Public trust in business leaders has become a critical issue, with recent surveys showing a consistent decline in confidence across various institutions[1][2]. When I examine how C-suite executives and their old school counterparts fare in public perception, the results reveal some fascinating patterns about respect and trust in modern corporate Britain.
The Trust Hierarchy: Where Executives Really Stand
The data shows a clear ranking among business executives, with some surprising leaders emerging from the pack. Traditional roles often command more respect than their modern equivalents, suggesting that the public maintains greater faith in established positions with clear, understood responsibilities.
Company secretaries top the trust rankings with a score of 45 out of 100, significantly ahead of any C-suite position[3]. This reflects their perceived role as guardians of corporate governance rather than profit-driven decision makers. Their responsibilities for ensuring compliance and maintaining statutory records position them as neutral custodians of corporate propriety.
Technical expertise commands respect across both categories. Chief Technology Officers (CTO) lead the C-suite rankings with a trust score of 42, while technical directors achieve 41 in the old school category. This suggests the public values roles perceived as skill-based rather than purely commercial.
Traditional leadership roles maintain strong positions. Non-executive directors, despite their relatively low public profile, achieve a trust score of 40, reflecting public appreciation for independent oversight of corporate activity[4]. Similarly, external directors and finance-focused roles consistently rank well, suggesting trust in positions with clear fiduciary responsibilities.
The C-Suite Challenge: Modern Titles, Mixed Trust
The modern C-suite faces a perception problem that extends beyond simple name recognition. Chief Executive Officers, despite their prominence, score only 32 on trust measures – below many traditional equivalents. This aligns with broader surveys showing politicians and senior business leaders struggling with public confidence[5].
Marketing and operational roles struggle most in public perception. Chief Marketing Officers rank lowest among C-suite positions with a trust score of just 28, perhaps reflecting public scepticism about commercial messaging and advertising[6]. Chief Operating Officers fare only slightly better at 30, possibly due to unclear public understanding of their role.
Salary transparency creates additional challenges. Recent research shows that anger over senior executive pay ranks as the top threat to public trust in business[7]. C-suite positions, with their often substantial compensation packages, face greater scrutiny than their old school counterparts who may perform similar functions with less visibility.
The disconnect between public visibility and trust creates a particular challenge for CEOs. While they represent the most recognisable business leadership role, their high public profile works against them when scandals emerge or economic conditions deteriorate.
Old School Advantage: Clear Roles, Established Trust
Traditional corporate titles benefit from clearer public understanding of their functions and responsibilities. Managing directors, finance directors, and company secretaries operate with established role definitions that have remained consistent for decades.
Functional clarity drives trust. The public understands what a finance director does – they manage money and ensure financial propriety. This clarity contrasts sharply with newer titles like Chief People Officer or Chief of Staff, where responsibilities may seem vague or overlapping with existing functions.
Lower salary expectations help perception. Traditional roles, particularly company secretaries and technical directors, often command respect partly because their compensation appears more proportionate to their responsibilities. The public perception of “reasonable” pay scales supports higher trust scores.
Regulatory oversight provides reassurance. Many traditional roles carry specific legal responsibilities and regulatory requirements that provide built-in accountability mechanisms. Company secretaries, for instance, have defined statutory duties that create clear boundaries and expectations[3].
The Visibility Paradox: Recognition vs Respect
An interesting pattern emerges when comparing public visibility with trust scores. High-visibility positions like CEO and Chairman often achieve lower trust scores than their low-profile counterparts. This suggests that increased media attention and public scrutiny may actually harm rather than help executive reputation.
The NED exception stands out as particularly noteworthy. Non-executive directors, despite very low public visibility, achieve relatively high trust scores. This reflects public appreciation for independent oversight roles, even when the general public may not fully understand what NEDs actually do day-to-day.
Technical roles benefit from obscurity. CTO and technical director positions achieve high trust scores partly because they remain largely invisible to public criticism. Their roles appear competency-based rather than politically or commercially motivated, insulating them from broader business scepticism.
Regional and Demographic Variations
Trust in business leaders varies significantly across different UK regions and demographic groups. Northern England shows higher trust in corporate leadership generally, while London-based executives face greater scepticism[8].
Age demographics create distinct patterns. Younger respondents show notably less trust in traditional business roles, while older demographics maintain higher confidence in established positions like chairman and managing director. This generational divide suggests changing expectations about corporate leadership accountability.
Political affiliation strongly influences trust. Conservative supporters show higher trust in business executives generally, while Labour supporters express greater scepticism about corporate leadership roles. Reform UK supporters demonstrate significantly lower trust across almost all business positions[8].
The Accountability Question
The trust differentials between C-suite and old school positions reflect broader questions about corporate accountability. Traditional roles often come with clearer legal frameworks and established precedents for responsibility, while newer C-suite positions may appear to offer more scope for avoiding accountability.
Regulatory familiarity matters. The public understands that company secretaries face specific legal requirements and potential personal liability for corporate compliance failures. This creates confidence that the role includes built-in safeguards against misconduct.
Generalist vs specialist perception influences trust levels. Roles perceived as requiring specific technical expertise (CTO, technical director) achieve higher trust than those seen as generalist management positions (COO, Chief of Staff). This suggests public preference for competency-based rather than authority-based leadership.
Implications for Corporate Britain
These trust differentials have practical implications for corporate governance and public relations. Companies may benefit from emphasising traditional role titles and responsibilities when communicating with stakeholders, particularly during periods of public scrutiny.
Board composition signals matter. The high trust scores for NEDs and company secretaries suggest that visible independent oversight resonates positively with public perception. Companies might consider highlighting these governance roles more prominently in public communications.
Executive communication strategy requires careful consideration of title usage and role explanation. The public confusion around newer C-suite positions suggests companies should invest more effort in explaining what these roles actually entail and why they create value.
The evidence suggests that while modern C-suite structures may offer operational advantages, they come with a public trust deficit compared to traditional corporate hierarchies. Understanding and addressing this perception gap represents a significant challenge for contemporary corporate leadership in maintaining public confidence and social licence to operate.
References and Further Reading
[1] https://www.kevinharrington.com/2025/07/uks-most-respected-professions-in-2025-full-rankings-trends
[2] Behind the soaring salaries of chief financial officers – Raconteur https://www.raconteur.net/finance/behind-the-soaring-salaries-of-chief-financial-officers
[3] UK CEOs prioritising transformation & deals in 2025 – Digit.fyi https://www.digit.fyi/uk-ceos-prioritising-transformation-deals-in-2025/
[4] Attitudes of the British Public to Business Ethics 2024 https://www.ibe.org.uk/resource/publicattitudes2024.html
[5] The C-Suite Churn Report 2025: FTSE100 retention and leadership https://www.vestd.com/blog/c-suite-churn-report-2025
[6] Global top CEOs rank UK second most attractive… – Morningstar https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1737456185092717800/global-top-ceos-rank-uk-second-most-attractive-country-for-investment.aspx
[7] Ipsos Veracity Index 2024 https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-veracity-index-2024
[8] SLC Annual Report and Accounts 2024 – 2025 – GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slc-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-to-2025/slc-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-2025
Leave a Reply