The Reluctant Director – The Cost of Avoidance

Some directors know exactly what their roles require. They should develop their managers, question weak decisions, enforce governance and address harmful behaviour. Yet knowing becomes detached from doing. Another deadline looms, a possible complaint arises, or someone finds a reason to leave matters alone. The comfortable decision is to postpone intervention. The uncomfortable reality is that somebody else then carries the consequences of responsibilities that senior leadership has quietly chosen to avoid.

Avoidance rarely announces itself as neglect. It can look like trust, delegation, pragmatism, or respect for professional independence. These qualities have genuine value, but they lose that value when used to justify unchecked decisions and unsupported employees. A director who refuses to challenge an unsuitable supplier or investigate credible concerns is making a consequential choice. Leaving people to get on with their jobs requires clear boundaries, appropriate support and effective oversight.

In procurement and supply chains, the consequences can spread quickly. An unauthorised commitment creates financial exposure; unsuitable protective equipment creates safety concerns; neglected supplier payments weaken commercial relationships. Within the organisation, destructive conduct can drive capable managers away while the underlying problem remains. These failures do not all share the same cause. They do, however, show why leadership must pair authority with a willingness to examine evidence and take appropriate action.

Fairness requires recognising that some directors face excessive workloads, inadequate preparation or insufficient organisational support. Others lack confidence in difficult conversations or misunderstand the difference between legitimate management and oppressive interference. These conditions require attention, training and realistic expectations. However, explaining reluctance does not erase its consequences. Organisations must help leaders develop their capabilities while also holding them accountable when essential responsibilities remain neglected despite reasonable opportunities and support to improve.

Leadership is measured by what it enables and protects. Employees need development, managers need backing, and suppliers need decisions grounded in competence and integrity. Governing bodies need evidence that concerns receive attention and agreed actions are completed. None of this requires constant interference or confrontation for its own sake. It requires directors who understand that personal comfort cannot consistently take precedence over the responsibilities entrusted to them.

“I Know I Should, But…”

Avoidance often begins with an apparently reasonable explanation. A director has another deadline, an employee seems confident, or a difficult conversation might unsettle the department. Each justification can sound sensible on its own. The problem emerges when the same explanation repeatedly postpones necessary action. Coaching disappears, questionable decisions pass unexamined, and concerns remain unresolved. Over time, the organisation starts carrying risks its leadership has chosen not to address.

Insufficient time is particularly persuasive because senior roles genuinely involve competing demands. However, staff supervision is part of those demands, not an optional activity to fit around them. A director who continually postpones development discussions may eventually face avoidable mistakes, departures or formal disputes. The relevant question, therefore, is whether time is genuinely unavailable or whether uncomfortable responsibilities consistently lose priority to activities that feel easier or more rewarding.

Claims of confidence in staff autonomy also require examination. An experienced procurement manager may need little help with routine purchasing, yet still need challenge on supplier concentration, contractual exposure, or departures from approved procedures. Independence works best when responsibilities and reporting expectations are explicit. Assuming intervention will make matters worse can become an excuse to leave uncertainty untouched, especially when the director has never openly tested that assumption.

For company directors, reluctance does not displace legal obligations. Section 174 of the Companies Act 2006 requires reasonable care, skill and diligence, assessed against both an objective standard and the director’s actual expertise. A departmental director title does not automatically establish statutory company directorship. Nevertheless, managerial responsibilities remain grounded in the role, delegated authority and applicable rules. Neither status justifies repeatedly overlooking concerns that reasonably require attention and follow-through.¹

Why Some Directors Choose Personal Comfort

Some directors avoid intervention to stay liked. They associate a harmonious department with agreeable conversations and interpret disagreement as evidence of personal failure. Yet popularity can be purchased by leaving difficult decisions to somebody else. The unsupported manager handles the confrontation, conscientious employees absorb additional work, and suppliers encounter inconsistent instructions. The director enjoys immediate relief, while the consequences become someone else’s ongoing operational burden.

Emotional discomfort also matters. Discussing poor performance, inappropriate conduct or a failed commitment can provoke anxiety, particularly when an employee reacts defensively. Some leaders therefore offer reassurance when clarity is needed, or substitute vague encouragement for specific feedback. They may intend to preserve the relationship, but ambiguity leaves the employee uncertain about expectations. Problems then recur because neither the required change nor the available support is clearly explained.

Identifying a problem creates work. An unsuitable supplier may require replacement, a complaint may need investigation, and an inexperienced manager may need sustained coaching. Avoidance can therefore protect the director’s workload and personal comfort. The decision is rarely expressed so plainly. Instead, it may appear as another request to monitor the situation, another informal assurance, or another suggestion that the department resolve matters internally without further escalation.

Management research shows the human consequences. In its 2023 YouGov study, the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) found that 50% of workers who rated their manager ineffective intended to leave within twelve months, compared with 21% who rated their manager effective. These are reported intentions, not confirmed departures or proof of causation. Nevertheless, the difference challenges the assumption that avoiding uncomfortable management discussions necessarily preserves workforce stability.²

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) provides a documented warning about organisational culture. Its independent review, published in July 2024, identified safeguarding concerns and experiences of racism, discrimination and bullying. The NMC accepted the recommendations and committed to change. These findings point to serious problems that require leadership action; they do not reveal each leader’s private motivations. The practical lesson is that apparent institutional respectability offers little protection when harmful behaviour persists.³

Promoted for Expertise, Unprepared for Leadership

A successful specialist does not automatically become an effective director. Technical judgement, commercial negotiation and operational problem-solving are valuable capabilities, but leading people requires additional skills. A procurement specialist may understand tender evaluation while struggling to coach a category manager. A successful salesperson may secure contracts without knowing how to address intimidation within a team. Promotion recognises previous achievement; it does not, by itself, prepare somebody for different responsibilities.

The preparation gap is substantial. CMI research published in 2023 reported that 82% of managers entering management positions had received no formal management or leadership training. The research drew on more than 4,500 workers and managers across the United Kingdom (UK). The finding concerns management appointments broadly, not directors alone, but it shows how organisations can assign responsibility before developing the capabilities needed to exercise it.²

At senior level, the gap can become harder to admit. Directors may feel that asking for help undermines their credibility, particularly after being promoted as an expert. They retreat towards familiar technical work and leave people management to subordinate managers or human resources. This can produce an executive who remains visibly busy while difficult interpersonal issues receive little attention. Technical contribution continues, but the leadership responsibilities attached to promotion remain underdeveloped.

Preparation should therefore include observed practice, feedback, and support in making real decisions. New directors need opportunities to hold development discussions, explain expectations, and respectfully challenge evidence. Experienced colleagues can help them distinguish capability problems from misconduct and recognise when specialist advice is necessary. Organisations should assess progress through the quality of decisions and staff support, not attendance certificates alone. Organisations share responsibility when they appoint leaders without preparing them.

When Workload Becomes an Excuse – or a Genuine Constraint

Some directors are genuinely overloaded. Their responsibilities may cover multiple locations, numerous direct reports, major projects and unresolved vacancies. Expecting unlimited availability under these conditions is unrealistic. The distinction lies in what happens next. Responsible leaders make capacity problems visible, seek adjustments and protect essential supervision. Habitual avoidance leaves the same commitments repeatedly unfinished without proposing changes, clarifying priorities or explaining which risks the organisation is being asked to accept.

Workload pressures have significant wider consequences. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) estimated that 964,000 workers in Great Britain experienced work-related stress, depression or anxiety in 2024/25. It estimated the cost of workplace injuries and new cases of work-related ill health at £22.9 billion for 2023/24. These figures cover multiple causes and cannot be attributed to directors’ avoidance, but they demonstrate the scale of the surrounding workplace challenge.⁴

The HSE Management Standards identify six areas relevant to work-related stress: demands, control, support, relationships, role and change. These provide a useful structure for examining overloaded leadership positions. Excessive responsibilities, conflicting expectations and insufficient support can weaken management capacity. Addressing these conditions requires organisational action, rather than simply asking directors to become more resilient. The framework also helps distinguish pressures that need redesign from responsibilities that remain achievable but neglected.⁵

No single number of direct reports suits everyone. A dispersed team handling complex contracts may need more support than a stable team completing predictable activities. Organisations should consider experience, operational risk, geographical spread and the availability of supporting managers. Adding responsibilities without reviewing capacity can quietly remove time for coaching and scrutiny. The resulting absence of supervision may then be blamed on individual motivation despite an unrealistic job design.

