There was the well publicised spat at RAC Plc when it recruited and then fired a chairman within months.  The reason given was that the chief executive, after working with him for a few months, asked the board to choose between the chairman and him.  Something similar seems to have now happened at HMV Plc.  Tensions at BAE Systems Plc have threatened to break out into the open on more than one occasion.  Centrica Plc seems to be going the same way. 

One of the reasons for this is that there is no clear demarcation between the role of a chairman and a chief executive.  It rather depends on their respective attributes and the circumstances of the company.  This creates the potential for conflict when the two protagonists put a different interpretation on their respective responsibilities.  Recently retired chief executives, particularly those who have been very hands-on in their executive careers, find it terribly difficult to become non-executive chairmen. 

The other is that with the current spotlight on corporate governance, the share of blame attached to the chairman when something goes wrong is substantial.  This encourages the chairman to try and ensure that he is aware of everything that is going on and in some cases veto some riskier initiatives.  Furthermore, once the company has had a slip even the most hands-off chairman suddenly starts acting like an executive chairman.  This interference is usually resented by an already insecure chief executive.  However, if one looks at it from the point of view of the Chairman, his painstakingly built reputation is at risk.  Is he therefore not entitled to do whatever he, rightly or wrongly, believes would make a recovery more likely? In the process, he is bound to step on the Chief Executive’s toes, but so be it.  A crisis is not a time to respect territorial niceties. 

Ultimately, it is very difficult and indeed undesirable, to prescribe a formula which would work for all chairmen and chief executives at all companies.  The Board, when appointing the two individuals, must demonstrate very good judgment.  The first and foremost criteria should be complimentarity.  There is no point in duplicating the skill set.  Complimentary skills and personalities will make for a stronger team and reduce the chances of conflict.  It is more likely that the two individuals can build a relationship based on mutual respect if they compliment each other. 

The second is to beware of retired chief executives who were detail orientated throughout their careers.  They find the transition to being non-executive more difficult.  They cannot resist being hands-on. 

Third, the Board should choose characters that stand together in a time of crisis, rather than devote their energies to framing up each other in case there is the need to sacrifice a scalp.

The writer is chairman of Buchanan Harvey & Co., an executive search firm.