong self-orientation can appear compelling. They are often confident, persuasive and quick to act. But autonomy may become a tool for controlling the story, avoiding responsibility or manipulating systems for personal advantage.

One board director described such a leader this way: “He always framed decisions as bold leadership, but somehow the risks and consequences never belonged to him—only the credit did.”

Short-term performance can disguise the damage. These behaviours flourish where boards tolerate selective transparency, reward results at any cost or allow challenge to disappear.

Low discretion combined with self-orientation produces a different risk. Leaders who feel powerless may become defensive. Micromanagement, blame-shifting and excessive caution offer personal protection but weaken trust and initiative.

Other-oriented leaders with limited discretion are often highly valued. They listen, support colleagues and build loyalty. Yet goodwill without sufficient authority can leave them unable to challenge entrenched interests or lead serious change. A board might admire their integrity while denying them the backing needed to make it count.

The strongest combination is high discretion with an outward orientation. These leaders treat power as stewardship rather than entitlement. They can make difficult decisions, but remain alert to the consequences for others. As one senior executive observed: “She used power to create space for others, not to dominate the room.”

Leaders move and boards help move them

A central finding from our research is that leaders shift between these patterns.

An executive known for integrity may become defensive under pressure. A cautious leader may become more outward-looking when given trust and a clear mandate. A collaborative change-maker may become controlling when the board rewards results but stops asking how they were achieved.

Leadership development should therefore be about more than correcting individual weaknesses. Boards must examine the environment in which leadership is exercised. Incentives, oversight and the behaviour of the chair all signal how much discretion leaders possess and how they should use it. Excessive constraint breeds passivity, while unchecked autonomy creates conditions for abuse.

This makes leadership behaviour a governance issue, not simply a matter for the chief executive or HR team.

Exploring leadership patterns

The framework gives boards a way to look beyond surface performance when appointing, developing and assessing senior leaders.

During succession planning, directors should not treat confidence as proof of capability. How does a candidate understand the limits and responsibilities of their authority? What happens when their interests conflict with those of the organisation? How have they used power when nobody forced them to share it?

When an existing executive is struggling, the board should ask whether the problem is poor judgement, excessive freedom, insufficient authority or incentives pulling behaviour in the wrong direction. Another leadership course will achieve little if the surrounding system continues to reward the problem.

Boards should also look for patterns across the organisation. A concentration of highly autonomous, self-protective leaders may point to weak ethical guardrails. A large group of trusted but constrained leaders can reveal an organisation that values good intentions while keeping real authority concentrated elsewhere.

Ultimately, leadership is a test of moral imagination. Power enables change, but it also exposes character. The board’s task is not merely to select impressive people. It is to create the conditions in which discretion is matched by responsibility and purpose can translate into action.

The most important question is not simply whether a leader can deliver. It is what they believe their power is for, and what the organisation is allowing them to do with it.

Nada Kakabadse is professor of policy, governance and ethics at Henley Business School. Her work continues to draw on and develop the extensive body of governance and leadership research she pursued jointly with her late husband, Professor Andrew Kakabadse.