Prioritisation must also reflect consequences. A presentation can sometimes be rescheduled; a credible safety concern may require immediate intervention. Directors should protect recurring development time, delegate routine administration and establish cover for absence. Where resources remain insufficient, they should record the shortfall and escalate it to the appropriate authority. This makes the constraint reviewable and forces a decision on capacity, rather than letting essential leadership activity disappear without acknowledgement.

When Organisational Incentives Reward Avoidance

The organisation itself can encourage avoidance. Directors learn which results earn praise and which disclosures create trouble. If bonuses depend heavily on short-term savings, revenue or delivery speed, investment in development may seem unrewarding. Raising a concern can threaten a target, delay a contract or expose weaknesses in earlier decisions. A culture that celebrates favourable numbers without examining their foundations creates incentives to preserve reassurance and suppress uncertainty.

Lloyds Banking Group illustrates the risks of poorly controlled incentives. In December 2013, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed combined fines of £28,038,800 on two group banks for serious failings in controls over sales incentive schemes. It found that 229 advisers at one bank received bonuses despite every assessed sale being unsuitable or potentially unsuitable; thirty did so more than once. Supervising managers also faced sales targets, creating a conflict requiring effective control and oversight.⁶

In procurement, similar pressures can arise when reported savings dominate appraisal. Employees may favour a low quotation while overlooking quality, resilience or implementation costs. A director rewarded for immediate savings may hesitate to question the result, particularly when a review would expose weaknesses in the department’s headline achievement. Better measures consider compliance, supplier performance and realised value alongside price. Otherwise, organisational rewards can make responsible challenge appear commercially inconvenient internally.

The absence of complaints is equally ambiguous. It may indicate a well-managed department, but it can also reflect fear, resignation or distrust in reporting arrangements. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) reported in its 2025 public sector analysis that only 43% of employees trusted their leaders to act with integrity. This is a perception measure, not a misconduct finding, but it cautions against treating silence as reassurance.⁷

Trust and Delegation Without Losing Oversight

Effective delegation begins with clarity about outcomes, authority and boundaries. Employees should understand which decisions they can make, which approvals they require and when they must escalate uncertainty. Directors should agree how progress and risk will be reported. These arrangements protect independence because staff do not need permission for every routine action. They also protect the organisation by ensuring significant commitments and exceptions receive attention before their consequences become difficult to manage.

Company directors cannot assume that appointing a capable colleague removes their own responsibilities. Government guidance explains that professional assistance does not remove responsibility for company records, accounts and performance. The Companies Act 2006 also requires independent judgement and reasonable care, skill and diligence. Delegation remains legitimate, but informed oversight matters. Public bodies operate under their own statutory and governance arrangements, so company-law duties should not be transferred indiscriminately to every organisation.^1,8

Santander UK demonstrates the consequences of ineffective oversight. In December 2022, the FCA fined the bank £107,793,300 for serious and persistent weaknesses in its anti-money laundering controls. The findings covered failures affecting oversight of more than 560,000 business customers between December 2012 and October 2017. The case concerns regulated banking controls, but its wider management lesson is recognisable: allocating responsibilities achieves little unless monitoring and corrective action work effectively.⁹

The FCA identified an account opened for a small translation business expecting monthly deposits of £5,000. Within six months, it was receiving millions. The bank’s own anti-money laundering team recommended closing it in March 2014, yet poor processes and structures meant nothing happened until September 2015. This documented delay illustrates why internal warnings need ownership, deadlines and follow-up. Raising a concern should trigger a controlled response, not merely transfer information between departments.⁹

Proportionate oversight can include exception reports, sample checks and periodic reviews of significant commitments. A director might examine contracts approaching approval limits, unexplained supplier changes or repeated departures from an agreed process. Competent staff can handle routine decisions. More intensive review should follow increased risk, material concerns or evidence of weak performance. Trust becomes sustainable when its supporting arrangements allow both independence and timely correction when circumstances require it.

The Fear of Being Accused of Micromanagement

Some directors hesitate to ask questions for fear of appearing intrusive. That concern becomes harmful when it prevents directors from examining significant risks. Requesting the evidence supporting a supplier appointment, checking an approval or reviewing a contractual commitment can be legitimate supervision. The relevant test is whether the intervention has a clear purpose and is proportionate to the decision. Staff autonomy does not require directors to accept every assurance without scrutiny.

Micromanagement usually becomes visible through excessive control over routine methods, repeated unnecessary approvals and constant checking disconnected from risk. Employees lose discretion despite demonstrating competence, while the director becomes a bottleneck. Sensible oversight operates differently: expectations are agreed, information requirements are explained, and interventions focus on material concerns. The same question can feel supportive or oppressive depending on its frequency, tone, context, and the freedom employees retain to respond professionally.

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) draws a useful distinction in its bullying guidance. A manager privately explaining mistakes and how to correct them is acting appropriately. In contrast, checking every item of work, emailing about minor errors, and using belittling language is likely to constitute bullying behaviour. The distinction supports purposeful supervision while showing why a legitimate management concern does not excuse an excessive or demeaning response.¹⁰

Directors can reduce uncertainty by agreeing review points before problems arise. A new manager may receive closer support while learning a complex responsibility, with oversight reduced as competence develops. A serious control failure may justify temporarily increasing checks, provided the reason and review arrangements are explained. These decisions should be evidence-based and consistent. When supervision has transparent boundaries, staff can understand its purpose without assuming that every question signals personal distrust.

When Fear of a Bullying Complaint Prevents Management

Fear of a complaint can push directors towards silence, but respectful management remains necessary. Clear expectations, private feedback and an opportunity to respond can help employees correct problems before formal action becomes necessary. ACAS explicitly recognises that explaining mistakes and how to correct them is not automatically bullying. Nevertheless, directors must examine how feedback is delivered. Repeated humiliation, threats or personal attacks cannot be justified simply by pointing to a performance concern.¹⁰

Complaints should receive prompt, impartial consideration rather than automatic dismissal or unquestioning acceptance. The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures emphasises investigation, consistency, an opportunity to respond and appeal. Where an employee raises a grievance during disciplinary proceedings, the process may be temporarily suspended. Where the matters are related, concurrent handling may be appropriate. The circumstances therefore require judgement; a complaint neither proves misconduct nor automatically prevents management from acting.¹¹

Procedural fairness also has financial significance. Employment tribunals can adjust awards in relevant cases by up to 25% for an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. This is not an automatic penalty for every mishandled meeting, and the Code’s application depends on the case. It nevertheless reinforces a practical point: competent, fair procedures address fear of legal exposure better than indefinitely avoiding necessary decisions.^11,12

Legal distinctions matter. Bullying is not a standalone statutory claim under that label, although conduct may engage other legal protections. Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment includes certain unwanted conduct related to relevant protected characteristics, as well as sexual harassment and associated treatment. Employers must also make reasonable adjustments where the statutory duty applies. Fair performance management therefore requires attention to disability and discrimination, alongside the organisation’s legitimate standards and expectations.^13,14

Senior leaders should support managers who act reasonably while remaining willing to investigate allegations against them. Removing all authority at the first complaint can leave genuine performance or conduct concerns unresolved; refusing to examine a complaint can expose employees to continuing harm. Independent advice, careful records and proportionate interim arrangements help protect both sides. The objective is a fair resolution that addresses the evidence and preserves appropriate accountability throughout the process.

Coaching, Mentoring and Training That Never Happen

Development is often postponed because its benefits appear less immediate than operational delivery. Yet a manager expected to lead supplier reviews, manage contracts or challenge staff behaviour needs more than a job description. Coaching helps examine current decisions, mentoring draws on another person’s experience and training develops specific knowledge or skills. These activities serve different purposes, but all require directors to recognise capability gaps and provide meaningful opportunities to address them.

