Why Rose's rise is a step too far

The theory is Rose will then have enough free time to be able to identify and groom an appropriate successor to take over his current job as chief executive. It is the kind of explanation that will arouse uncontrollable mirth among those who know Rose and fury among those who take their corporate governance seriously - the latter camp including the Association of British Insurers and Legal & General, which this week went public with their opposition. Whether anyone will believe it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is another matter.

Rose is undoubtedly a highly talented retailer, and he deserves great credit for restoring the fortunes of M&S - albeit some of the gloss has come off in the last few months. But like many of his ilk, he is not what you might call an inclusive manager who thrives on the cut and thrust of open debate with his subordinates, the better to achieve a consensus.

Rather, he decides what he wants to do, and tells them. They then do it...or leave. Arguing with the boss or even seeking to engage him in robust discussion and impress him with your intellect is not the main route to career advancement. Like many who do things instinctively, Rose finds such discussions uncomfortable or unnecessary or both.

So if one wanted to be cynical, one could suggest the reason no one has grown to be an obvious successor to Rose is that they have all been chopped off at the knees. Not just his juniors either, come to think of it. Terry Burns seems much less tall than he was when he ran HM Treasury - about 18 inches less tall, though that is probably metaphorical rather than physical.

Burns and Michels possibly feel a bit sheepish as they knock on the City's doors in case someone reminds them that ensuring an orderly succession is a board's prime responsibility - i.e. theirs. This is even more the case at M&S because so many of the problems that beset the chain five years ago stemmed from the bungled transition of power after the unchallenged reign of Sir Richard Greenbury.

He too was a brilliant merchandiser but it went to his head a bit towards the end, particularly after a failed board-room coup led to the abrupt departure of his obvious successors. That also meant the job eventually went to the last man standing, Peter Salsbury - who turned out to be not up to it.

Far from avoiding a repeat of this disastrous recent history, the elevation of Rose to executive chairman seems to be a formula to re-create the Greenbury years, with all its sins from the concentration of power to the courtiers. Is that really an environment in which the best possible successor will emerge?

It need not have been this way but the company is now reaping the whirlwind for the ousting of Paul Myners as chairman three years ago. Rose and Myners worked well together, in a way Rose and Burns never have.

It is hard to believe that Myners would have allowed such a situation to develop, if only because he would have got Rose to focus on the problem sooner. It is similarly hard to believe that Myners would ever lend his name to a proposal which pulls the rug from under the last 10 years of progress in corporate governance - for if M&S can get away with this, why should anyone else bother to comply?

Why shareholders should condone Rose moving from chief executive to executive chairman just to get the board off a hook of its own making is beyond me - as is what Lord Burns has done to justify the reported £400,000 pay-off he collects for agreeing no longer to preside over a clearly dysfunctional board. But it is not an issue shareholders can duck. It is one where they have to stand and fight.