If you have experienced any challenges in making good quality executive director appointments – please tell us about it:
- There were 27 responses to this question: 56% of responses were from foundation trusts and 44% were from NHS trusts.
- Many said that the availability of high calibre candidates remains a significant issue which leads to multiple rounds of recruitment. Some respondents raised concerns about improving board diversity, emphasising the importance of succession planning and leadership development programmes.
- Other members pointed out that candidates are becoming more reluctant to accept roles outside their current area due to the upheaval and impact on work-life balance. Some identified salary expectations and risk avoidance as potentially narrowing the pool of applicants.
- Some members noted that they have not faced challenges in making good quality executive director appointments.
“This has simply been about availability of high calibre candidates. We had to have three rounds of CNO recruitment to secure a CNO and in the last round, only one candidate made it through to interview.”
Director of Corporate Affairs, Mental Health/Learning Disability Trust
“There is a risk that the most effective senior leaders will be unwilling to move to the most challenged organisations.”
Company Secretary, Combined Acute and Community Trust
If you have experienced any challenges in making good quality chair/non-executive director appointments – please tell us about it:
- There were 34 responses to this question: 69% were from foundation trusts and 31% were from NHS trusts.
- Proportionally, members were less likely to express challenges in making good quality chair/NED appointments than executive appointments.
- For some, multiple rounds of recruitment were also needed for chair/NED recruitment, with FTs noting the high cost of each round. Other barriers to applications mentioned include the professional and reputational risk associated with these roles and the extensive time commitment. The challenges of recruiting people from diverse backgrounds were raised, particularly given the out-of-date current remuneration framework.
- The cost of needing to use recruitment agencies for multiple recruitment exercises was again mentioned.
- Some members noted that they have not faced challenges in making good quality chair/non-executive
director appointments.
“Poor pay, fear of reputational damage. Job too hard and consuming. High level of risk.”
Chair, Acute Trust
“We recruited in the last calendar year and attracted good candidates. Much discussion and discontentment at the moment over the frozen guidance on chair and NED salary, however. The ask of NEDs is greater than before and yet this is not reflected in the salaries offered according to national guidance.”
Director of Governance, Acute Specialist Trust
On average, how many days per month are spent working for the trust (not contracted days, but days actually worked) by:
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
- On average, chairs worked for the trust for 12.5 days a month. NEDs worked for trusts for 4.8 days on average. The median number of days for chairs to work for their trust was 12 days, the median number for NEDs was lower (four days).
- There was a much wider range in the number of days chairs worked for the trust (between two days and 28 days: 26 days) compared to NEDs (between one day and 12 days: 11 days).