The UK Employer Skills Survey 2024 estimated total employer training expenditure at £53.0 billion, down from £59.0 billion in 2022, both figures in 2024 prices. This represented a real-terms decrease of 10.2%. Estimated expenditure per employee fell from £1,960 to £1,700, and spending per person trained dropped from £3,250 to £2,710. These measures include broader training costs, not just leadership courses, but they show that organisations must develop capability despite reduced investment.¹⁵

Experience does not remove the need for support. CIPD analysis published in September 2025 found that only about two-thirds of public sector employees said their manager helped them perform well or provided useful feedback. A long-serving employee can still face unfamiliar responsibilities, changing requirements or difficult relationships. Directors should therefore review development needs based on current work and future responsibilities, rather than assume length of service demonstrates competence in every situation.⁷

Weak professional support can have substantial consequences. In August 2014, the FCA fined Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest £14,474,600 over failings in mortgage advice. Only two of 164 reviewed sales met the required overall process standard. The bank did not properly address concerns raised in November 2011 until September 2012. The case shows why development and quality assurance must deliver verified improvements in practice, not just reassuring statements about progress.¹⁶

The Missing One-to-One

A regular one-to-one creates space for matters that rarely emerge in operational meetings. A manager can explain competing priorities, uncertainty about a decision, or difficulties with a colleague without having to address the entire department. Directors gain a clearer understanding of how work is actually progressing. Without these discussions, reporting can become dominated by completed tasks and reassuring figures, while the pressures affecting judgement and delivery remain largely invisible to leadership.

ACAS recommends regular performance reviews, suggesting at least an annual review, alongside ongoing feedback, coaching and informal check-ins. Its guidance also recommends recording discussions and sharing the record with the employee. A monthly meeting can provide a useful organisational rhythm, but frequency should reflect circumstances. Newly appointed managers, substantial changes or emerging problems may require more frequent conversations than established responsibilities operating reliably within agreed expectations and clear reporting arrangements.¹⁷

Preparation determines whether the meeting becomes useful. Both participants should consider recent commitments, outstanding decisions, development needs, and risks that require attention. The director should review earlier actions rather than ask the manager to reconstruct every previous discussion. The manager also needs an opportunity to identify subjects that matter to them personally. A shared agenda helps prevent the conversation from becoming another briefing dominated entirely by the director’s immediate operational interests and preferred priorities.

Relationship difficulties deserve particular attention because they can remain hidden behind satisfactory results. A manager may meet deadlines while dealing with intimidation, withheld information, or persistent undermining. The director should seek examples, listen without prejudging and establish what support or investigation is appropriate. Directors should handle confidentiality realistically: sensitive information requires careful treatment, but an absolute promise of secrecy may be inappropriate when safety, misconduct, or safeguarding concerns emerge.

Meetings achieve little when commitments vanish afterwards. Agreed actions should identify an owner, a realistic deadline and any support needed. Directors should explain decisions, check progress and acknowledge when their own commitments remain outstanding. The next discussion should examine what changed, rather than repeat familiar concerns indefinitely. This approach links conversation to delivery and shows the organisation values the manager’s contribution enough to respond when legitimate difficulties are raised.

When Procurement Governance Becomes Optional

Procurement governance weakens when mandatory requirements become matters of personal preference. Staff bypass competition, approve commitments beyond their authority or retrospectively describe an avoidable shortcut as an emergency. Directors may accept these explanations because the purchase arrived on time or the supplier appears reliable. However, a satisfactory immediate outcome does not establish that the decision was properly authorised, fairly competed or supported by sufficient evidence about value and organisational exposure.

The legal route must be distinguished from internal requirements. Under the Procurement Act 2023, applicable public contracts can be competed through an open procedure or a competitive flexible procedure. Direct awards and framework arrangements have their own legal conditions. Therefore, an open tender is not mandatory for every purchase. Nevertheless, staff cannot disregard an organisation’s stricter approved requirements merely because another route might be legally available in different circumstances elsewhere.¹⁸

The Procurement Act 2023 took effect on 24 February 2025, with transitional arrangements preserving previous rules for relevant earlier procurements and contracts. Devolved Scottish authorities generally operate under separate procurement legislation, with provisions governing cross-border arrangements. Directors therefore need to establish the applicable regime before approving an exception. A private business’s internal tendering policy also differs from public procurement law, although contractual obligations and other legal requirements may still apply.^18,19

Exceptions should have a recorded justification, an authorised decision-maker and any necessary legal or procurement advice. Repeated exceptions deserve additional scrutiny because they may reveal inadequate planning, unsuitable processes or deliberate avoidance. Directors should examine patterns across suppliers, employees and expenditure, rather than consider each incident separately. When breaches recur, support and training may help, but clear accountability is also necessary. An unenforced procedure eventually becomes an unreliable organisational safeguard.

Liverpool City Council – Governance That Failed to Protect the Organisation

Liverpool City Council’s Best Value inspection, published in March 2021, examined planning, highways, regeneration, property management and associated governance. The inspectors described failures in scrutiny, accountability and record-keeping, and many interviewees called the regeneration management style intimidating. These findings concerned systems, culture, and decisions, not a judgement that every employee had failed. The case shows how professional controls can lose their protective value when challenging becomes difficult and oversight weakens.²⁰

The inspection identified approximately £23 million spent through spot purchase orders, with the Premises Management Unit spending entirely through exemptions. It highlighted the absence of a suitable contract for hard facilities management services and associated weaknesses in expenditure control, estate compliance and management information. The lesson extends beyond tendering: repeated exemptions can prevent an organisation from understanding its commitments, planning maintenance, and monitoring estate risks.²⁰

Another concern involved highways compensation events valued at under £5,000, which site management signed off. The inspection recommended greater scrutiny by the designated central contract manager while highways restructuring continued. Small individual amounts can collectively create significant exposure, particularly where changes are frequent or poorly recorded. Directors overseeing delegated approvals should therefore understand cumulative commitments, patterns of variation and the quality of evidence supporting additional expenditure over time.²⁰

The wider lesson is that procurement cannot protect an organisation alone. Finance, legal services, operational management and scrutiny arrangements must be able to challenge decisions before commitments become difficult to reverse. Directors should ensure specialist advice reaches the right decision-maker and that they record and resolve disagreements. A control framework becomes fragile when professional objections are treated as obstacles, or when staff believe that questioning instructions threatens their position.

The statutory intervention later involved government-appointed commissioners, showing how serious governance failures can trigger external oversight. The council’s records confirm that the directions and commissioner appointments expired on 9 June 2024, ending that intervention. This chronology matters: the 2021 findings describe a particular period and should not be presented as a complete assessment of the council today. Directors elsewhere can nevertheless apply the lessons to their own current governance arrangements.²¹

Effective prevention requires more than rewriting standing orders. Directors should review exemption patterns, test approval controls and check whether contract information is complete and accessible. Staff need clear reporting routes and confidence that concerns will receive a fair hearing. Internal audit findings should lead to assigned actions and verified completion. Central leadership must ensure governance shapes daily decisions, especially when compliance becomes inconvenient or contested.

Supplier Selection Beyond Price and Familiarity

Familiarity can make supplier selection feel safer than it is. A longstanding relationship, a persuasive representative, or a successful previous order may encourage staff to assume the supplier’s wider capability is already established. Yet a supplier suitable for routine consumables may be unsuitable for specialist equipment or a substantially larger contract. Directors should expect evidence that matches the proposed commitment, rather than letting personal confidence replace an assessment of delivery capability.

Under section 22 of the Procurement Act 2023, conditions of participation must be proportionate to the assessment of legal and financial capacity or technical ability. The nature, complexity and cost of the contract matter. Suppliers must meet these conditions before they can be awarded the contract. These safeguards support meaningful assessment while discouraging unnecessary barriers that exclude capable suppliers simply because they are smaller, newer or organised differently.¹⁸

Financial assessment should look beyond a headline credit score. Accounts, cash generation, debt exposure, ownership, and dependence on major customers can show whether the supplier can sustain delivery. The depth of review should reflect the consequences of failure. A small routine order may need limited checks; a critical service or substantial advance payment requires stronger assurance. Historical accounts also need interpretation because conditions may have changed since publication.

