Is It Time to Get Much More Transparency About What Sits Behind a Job Title?

Discussion article. Part of The Thinking Upgrade

‍

Chair. Chief Executive. Board Director. Chief Financial Officer. Chief People Officer.

These titles carry authority. They open doors, command attention and give people considerable influence over the lives and futures of others.

Reaching these positions is often a significant achievement. It can take years of commitment, difficult decisions, personal sacrifices and experience gained under pressure. That deserves recognition.

But a job title tells us someone’s position. It tells us much less about their present capabilities, the quality of their thinking or how seriously they take their own ongoing development.

When someone holds substantial power and responsibility, shouldn’t we know much more about what sits behind their title?

‍

What do they understand today? What can they actually do? Where are the limits of their knowledge? How do they respond to challenge? Who helps them think better? And what are they doing to strengthen their ability to lead into a future that will differ from the past?

These questions matter because the consequences ofleadership reach far beyond the person holding the role.

People’s livelihoods, wellbeing, opportunities and futures are affected by what happens around boardroom and executive tables. So are the prospects of organisations, communities and the wider world.

The expectations should match that responsibility.

The people at the top should set the standard for ongoing development.

Imagine if board and executive team members were the most visible examples of people continuously striving to be the best possible.

People who actively examined their assumptions. Who sought out perspectives that unsettled their certainty. Who understood their strengths and vulnerabilities. Who could explain what they were learning, what they had changed their minds about and where they needed help.

People who asked: “What is the quality of my thinking here? What am I missing? What might make this decision wrong? What impact are we actually having?”

Being the best possible would be an ongoing practice, requiring preparation, feedback, reflection, learning and support.

A person can retain their title long after they stop doing those things. Their authority may remain intact while their readiness for the demands of the role gradually weakens.

That gap deserves much more attention.

An impressive past does not answer every question about the present.

Qualifications, experience and achievements matter. Deep experience can bring judgement, perspective and an understanding of consequences that cannot be acquired overnight.

But we should ask what someone has done with that experience.

Have they examined it, updated it and learned from it? Can they recognise when a previously successful approach no longer fits? Are they drawing on a broad and developing understanding, or repeatedly applying a narrow set of familiar answers?

Twenty years in leadership could involve twenty years of stretching, questioning and development. It could also involve considerable repetition. The length of someone’s career cannot tell us which.

‍

In an information-rich world with expanding AI and technological capabilities, we should place much greater weight on what leaders know and can do now, alongside their ability and willingness to keep learning.

‍

Can they assess unfamiliar information? Understand the possibilities and limitations of new tools? Distinguish confident assertions from well-supported conclusions? Recognise where specialist expertise is essential?

And do they have the energy, curiosity and commitment to prepare for what comes next?

‍

Senior leaders are only human. That makes good support essential.

‍

Getting to the top does not remove human frailties.

It remains possible to become comfortable, defensive, distracted or overconfident. To favour people who agree with you. To confuse familiarity with understanding. To keep doing something because it once worked.

A powerful position can also make honest feedback harder to obtain. People may hesitate to challenge the person who influences their career, budget or future.

This makes the support around a leader a serious question of leadership quality.

Who can tell them that their thinking is weak? Who notices when they are avoiding a difficult truth? Who helps them explore what they do not know? Who challenges the assumptions shared by the whole leadership team?

A room full of impressive people can still leave important questions unasked.

The strongest support should include people with the competence, independence and confidence to disagree – and a leader willing to listen and act.

AI can contribute by helping leaders explore information, test scenarios and consider alternative perspectives. But it also requires informed use and verification. Access to an AI tool does not, by itself, demonstrate mature judgement.

‍

What if every senior leader maintained a living record of their leadership capability?

A traditional biography usually highlights where someone has worked, the qualifications they gained and the positions they have held.

What if we expected a much more useful, regularly updated account of their present readiness to lead?

A sophisticated digital record could bring together:

Current knowledge and capabilities: what they understand and can do, supported by recent examples and evidence.

Qualities and behaviours: how they listen, respond to challenge, exercise judgement and treat people, informed by feedback from others.

Strengths and development needs: where they add the most value, where they have limitations and how they address them.

Ongoing learning: what they are studying, practising, reconsidering and applying – and what has changed as a result.

Human and AI support: the expertise, constructive challenge and tools they draw upon, including how they assess the reliability of that support.

AI and technology maturity: how effectively they use relevant technology, understand its limitations and oversee its consequences.

Decisions and impact: how they review significant decisions, examine outcomes and take responsibility for lessons and improvements.

No record could capture everything a person knows or everything they might be capable of doing. Nor should it pretend to provide a complete numerical score for a human being.

Its value would lie in making important evidence, gaps and development commitments easier to examine.

Imagine asking a board member: “What have you learned over the last year that has materially changed how you contribute?”

Or an executive: “What feedback have you received about your leadership, and what have you done with it?”

Or a chair: “Where is this board least equipped for the decisions ahead, and how are you addressing that?”

These should be ordinary questions attached to senior responsibility.

Transparency must mean more than a better-looking profile.

There is an obvious danger: we could create another polished document full of impressive claims.

Learning hours do not necessarily demonstrate learning. A list of advisers does not show that anyone listens to them. An AI subscription does not establish competence. A positive business result does not automatically prove that every decision behind it was sound.

The record would need evidence, independent challenge and honest acknowledgement of uncertainty.

‍

Access should also fit the purpose. Those responsible for appointments, oversight and evaluation may need detailed information; employees and other stakeholders may benefit from a meaningful summary. Personal privacy and confidential information still matter.

The aim should be greater accountability for professional capability and conduct, with development needs treated as matters to address openly.

Admitting a gap should be compatible with credibility. Concealing or persistently neglecting a consequential gap should invite much harder questions.

“I have done my learning” cannot be an acceptable leadership position.

It is easy to demand that other people adapt.

Learn new systems. Work more effectively. Embrace AI. Improve performance. Respond faster. Take responsibility for your development.

Those expectations must apply at least as strongly to the people setting them.

A chief executive asking employees to embrace change should be able to explain how their own working practices are changing. A board overseeing transformation should examine whether its collective capabilities are adequate for the task.

Leadership development cannot be something senior people prescribe for everyone else while treating themselves as finished products.

‍

Peak performance at the top requires sustained preparation and renewal.

‍

It also requires rest, manageable demands and strong support. Exhaustion is a poor foundation for judgement, however impressive someone’s work ethic appears.

The responsibility is to organise yourself and your support so that you can meet the demands of the role – and recognise when something needs to change.

‍

What should we now expect behind the title?

‍

We might begin with a few questions:

Would we appoint this person today, on the evidence of their current capabilities and behaviours?

Can they show how they are developing and how that development improves their contribution?

Are they surrounded by people who strengthen and challenge their thinking?

Do they take responsibility for understanding technology that is reshaping the organisation they lead?

And are they demonstrating the standards they expect ofothers?

Are they striving to be the best possible – really?

The answers will not always be comfortable. They could reveal outstanding leadership that deserves greater recognition. They could also expose a considerable distance between the authority someone holds and the preparation they bring to it.

‍

That is a distance we should be willing to examine.

A senior title gives someone the opportunity to lead. Their ongoing learning, conduct, judgement and impact should show why we can continue to place our confidence in them.

Is it time we expected much more visibility of that?

‍

Thanks for reading.

Best,

Rob

‍