Chairs are at risk of having a distorted view of their impact without regular feedback, according to new research.

The report What makes chairs of governing bodies effective, found that chairs tended to rate their impact on a charity more highly than chief executives, board members and other senior staff.

The report, commissioned by NCVO and the Charity Trustees Network, surveyed 263 charity chairs, chief executives, trustees and other senior staff on the effectiveness of their chair.

It found the chairs felt they had most impact on the board, second most on the chief executive, and least on the organisation.

In contrast, chief executives, trustees and other senior staff felt the chair had most impact on the chief executive, followed by the board, then the organisation.

Further, chairs tended to rate their own impact more highly than CEs, board members and other key actors.

The report warned that the gap in perception could lead to problems with the chair thinking they are performing well, while others had a lower opinion of their performance. It recommended regular feedback on performance from board members and senior staff.

Overall, chairs that were seen as fair, open to ideas, focused on building high-quality relationships with others and encouraging teamwork were perceived as having a considerable impact on the effectiveness of the board, chief executive and charity.

The least effective chairs were those that were not seen as team players and were unable to manage inadequate performance by the senior staff with whom they interact.

The report was written by Chris Cornforth (pictured), Open University Business School, UK; Yvonne Harrison, Seattle University, USA; and Vic Murray, University of Victoria, Canada.