Technical capability requires evidence from people, processes and facilities. Relevant qualifications, product documentation, references, samples and proportionate site visits can help establish whether the supplier can meet the actual requirement. Capacity should include existing commitments, subcontracting arrangements and recovery options if production or transport fails. Directors should challenge assessments that merely reproduce marketing claims. An attractive quotation has limited value if the organisation cannot verify how the supplier will deliver the promised service.

Conflicts of interest require equally careful attention. Personal relationships, undisclosed financial interests or inappropriate benefits can distort judgement even where a supplier appears capable. The organisation should establish declarations, independent review and appropriate separation of responsibilities. Procurement approval should clearly record why the organisation considered the supplier suitable, how it assessed competing evidence, and who authorised the decision. Familiarity is useful only when supported by transparent, current assurance.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Procurement – When an Unsuitable Supplier Creates Safety Exposure

PPE purchasing starts with the hazard, not the catalogue. Equipment must provide the protection required for the task, working environment and individual user. Gloves suitable for one chemical may be unsuitable for another; protective footwear may need particular performance characteristics. A supplier’s ability to deliver a broad range of products does not establish competence in every industrial sector. Directors should expect specifications developed with appropriate safety expertise and operational input.

In Great Britain, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, as amended, require employers to provide, assess, ensure compatibility, maintain, and instruct on suitable PPE. From 6 April 2022, amendments extended these duties to more workers. PPE required for work must be provided free of charge. Separate arrangements apply in Northern Ireland. These duties require attention to actual protection; purchasing from an established supplier does not, by itself, demonstrate compliance.²²

Product conformity and workplace suitability are related but different questions. HSE guidance states that most new PPE placed on the Great Britain market must carry UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) or Conformité Européenne (CE) marking, with a declaration of conformity and English instructions. Procurement should verify documentation against the exact product supplied. An appropriate mark does not establish that the equipment protects against every hazard or fits every intended user correctly.²³

Respiratory protection demonstrates why purchasing decisions require specialist input. HSE guidance explains that tight-fitting facepieces need fit testing to establish suitability for the wearer, with testing repeated where relevant circumstances change. Different makes, models and sizes can fit differently. A supplier offering a compliant respirator therefore does not resolve the employer’s entire responsibility. Procurement must support access to suitable alternatives, while competent assessors and operational managers establish appropriate selection and use.²⁴

Responsibilities should be coordinated clearly. Safety specialists identify hazards and required protection; operational users contribute knowledge about fit, comfort and practical conditions; procurement verifies supplier capability, documentation and contractual commitments. Directors ensure unresolved technical concerns receive attention before approving orders. Substitutions should undergo appropriate review rather than arrive through informal agreement. Combining expertise makes procurement more reliable, particularly where an apparently minor product change can alter the protection provided.

Traceability and continuity also matter. Records should link supplied products to manufacturers, relevant conformity documents, and any batch information needed for recalls or investigations. Storage conditions, shelf life and replacement availability should be considered where relevant. A supplier unable to maintain an approved product range may pressure teams to make unsafe substitutions. Directors should support contingency planning and ensure shortages trigger informed decisions, rather than letting urgency override unresolved safety concerns.

Pandemic PPE Contracts – Assurance Under Exceptional Pressure

Pandemic purchasing took place under extraordinary conditions. In early 2020, demand rose sharply while international supply was constrained, prices increased, and buyers competed for scarce products. Conventional purchasing arrangements could not simply continue unchanged. Any fair assessment must recognise these circumstances and the urgency of protecting workers. However, emergency conditions also increased the importance of clear specifications, reliable supplier information, and arrangements to check what arrived after contracts were awarded.

The National Audit Office (NAO) reported in March 2022 that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) had spent £12.6 billion of the £13.1 billion it expected to spend on PPE. The programme involved almost 10,000 contracts and approximately 38 billion PPE items. These figures demonstrate the scale of the response and the difficulty of managing deliveries, stock and disputes across established purchasing channels and newly created supply routes.²⁵

The NAO reported 176 contracts in dispute, with an estimated £2.7 billion at risk of not representing full value for money. That figure was exposure, not a confirmed loss. Its findings also distinguished equipment that could not be used from equipment awaiting checks or documentation. Treating every item unavailable for immediate frontline use as defective would therefore misrepresent the evidence and obscure the different contractual and operational problems involved.²⁵

Storage created substantial additional costs. The NAO reported £737 million of PPE storage costs between March 2020 and October 2021, including £436 million in container-related penalty charges. It also reported an estimated 3.9 billion excess items and 1.5 billion items thought to have expired. These were dated findings, not current stock figures. They show why purchasing volumes, delivery schedules, warehouse capacity, and shelf life must be considered together.²⁵

For directors, the lesson concerns assurance throughout the contract’s life. Reliable receipt records, stock visibility and prompt escalation of discrepancies should accompany supplier checks and technical approval. Emergency procurement may justify different routes where the law permits, but it does not remove the need to manage resulting commitments. Leadership should also distinguish unavoidable market pressures from weaknesses that better preparation, clearer ownership or more effective follow-through could have reduced.

When Destructive Behaviour Is Allowed to Continue

Destructive behaviour is best described through observable actions. Intimidation, persistent undermining, withholding essential information, and retaliating against colleagues all affect how work gets done. Labelling an employee as narcissistic offers less practical value than recording what happened, who was affected, and how the conduct influenced decisions. Directors need to distinguish isolated disagreement from repeated behaviour that damages relationships, weakens controls, or prevents a manager from effectively exercising legitimate responsibilities.

Some employees become difficult to challenge because they have valuable knowledge, important relationships, or a reputation for delivering results. Directors may fear losing them and tolerate conduct they would challenge elsewhere. This creates unequal expectations and signals that commercial contribution can outweigh acceptable behaviour. The organisation also becomes increasingly dependent on the individual, making later intervention harder. Performance should therefore be assessed alongside conduct, cooperation and the quality of organisational outcomes.

Managers need support when they raise well-founded concerns about their teams. A director should seek evidence, hear relevant accounts and clarify whether the issue concerns capability, conduct or working relationships. Simply telling the manager to improve their interpersonal skills can become a way to avoid an investigation. Equally, directors should not automatically accept a manager’s allegations. A fair assessment protects employees from unjust criticism while ensuring genuine harmful behaviour receives an appropriate response.

Withheld information can be particularly damaging in procurement and supply chains. Colleagues may lose visibility of supplier commitments, stock problems, or delivery changes. A director who tolerates this conduct may unintentionally weaken segregation of duties and prevent effective challenge. Clear access arrangements, documented responsibilities and independent checks reduce dependence on personal cooperation. Where deliberate obstruction is established, corrective action should address the behaviour rather than merely rearrange reporting lines around it.

When the Manager Leaves and the Problem Remains

A manager’s departure can make it seem that a difficult situation has been resolved. Meetings become quieter, a grievance closes, or a challenging relationship disappears from the director’s immediate workload. Yet the underlying behaviour may continue, now affecting a replacement or spreading across the department. Directors should therefore ask what the departure reveals about leadership support and organisational conditions, rather than assume that the person who left was necessarily the problem.

Retention pressures make these losses especially significant. CIPD’s Resourcing and Talent Planning Report 2024 found that 56% of respondents considered talent harder to retain than a year earlier, rising to 71% among public sector respondents. These are survey perceptions, not evidence that every departure reflects poor management. Nevertheless, they show why organisations should carefully examine preventable losses, particularly when experienced employees leave after repeatedly raising concerns about conduct or support.²⁶

Replacement costs extend beyond recruitment fees. The same CIPD report identified median recruitment costs of £2,000 for senior managers and directors and £1,500 for other employees among respondents who provided sufficiently accurate estimates. It cautioned that the sample was small and that included costs varied. These figures should not be mistaken for the full cost of turnover, which can also include temporary cover, induction, lost capacity and time spent rebuilding operational knowledge.²⁶

In procurement, departing managers may take detailed knowledge of supplier history, negotiations, contractual weaknesses and forthcoming renewals. Records can reduce the loss but rarely capture every judgement developed through experience. The remaining team may face additional work while decisions slow down. If harmful conduct continues unchecked, employees may also learn that managing it properly carries greater personal risk than staying silent. That lesson weakens confidence in leadership and future accountability.

