Fahm & Co. | Independent Accountability Partner | Leadership Under Scrutiny | Duty of Candour UK | Independent Accountability Partner | Leadership Under Scrutiny | Beyond Executive Coaching

The gap that opens

When a leader moves into a new role, they acquire formal authority relatively quickly. The appointment is made, the title changes, the reporting lines are redrawn. Authority, in its organisational sense, is transferred through process and announcement.

Accountability is different. It does not transfer cleanly. It accumulates. It attaches to decisions, commitments, and actions — including those made before the new leader arrived. It is shaped by context, relationship, and history that the incoming leader may not fully understand, and by expectations that were set in circumstances they did not control.

The result is a gap: a period in which authority has formally transferred but the accountability picture remains unresolved. The new leader is responsible for what is happening on their watch, and increasingly accountable for what happened before it — through the decisions they inherit, the commitments they continue, and the problems they do not yet know exist.

This gap is rarely discussed at the point of transition because the people involved have different interests in acknowledging it. The outgoing leader has an interest in presenting a clean handover. The organisation has an interest in projecting continuity. The incoming leader, not wanting to appear unprepared or overly defensive, often accepts the inherited picture without sufficient examination.

The decisions you inherit

Every leadership transition involves inheriting decisions. Some are recent; some are long-standing. Some are explicit; many are embedded in commitments, relationships, or institutional expectations that are never written down.

The new leader faces a distinctive accountability problem with inherited decisions: they did not make them, but they will be judged on their consequences. If those decisions were sound, this is manageable. If they were not — if the assumptions were flawed, the risks were not surfaced, the accountability was diffuse — the new leader will, over time, find themselves accountable for a process they were not part of.

The standard approach to this problem is due diligence: reviewing the record, understanding the position, identifying the risks. This is necessary but insufficient. Due diligence tells you what was decided. It tells you rather less about how it was decided, whether the accountability was clear, and whether the reasoning will withstand scrutiny if the decision is later examined.

A leader who inherits a decision without understanding its accountability provenance is not protected by the fact that it predates their tenure. They are protected only by the clarity with which they can demonstrate that they identified, examined, and made an informed decision about what to do with what they inherited.

The mandate that has changed

A second form of transition accountability gap arises not from a change of leader, but from a change in what the role is expected to do.

Organisations evolve. Regulatory environments shift. Stakeholder expectations change. A leader who was appointed under one set of assumptions may find, over time, that those assumptions no longer apply — that the mandate has expanded, contracted, or changed direction — without any formal process of acknowledgment or reauthorisation.

This is a common feature of long tenures, but it also appears in shorter ones: a leader appointed to deliver a specific programme finds the programme redefined; a leader appointed to lead a stable institution finds it in the middle of a crisis that was not anticipated at the time of their appointment.

The accountability question in these circumstances is not simply whether the leader is doing the right thing. It is whether they are doing it within the authority they actually have — whether the scope of their decisions is matched to the mandate they were given, or whether they have, with the best of intentions, begun to act beyond it.

Leaders who do not regularly examine the relationship between their mandate and their actions are at significant risk when scrutiny arrives. Because the question — did you have the authority to make that decision? — is answered not by their confidence that they were doing the right thing, but by the documented boundaries of their role at the time.

When lessons don't translate

A third transition that leaders navigate is the move from disruption back to stability: the period after a crisis, a failure, or a significant organisational difficulty, when the task is to translate what happened into practical change rather than simply to resume normal operations.

This transition is often treated as a communications exercise — what narrative do we adopt, how do we demonstrate that lessons have been learned, what do we say to those who are watching? This is understandable. Reputation matters, and the ability to articulate learning is a legitimate leadership skill.

But it becomes a problem when the communication of lessons substitutes for the accountability examination that should precede it. When leaders produce a narrative of learning without having genuinely tested whether their own decisions contributed to the difficulty, without having examined what the disruption revealed about the accountability structures around them, and without having considered what they would do differently — and why.

The lesson that is communicated without this prior examination tends to be the lesson that is least uncomfortable, rather than the lesson that is most important. And the accountability question that scrutiny will eventually ask — what did you learn, and how did you change — receives an answer that is incomplete at best.

Accountability at the point of transition

What these three forms of transition share is a common vulnerability: the moment at which authority changes is also the moment at which accountability is most ambiguous, most contested, and most easily deferred.

The instinct at points of transition is to move forward — to establish the new position, demonstrate momentum, and not be seen to be dwelling on what preceded. This instinct is understandable, and to some extent appropriate. But it competes directly with the accountability work that transitions require: the examination of what is being inherited, the clarification of mandate, and the honest assessment of what the past reveals.

The leader who treats transition as purely operational — as a question of who is now in post and what needs to happen next — is leaving the accountability dimension of their position unexamined. That examination does not become less necessary over time. It becomes more consequential.

The transitions nobody talks about are the accountability ones. They are the hardest, and they are the ones that matter most when scrutiny eventually arrives.

Transition and the duty of candour

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill is particularly significant for leaders navigating transitions. Its duty of candour applies to public officials in relation to inquiries and investigations — meaning that a leader who inherits a situation, a programme, or a set of decisions associated with a prior failure may find themselves subject to examination not only for what they did but for what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did with that knowledge.

The incoming leader who examines inherited decisions carefully — who establishes what was decided, how, and on what basis — is not being defensive. They are demonstrating exactly the kind of candour and transparency the Bill requires. The incoming leader who accepts the inherited picture without examination, and who later finds themselves unable to account for it, is in a materially more exposed position.

Transitions are the moments when accountability gaps open most quickly. They are also the moments when independent accountability support has the greatest immediate value.