Board Authority vs Executive Authority in Adult Social Care Governance
One of the most common governance failures in adult social care is confusion between board authority and executive authority. When responsibilities are blurred, organisations either become over-controlled or dangerously under-governed. Clear boundaries are fundamental to both delegated authority and schemes of delegation and wider governance and leadership arrangements.
This article examines where authority should sit at board level, where it must be delegated to executives, and how the interface between the two should operate in practice.
The role of the board: strategic authority and oversight
Boards in adult social care hold ultimate accountability for quality, safety, financial sustainability and compliance. Their authority is strategic, not operational. Boards set direction, approve frameworks, and ensure that risks are understood and controlled.
Board authority typically includes:
- Setting organisational strategy and risk appetite
- Approving governance frameworks and policies
- Holding executives to account for performance and outcomes
- Ensuring regulatory compliance and ethical standards
Boards that stray into day-to-day operational decisions often undermine executive accountability and slow down delivery.
The role of executives: operational authority and delivery
Executive authority exists to translate board intent into operational reality. Executives are accountable for implementing strategy, managing services and responding to risks as they arise.
Delegated authority enables executives to act decisively within agreed parameters while remaining accountable to the board.
Operational example 1: Managing quality risk escalation
Context: A provider identifies declining quality indicators across several services.
Support approach: Executives are authorised to implement rapid improvement plans, while the board retains oversight through agreed escalation triggers.
Day-to-day delivery: Weekly quality dashboards are reviewed by executives, with red-rated risks escalated to the board.
Evidence of effectiveness: Inspection outcomes improve without board micro-management.
Where boundaries commonly fail
Governance breakdowns often occur when:
- Boards approve or reject individual operational decisions
- Executives act outside agreed authority limits
- Escalation thresholds are unclear or ignored
These failures increase risk and reduce transparency.
Operational example 2: Financial authority under pressure
Context: Rising agency costs threaten financial stability.
Support approach: Executives are authorised to reallocate budgets within limits, while the board approves structural financial changes.
Day-to-day delivery: Variances are reported monthly with mitigation actions.
Evidence of effectiveness: Financial control maintained without operational paralysis.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect clear separation between governance and delivery. They look for evidence that boards focus on oversight while executives manage services effectively within delegated authority.
Regulator expectation
The CQC expects boards to demonstrate effective oversight without interference. Inspectors assess whether executives understand their authority and whether boards receive appropriate assurance.
Operational example 3: Safeguarding governance in complex cases
Context: Multiple high-risk safeguarding cases arise simultaneously.
Support approach: Executives manage operational responses, escalating systemic risks to the board.
Day-to-day delivery: Board-level safeguarding summaries focus on trends and learning, not individual case decisions.
Evidence of effectiveness: Clear accountability and consistent decision-making.
Maintaining the boundary
The boundary between board and executive authority must be actively maintained through clear documentation, regular review and disciplined governance behaviour.
Where boards and executives understand their respective roles, delegated authority becomes a strength rather than a risk.