Exit discussions should therefore connect with earlier concerns, staff feedback and evidence about departmental behaviour. Directors should consider whether the manager received appropriate authority, development and practical support. Where misconduct is alleged, a departure does not automatically remove the need to investigate. Replacement appointments should include changes that address established weaknesses. Otherwise, recruitment merely restarts the same cycle, with another capable manager expected to solve problems senior leadership keeps avoiding.

The NMC – Culture and Management Failures

The NMC’s July 2024 independent culture review offers a substantial example of the connection between internal management and organisational purpose. Conducted by Nazir Afzal and Rise Associates, it drew on experiences shared by more than 1,000 current and former colleagues and over 200 fitness-to-practise panel members. The review identified racism, discrimination, bullying and safeguarding concerns. Its findings show why a regulator’s professional mission does not guarantee a healthy internal workplace.³

The NMC acknowledged that previous responses had not done enough to address racism, discrimination and bullying or hold people accountable. It also described markedly different experiences within the same organisation: two colleagues passing in a corridor could experience the organisation very differently. This challenges the assumption that positive accounts from senior or successful employees establish a healthy culture throughout an organisation. Directors need evidence from different teams, grades and experiences before drawing reassuring conclusions.²⁷

The relationship between culture and service delivery is central. Staff working under pressure need support, clear priorities and confidence that difficult information will be heard. Where people fear speaking up, weaknesses in case handling or safeguarding can remain unresolved. The leadership lesson applies beyond professional regulation: procurement controls, supplier assurance and safety decisions also depend on employees being able to question practices without expecting hostility, dismissal or damage to their careers.

In its July 2024 response, the NMC referred to an existing £30 million, eighteen-month improvement plan for fitness-to-practise work. It also announced plans to double spending on colleague learning and development, covering leadership, line management, safeguarding and poor behaviour. These were commitments at the time, not proof that all improvements were delivered. Their importance lies in recognising that procedural changes require investment in the people implementing them.^27,28

Development must also change everyday management behaviour. Directors should be able to discuss workload, recognise inappropriate conduct and respond consistently when concerns arise. Training has limited value if employees still encounter defensive management responses or unexplained delays when raising concerns. Organisations should therefore examine whether support improves, decisions become clearer, and complaints receive timely attention. A learning budget is an input; the quality of staff experience and operational practice provides stronger evidence of progress.

Accountability requires sustained follow-through. Governing bodies should ask how recommendations are being implemented, what evidence demonstrates improvement and which problems remain unresolved. Staff feedback needs to inform that assessment without being reduced to a reassuring average. The NMC case should not be used to speculate about individual leaders’ motives. It supports a more defensible conclusion: organisational culture requires active supervision, and acknowledging serious failures must be followed by demonstrable corrective action.

Warnings Received, Action Deferred – Winterbourne View

Winterbourne View was an independent hospital operated by Castlebeck Care, where abuse of patients was exposed through a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama investigation broadcast in May 2011. The case crossed organisational boundaries, involving the provider, commissioners and regulatory oversight. It illustrates the devastating consequences when warning information fails to provide effective protection. Receiving a concern is only the beginning; organisations must assess its significance and respond promptly and in a coordinated way.²⁹

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) later acknowledged that it had not responded to a whistleblower’s concerns about the hospital as it should have and apologised to patients and their families. Its subsequent review found failings in how it involved whistleblowers and processed the information they provided. The evidence concerns a failure to respond, rather than proof that everyone who received the information understood the full extent of the abuse.^29,30

The criminal consequences were substantial. The Department of Health’s final review, published in December 2012, recorded that all eleven individuals charged had pleaded guilty and been sentenced, with six receiving custodial sentences. Prosecutors treated the offences as disability hate crimes. These outcomes underline the seriousness of the conduct involved and demonstrate why concerns about treatment and safeguarding cannot be managed simply as uncomfortable interpersonal disputes within an organisation.²⁹

Recording, investigating and correcting are separate responsibilities. A logged email establishes that information arrived, but not that its significance was assessed. An investigation needs appropriate evidence, competent oversight and a clear outcome. Corrective action then requires ownership and verification that people are protected. Directors should understand these stages and ensure referrals don’t disappear between departments. When immediate risks exist, protective measures may be necessary before resolving every factual question.

For procurement and supply chain leaders, the parallel concerns are contracted services and supplier oversight. A contract, inspection schedule or performance report cannot replace attention to credible warning signs. Staff and service users may identify problems that formal measures overlook. Directors should ensure that concerns reach people with authority to act and that responses are checked. Effective escalation is measured by the protection it provides, not by the number of reports recorded or meetings held.

Financial Oversight Cannot Be Delegated Away

Directors do not need to undertake every accounting task themselves, but they need sufficient understanding to assess the organisation’s financial position. Cash flow, liabilities, margins, and contractual commitments influence whether the organisation can deliver promises sustainably. A reassuring presentation is insufficient if the assumptions remain unexplained. Directors should understand where reported performance comes from, which obligations require future funding and how changes in costs, demand or payment timing could affect available resources.

Profit and cash answer different questions. A contract may appear profitable while payment remains delayed, disputed or dependent on unfinished work. Meanwhile, employees and suppliers still need to be paid. Directors should examine receipts, overdue balances, payment commitments and financing arrangements alongside reported margins. Procurement decisions also create future obligations through minimum purchases, extensions and termination provisions. These commitments require visibility even where the expenditure has not yet appeared in a routine monthly report.

Optimistic forecasts need disciplined examination. Assumptions about sales, savings, inflation, and project completion should be evidence-based and tested against less favourable outcomes. Directors should ask why earlier predictions were missed and whether corrective action actually changed performance. Repeatedly accepting revised forecasts without examining the causes can conceal continuing deterioration. Financial specialists should be encouraged to explain uncertainty plainly, rather than adjust their message to suit the leadership team’s preferred expectations.

The Companies Act 2006 requires company directors to exercise independent judgement and reasonable care, skill and diligence. Government guidance makes clear that professional assistance does not remove their responsibilities for records, accounts and performance. This does not require every director to become an accountant. It does require an appropriate understanding, asking questions, and taking action. Public sector directors likewise need to fulfil the financial responsibilities attached to their roles and applicable governance arrangements.^1,8

Carillion – Financial Decisions and the Supplier Consequences

Carillion’s liquidation began on 15 January 2018, disrupting a business that employed about 18,200 people in the UK and held around 420 public sector contracts. Those arrangements included services supporting hospitals, schools, prisons and transport. The NAO’s investigation examined the government’s handling of the collapse rather than determining directors’ culpability. Its findings nevertheless demonstrate how financial failure within a major contractor can create dependencies and disruption far beyond the company itself.³¹

The parliamentary inquiry reached direct conclusions about board responsibility and challenged the reliability of Carillion’s reported performance. On the Royal Liverpool University Hospital contract, a November 2016 peer review suggested a 12.7% loss, yet management retained a 4.9% profit margin in the 2016 accounts, a difference worth roughly £53 million. The episode illustrates why directors must examine adverse evidence rather than accept assumptions merely because they support reassuring results.³²

Borrowing and uncertain revenue recognition compounded the problem. The parliamentary report recorded £961 million in borrowing in the September 2017 interim results. It also examined revenue recognised for work customers had not yet certified, including £294 million recorded in December 2016. These figures require attention because they reflect different reporting dates and meanings. The management lesson is to scrutinise headline revenue and reported profit alongside cash generation, debt, and payment uncertainty.³²

Suppliers experienced the consequences directly. Carillion owed around £2 billion to about 30,000 suppliers, sub-contractors, and other short-term creditors, and its standard payment terms stretched to 120 days. Earlier, discounted supply chain finance was available. The parliamentary report highlighted Vaughan Engineering, which entered administration in March 2018 believing it was owed £830,000. This is an attributed account, but it demonstrates how unpaid obligations can destabilise another business’s finances and employment.³²

The public consequences required substantial intervention. In June 2018, the NAO estimated the taxpayer cost of liquidation at £148 million, while stressing uncertainty about the eventual total. It reported that almost all services continued uninterrupted, although work on some construction contracts stopped. These findings distinguish successful continuity arrangements from the wider costs of failure. Directors should understand both the immediate disruption and the resources needed to protect dependent services.³¹

For procurement leaders, Carillion connects financial oversight with supplier protection. Extending payment terms can improve the buyer’s immediate position while transferring pressure elsewhere. Directors should therefore examine whether working-capital practices are sustainable across the supply chain, rather than celebrate cash improvements without understanding their source. Supplier distress, disputed balances and reliance on financing arrangements deserve attention before failure occurs. A business cannot build dependable delivery indefinitely on suppliers whose financial resilience it continually weakens.

