Board Power Map

Before you take a proposal to a board, map why each seat is listened to, where your issue is prepared and how this board actually decides, so you brief the right people in the right order instead of presenting cold.

Mixed research: executive power can be measured along distinct dimensions (Finkelstein, 1992) and board influence is relational, exercised around the table as well as at it (Pettigrew & McNulty, 1995); whether boards monitor effectively is disputed (Boivie et al., 2016). The power-source list builds on French and Raven's (1959) typology, also mixed. Governance codes are standards, not research.

Use it when:

• You need a board or board committee to approve, fund or back something, and you present to it rarely.
• You are new to a board (as a director, executive, secretary or advisor) and want to understand how it works.
• A proposal was turned down or deferred and you do not know why.

Skip it when:

• The decision sits with a management team, not a board: use 3.1 Stakeholder Map and 3.2 Power & Influence Grid.
• You already know the people and need to prepare the paper itself: use 8.16 Board Decision Prep Sheet.

The claim is that influence on a board follows power sources rather than titles, and that those sources can be mapped. French and Raven's (1959) typology of social power is still the standard vocabulary, though the evidence on how each base works in practice is mixed. Research on top teams supports the premise: executive power is real and can be measured along distinct dimensions, among them structural position, ownership, expertise and prestige (Finkelstein, 1992). A study of UK boardrooms found that influence is relational and often exercised in conversations around the meeting as much as in it (Pettigrew & McNulty, 1995).

So this page asks why each seat is listened to, where your issue is prepared, and what has been settled before the meeting. The limit: whether boards actually monitor management well is contested (Boivie et al., 2016), and no study shows that mapping power improves a decision. Treat the map as a briefing plan to test, not a verdict on people.

Name the issue and the meeting, then map each seat that matters. Use role labels (Chair, CEO, NED A), not names, and record only professional, role-related facts.

Strong answer: "NED B, independent, six years, former CFO of a listed industrial. Power: expertise in capital allocation, chairs the audit committee, history (the last two large investments went through her questions). Most influential on: anything with payback over five years."

Your issue, in one sentence:

Your role towards this board:

The meeting where it is decided, and its date:

Power sources to choose from: position (chair, CEO, committee chair), expertise, ownership (founder, large holder or its appointee), network and prestige, information (access to data others lack), history (long tenure, institutional memory), personal (persuasiveness, trust). The list is this library's working mix: position, expertise, ownership and prestige follow Finkelstein's (1992) dimensions; position, expertise and personal echo French and Raven's (1959) legitimate, expert and referent power.

Illustrative example: the roles and the company are made up.

A head of operations at a listed Swedish industrial group needs board approval for a new production line in Poland.

Step 1: the chair (owner-appointed, long tenure, history and ownership), the CEO (position, information), NED B (independent, former CFO, expertise; chairs audit), NED C (independent, network in the export market) and two employee representatives (information about the floor, legitimacy with staff).

Step 2: the audit committee reviews all investments above the delegated limit. NED B's questions decide what reaches the board.

Step 3: CEO-driven, with the chair and the main owner aligned in advance. The two employee seats ask about staffing in Sweden every time. Blind spot from the public profile: little operations experience on the board.

Step 4: brief NED B first on payback and currency risk, then the chair on whether to stage the approval, then the employee representatives on what the Swedish site keeps. Main risk: the line reads as moving jobs abroad; meet it with a written statement of what stays.