Northamptonshire County Council – When Financial Challenge Loses Its Voice

Northamptonshire County Council’s March 2018 Best Value inspection identified failures in budgetary control and scrutiny. A particularly revealing finding concerned an October 2015 letter from the section 151 officer warning of “a significant financial crisis”. The inspection found no evidence of effective budgetary control following that warning. A section 114 notice was eventually issued on 2 February 2018. The sequence shows why receiving expert advice is insufficient when leaders fail to respond effectively.³³

The inspection described an environment where senior members and officers discouraged challenge and criticism, appearing to consider their own judgement superior. It also found that audit committee scrutiny had been repeatedly thwarted, with requested reports taking considerable time to arrive. Financial challenge cannot operate effectively under those conditions. Directors need to ensure information reaches scrutiny bodies promptly and that they examine professional disagreement, rather than delay it or treat it defensively.³³

Budget ownership should connect responsibility with reliable information. Managers need to understand actual spending, commitments, forecast pressures and the actions required to remain within approved limits. Directors should distinguish unavoidable demand changes from unachieved savings or discretionary spending. Simply carrying an overspend into the next budget can normalise failure. When commitments exceed available resources, directors should escalate decisions transparently so the organisation can reconsider priorities, funding, or delivery expectations before further deterioration.

Recovery required both stronger controls and financial assistance. The commissioners’ third report, published in October 2019, recorded resolving a projected £30 million overspend in 2018/19. It also described an approved £70 million capitalisation request to support recovery, including a £34 million deficit uncovered in 2017/18. Capitalisation permission should not be described as a £70 million grant. The case demonstrates why sound management and an adequate recovery framework must work together.³⁴

Independent assurance needs a route to influence decisions. Finance officers, auditors, and scrutiny committees should be able to identify problems without relying on the goodwill of those responsible. Directors should respond with clear actions, deadlines and evidence of completion. Northamptonshire’s experience also cautions against treating new structures as substitutes for basic discipline. An organisational redesign cannot compensate for inaccurate information, unclear budget responsibility or an unwillingness to challenge recurring overspending.

Conflicts of Interest and Concerns About Improper Benefits

Conflicts of interest can arise before any improper payment occurs. A procurement employee may have a personal relationship with a supplier, a financial interest in a business, or an outside role that affects judgement. The organisation needs current, relevant declarations for decisions being made. Directors should ensure that identified conflicts receive an appropriate response, which may include independent assessment or withdrawal from particular responsibilities, rather than treating disclosure as sufficient protection.

Gifts and hospitality require context. Ministry of Justice guidance recognises reasonable, proportionate business hospitality but also explains that expenditure can conceal bribery. Therefore, timing, value, purpose, and influence over decisions matter. An organisation may impose stricter internal rules than the criminal law. Staff should understand approval requirements and record relevant offers, including rejected ones where policy requires. Familiar industry practice does not automatically establish that an arrangement is appropriate.³⁵

Company directors also have specific duties concerning conflicts, interests in proposed transactions and third-party benefits. Section 176 of the Companies Act 2006 addresses benefits conferred because of directorship or acts undertaken as a director. Its exception concerns benefits that cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to create a conflict. These rules should not be reduced to the blanket assumption that every modest gift is unlawful, or that disclosure automatically permits acceptance.¹

Credible concerns about improper influence require proportionate investigation. Unexplained supplier preferences, unusual payment arrangements or undisclosed benefits may justify examining records and seeking independent advice. They indicate issues that require assessment, not proof of an offence. Directors should preserve relevant evidence, manage conflicts in the investigation and avoid unsupported accusations. Equally, concern about disruption should not become a reason for silence. The response should establish facts and address any risks requiring prompt protective action.

Petrofac – The Consequences of Failing to Prevent Bribery

Petrofac Limited’s established corporate offences clearly show commercial controls failing to prevent bribery. In October 2021, the company pleaded guilty to seven offences involving failure to prevent bribery between 2011 and 2017. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) records that the sentence included a fine of £47,197,640, confiscation of £22,836,985, and prosecution costs of £7 million. These amounts total approximately £77 million and represent distinct elements of the financial outcome.³⁶

The individual and corporate outcomes should be distinguished. Former sales executive David Lufkin pleaded guilty to fourteen bribery counts across proceedings in 2019 and 2021. He received a two-year custodial sentence suspended for eighteen months. Petrofac’s corporate convictions concerned failure to prevent bribery. Neither outcome establishes criminal guilt for every director or employee associated with the business. An accurate discussion should identify the convicted party, offence, and relevant conduct without extending findings beyond their scope.³⁶

Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 concerns a relevant commercial organisation where an associated person bribes another intending to obtain or retain business, or a business advantage, for that organisation. A defence is available where adequate preventive procedures are proved. This is different from simply discovering that an employee accepted an improper benefit. The applicable offence and organisational exposure depend on the circumstances, so they require careful assessment rather than broad assumptions.³⁷

The Ministry of Justice identifies six prevention principles: proportionate procedures, senior leadership commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, communication (including training), and monitoring and review. These principles require attention to actual commercial relationships and activities. A written policy offers limited protection if agents are not adequately checked, payment descriptions remain vague, or concerns are ignored. Directors should understand how controls operate when pursuing contracts and how exceptions receive independent review.³⁵

Petrofac’s case supports a practical distinction between policy ownership and effective prevention. Leaders need evidence that staff understand expectations, that commercial intermediaries receive appropriate scrutiny, and that warning signs lead to action. Performance targets should not undermine ethical requirements. Investigations should be competent and fair, with appropriate reporting where necessary. The central responsibility is to create working controls that influence decisions, rather than rely on reassuring statements that the organisation does not tolerate misconduct.

Appointments, Titles and Authority Without Approval

An impressive title does not establish authority to change an organisation’s structure. A director may oversee a department without having power to appoint another managing director, create an executive tier or alter reporting arrangements. These decisions should follow the organisation’s constitution, delegated powers and approved employment processes. When appointments occur informally, responsibilities can become confused, and costs can rise without scrutiny. Directors should establish who is authorised to approve both the position and appointment.

Statutory company directorship must be distinguished from an internal job title. Section 250 of the Companies Act 2006 includes anyone occupying the position of director, by whatever name called, and courts recognise de facto directors who act without formal appointment. Conversely, a senior departmental title alone does not establish that status. Organisations should therefore avoid assuming that changing a title either confers board powers or removes responsibilities attached to the role actually performed.¹

Organisations should document authority separately for recruitment, spending, contracting, and organisational change. Someone authorised to manage a budget may still need approval to create posts or change salary arrangements. Reporting lines should identify who sets objectives, reviews performance and handles escalation. Directors should promptly correct inconsistencies and seek appropriate advice on commitments already made. Internal irregularity should not be treated casually as automatically invalidating every resulting agreement or employment arrangement.

Inappropriate appointments can also weaken accountability. A departmental managing director title may suggest independence the role lacks, confusing staff, suppliers, and other executives. Equally, the title can be legitimate within an approved structure. The test is whether responsibilities, powers, and reporting arrangements fit organisational needs and are properly authorised. Correcting the position should address substance, including any contractual implications, rather than merely replace one title with another equally unclear description.

Columbia – When Management Fails to Hear Technical Expertise

The loss of Space Shuttle Columbia on 1 February 2003 killed all seven crew members. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) then conducted an independent investigation into both technical and organisational causes. The physical sequence involved damage following a foam strike during launch, but the findings extended beyond engineering failure. The case shows why complex operations require management systems that let technical concerns shape decisions before risks become irreversible.³⁸

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) concluded that management practices overseeing the shuttle programme were as much a cause of the accident as the foam. Its report examined organisational history and culture alongside engineering evidence. This concluded that interacting causes were at work, rather than asserting that one missed conversation alone caused the disaster. Leadership analysis should therefore recognise how structures, assumptions, and operational pressures can collectively weaken how safety concerns are treated.³⁸

The CAIB described how management did not pursue engineers’ requests for imagery of the damaged wing, and identified intense pressure to keep the programme on schedule. These findings show why technical information must travel through an organisation without losing its significance. Directors should ask whether specialists can explain uncertainty directly, whether concerns reach the appropriate authority and whether decision-makers understand the limits of the evidence on which reassurance is being based.³⁸

CAIB recommended an independent technical engineering authority responsible for requirements and waivers, separated from responsibility for programme cost and schedule. The underlying principle applies to industrial procurement: safety judgements should not be overridden simply because a preferred supplier, delivery date, or budget is under pressure. Independence does not remove the need for coordinated decisions. It helps ensure that material technical concerns receive competent consideration and a clearly authorised resolution before operations proceed.³⁸

Technical challenge should also be understandable to those receiving it. Specialists need opportunities to explain what is known, what remains uncertain and which further checks would improve confidence. Directors should avoid interpreting incomplete information as confirmation that a risk is insignificant. In procurement, this may concern unverified product performance, compatibility or documentation. The appropriate response depends on the hazard and evidence, not on the inconvenience of requesting additional assurance before commitment.

The lesson is sustained attention to how decisions are made. Directors should keep unresolved concerns visible, record dissenting assessments, and ensure competent people grant technical approvals. Safety-related exceptions need a defined route and appropriate scrutiny. Operational teams also need confidence that the organisation will take uncertainty seriously. Organisational reliability improves when expertise can challenge preferred assumptions and when evidence, not confidence alone, supports the resulting decisions.

When Support Must Become Formal Accountability

Coaching and training are appropriate where an employee needs knowledge, confidence or experience. However, support should have a clear purpose and an opportunity to demonstrate improvement. If agreed standards remain unmet, directors should examine whether expectations were realistic, resources sufficient and development effective. Repeating the same informal conversation indefinitely can leave colleagues carrying the consequences. Where support has not resolved the problem, a fair and proportionate formal process may become necessary.

The distinction between capability and conduct matters. An employee who misunderstands a procedure may need instruction; someone deliberately bypassing an approval limit presents a different concern. Serious safety risks, suspected dishonesty or intimidation may require prompt investigation and protective action without first completing a prolonged coaching programme. The organisation should establish facts rather than presume intent. Directors need sufficient competence to recognise when informal development is inadequate and to seek specialist advice.

The ACAS Code sets out basic fairness where disciplinary or capability procedures apply. Relevant principles include investigation, explaining the concern, an opportunity to respond, accompaniment, and appeal. Where practicable, different people should investigate misconduct and conduct the disciplinary hearing. Directors should follow procedures and consider individual circumstances, including applicable reasonable adjustments. Formal action becomes more defensible when decisions rest on evidence and proportionate reasoning, rather than frustration, assumptions or an employee’s perceived popularity.¹¹

Restrictions on duties or authority may sometimes protect the organisation during an investigation, but they need careful consideration. ACAS advises employers to consider alternatives before suspension and ensure temporary changes do not breach the employment contract. Measures should address identified risks and remain under review. In particular circumstances, removing access to financial systems, changing duties, or separating individuals may be appropriate. Organisations should not present such arrangements as proof of guilt or use them as disguised punishment.³⁹

Directors should themselves be subject to appropriate accountability. If avoidance repeats, the organisation should establish which responsibilities were neglected, what support was provided, and what consequences followed. Employment procedures, board processes, and statutory responsibilities differ and depend on the individual’s status. Seniority should not justify indefinite tolerance, but neither should criticism bypass fair assessment. Effective accountability identifies the problem clearly and requires improvement through the appropriate authorised route and process.

Who Holds the Reluctant Director to Account?

The board or governing body must examine how leadership responsibilities are exercised, rather than relying only on results. For companies within its scope, the UK Corporate Governance Code 2024 expects boards to monitor risk management and internal controls and review them annually. Provision 29, requiring a declaration on material controls, applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2026. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) explains that the Code operates on a comply-or-explain basis.⁴⁰

Executive appraisal should assess staff development, governance compliance, and the quality of responses to concerns, alongside financial and operational outcomes. A department may meet targets while relying on exhausted managers, neglected controls or supplier concessions. Directors should be asked what they changed, which risks they addressed, and how they supported direct reports. Evidence should include actions and outcomes, rather than the number of meetings attended or assurances that everything remains under control.

Internal audit can provide independent evidence about whether procedures operate as intended. Repeated findings, overdue actions and recurring exceptions may indicate that leadership is failing to follow through. Governing bodies should ensure that auditors can report significant concerns without obstruction and that responsible directors explain delays. External assurance can also help, but it does not replace managerial ownership. Recommendations protect an organisation only when decisions, resources and verified corrective action follow their acceptance.

Staff feedback and escalation routes reveal matters that dashboards can miss. Reviews should consider whether employees trust reporting arrangements, whether managers feel supported and whether concerns recur after supposedly being resolved. Few complaints may reflect confidence, but may also reflect fear or resignation. Governing bodies should seek evidence from different levels and protect appropriate challenge. A quiet department deserves examination when silence coexists with turnover, unexplained exceptions or consistently overdue management commitments.

Restoring the Will and Ability to Lead

Improvement begins by making leadership responsibilities explicit. Directors should understand the staff development, financial oversight and governance duties attached to their roles. Expectations must be realistic, supported by sufficient authority, and reflected in appraisals. Where capability is lacking, training and mentoring should address actual decisions and behaviours. Where unwillingness persists despite support, accountability should follow. Organisations need both competent leaders and a clear expectation that essential responsibilities will be exercised consistently.

Meaningful one-to-ones provide a practical starting point. Directors should protect time, prepare with their direct reports and revisit agreed commitments. Discussions need room for workload, development and emerging concerns alongside delivery. Managers should know where to seek help when issues exceed their authority. This approach should be supported by clear escalation routes so urgent matters receive attention immediately rather than waiting for the next scheduled conversation.

Documented authority and decisions make oversight more reliable. Recruitment powers, spending limits, supplier approvals and technical responsibilities should be understandable and accessible. Exceptions need a recorded basis and proper approval. Directors should examine recurring departures from the rules and address their causes. A proportionate approach avoids unnecessary bureaucracy while retaining evidence about significant choices. Clear records also help successors understand existing commitments and reduce dependence on personal recollection or informal arrangements.

Timely intervention requires confidence and judgement. Directors should respond to credible concerns, involve appropriate specialists and distinguish support from investigation. They should explain expectations respectfully and remain willing to hear contrary evidence. Where protective action is necessary, it should be proportionate and properly authorised. Managers need to see that senior leaders will support reasonable challenge while examining complaints fairly. This combination makes accountability workable without allowing fear of disagreement to dictate organisational decisions.

Completion should be verified. Governing bodies need evidence that training changed practice, audit actions were implemented, and supplier weaknesses were corrected. Directors should review whether promised support reached their managers and whether recurring problems diminished. Progress is visible when decisions improve, concerns are addressed, and staff understand their responsibilities. Sustainable leadership depends on repeatedly connecting expectations, resources, action, and review, rather than announcing improvements that fade from attention after the initial discussion.

Summary – Avoidance Has Consequences

Leadership avoidance rarely remains confined to the director who chooses it. Postponed conversations leave managers unsupported, unchecked decisions weaken controls, and unanswered concerns allow risks to develop. The immediate benefit may be a quieter day or a more comfortable relationship. Employees, suppliers, service users, and the organisation itself bear the longer-term consequences. Understanding a responsibility has limited practical value unless the director is willing and able to exercise it appropriately.

Employees need clarity, development and fair treatment. They also need confidence that legitimate concerns will receive attention. When directors tolerate destructive behaviour or neglect their managers, capable people may disengage or leave. Replacement brings recruitment costs, lost knowledge, and added pressure on those remaining. The absence of open conflict does not establish successful leadership. Staff experience should therefore be examined alongside delivery figures, particularly where turnover and unresolved concerns suggest a different underlying picture.

Suppliers depend on decisions that are both commercially sound and properly governed. Weak selection, unclear commitments and payment practices that transfer excessive pressure can undermine delivery across interconnected businesses. Carillion demonstrated the reach of financial failure, while Liverpool illustrated the risks associated with exemptions and inadequate oversight. Procurement leaders should therefore examine capability, value and compliance throughout the relationship. A favourable price or familiar supplier cannot replace evidence that supports a sustainable arrangement.

Safety and ethical conduct require particular resolve. Unsuitable PPE, ignored warning signs and ineffective bribery controls can create consequences far beyond ordinary operational inconvenience. The cases examined establish different kinds of failure and should not be reduced to a single explanation about motivation. Their shared relevance lies in the need for capable oversight, credible escalation and action on evidence. Directors must ensure that technical expertise and legitimate concerns can influence decisions when pressure increases.

Governance also depends on governing bodies exercising their own responsibilities. Boards, scrutiny committees and auditors need reliable information and routes to challenge decisions effectively. Directors should be assessed on development, control, and follow-through, as well as results. Genuine workload constraints require organisational solutions, while repeated avoidance requires a clear response. Neither additional policies nor impressive titles offer sufficient protection when authority is confused, concerns remain unanswered and agreed corrective actions are never completed.

The responsible director combines support with the willingness to act. Coaching, mentoring, and regular discussion help people perform well; scrutiny, investigation, and fair formal procedures address problems encouragement alone cannot resolve. These responsibilities require judgement, preparation and persistence. Personal comfort cannot decide when organisational interests require intervention. Leadership earns trust when its commitments show up in better decisions, supported managers, and problems addressed before their consequences become irreversible.

Additional articles can be found at Supply Chain Management Made Easy. This site looks at supply chain management issues to assist organisations and people in increasing the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of their product and service supply to the customers' delight. ©️ Supply Chain Management Made Easy. All rights reserved.

References

1. legislation.gov.uk, Companies Act 2006, sections 171–177 (general duties of directors) and section 250, 2006. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents
2. CMI, Better Management Report: Taking responsibility – Why UK Plc Needs Better Managers (research conducted with YouGov), October 2023. https://www.managers.org.uk/knowledge-and-insights/research/better-management-report-take-responsibility-take-action/
3. NMC, Independent culture review (Nazir Afzal and Rise Associates), 9 July 2024. https://www.nmc.org.uk/about-us/nmc-culture/shaping-our-culture/independent-reviews/
4. HSE, Health and safety at work: summary statistics for Great Britain 2025, 20 November 2025. https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/
5. HSE, Management Standards for work-related stress, Current guidance. https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/
6. FCA, Press release: fines totalling £28,038,800 on Lloyds TSB Bank and Bank of Scotland for serious sales incentive failings, 11 December 2013. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-lloyds-banking-group-firms-total-%C2%A328038800-serious-sales-incentive
7. CIPD, Leadership and management capability key to boosting public sector productivity, 16 September 2025. https://www.cipd.org/uk/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/insight/leadership-management-public-sector
8. GOV.UK, Running a limited company: your responsibilities, Current guidance. https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company
9. FCA, FCA fines Santander UK £107.7m for repeated anti-money laundering failures, 9 December 2022. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-santander-uk-repeated-anti-money-laundering-failures
10. ACAS, If you think you’re being bullied, Current guidance. https://www.acas.org.uk/bullying-at-work/if-you-think-youre-being-bullied
11. ACAS, Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, March 2015. https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures
12. legislation.gov.uk, Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 207A, 1992 (as amended). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/207A
13. ACAS, What bullying is, Current guidance. https://www.acas.org.uk/bullying-at-work
14. legislation.gov.uk, Equality Act 2010, sections 20 and 26, 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
15. Department for Education, Employer Skills Survey: calendar year 2024, 24 July 2025. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/employer-skills-survey
16. FCA, FCA fines RBS and NatWest for failures in mortgage advice process, 27 August 2014. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-rbs-and-natwest-failures-mortgage-advice-process
17. ACAS, Performance management: reviews and appraisals, Current guidance. https://www.acas.org.uk/performance-management
18. legislation.gov.uk, Procurement Act 2023 (including section 22, conditions of participation), 2023. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/54/contents
19. Cabinet Office, Procurement Act 2023: guidance documents, Current guidance. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents
20. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Liverpool City Council Best Value inspection report (Max Caller CBE), 24 March 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liverpool-city-council-best-value-inspection-report
21. Liverpool City Council, Commissioners archive (intervention expired): about the commissioners, June 2024. https://liverpool.gov.uk/council/improvement-and-assurance/commissioners-archive-intervention-expired/about-the-commissioners/
22. legislation.gov.uk, Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2966), as amended by SI 2022/8, 1992; amended 6 April 2022. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2966/contents
23. HSE, Using personal protective equipment to control risks at work: product safety and supply, Current guidance. https://www.hse.gov.uk/ppe/product-safety-and-supply.htm
24. HSE, Guidance on respiratory protective equipment fit testing (INDG479), Current edition. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg479.pdf
25. NAO, Investigation into the management of PPE contracts, 30 March 2022. https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/investigation-into-the-management-of-ppe-contracts/
26. CIPD, Resourcing and talent planning report 2024, September 2024. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2024-pdfs/8662-resource-and-talent-planning-2024-report-web.pdf
27. NMC, Executive team response to the independent culture review, July 2024. https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/independent-reviews/2024/executive-team-response.pdf
28. NMC, NMC sets out next steps toward change, 24 July 2024. https://www.nmc.org.uk/news/news-and-updates/nmc-sets-out-next-steps-toward-change/
29. Department of Health, Transforming care: a national response to Winterbourne View Hospital (final report), 10 December 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/winterbourne-view-hospital-department-of-health-review-and-response
30. CQC, Our role in Winterbourne View and the changes we will make to protect people from abuse, 7 August 2012. https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/stories/our-role-winterbourne-view-changes-we-will-make-protect-people-abuse
31. NAO, Investigation into the government’s handling of the collapse of Carillion, 7 June 2018. https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/investigation-into-the-governments-handling-of-the-collapse-of-carillion/
32. House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees, Carillion: Second Joint report (HC 769), 16 May 2018. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/769/769.pdf
33. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Northamptonshire County Council Best Value inspection (Max Caller CBE), March 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5aaa6a1ae5274a3e3603ae01/Best_Value_Inspection_NCC.pdf
34. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Northamptonshire County Council: third commissioners’ report, 22 October 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northamptonshire-county-council-third-commissioners-report
35. Ministry of Justice, The Bribery Act 2010: guidance about procedures which relevant commercial organisations can put into place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing, March 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bribery-act-2010-guidance
36. SFO, Petrofac Limited: case information, October 2021. https://www.gov.uk/sfo-cases/petrofac-limited
37. legislation.gov.uk, Bribery Act 2010, section 7, 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/7
38. CAIB / NASA, Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Volume I, August 2003. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20030066167
39. ACAS, Suspension during a work investigation: deciding to suspend, Current guidance. https://www.acas.org.uk/suspension
40. FRC, UK Corporate Governance Code 2024, 22 January 2024. https://www.frc.org.uk/library/standards-codes-policy/corporate-governance/uk-corporate-governance-code