The Financial Times criticizes BP's decision to appoint Manifold as chair, deeming it a "gamble" on a "dominant executive." The article suggests the energy giant's board erred in placing such trust in an individual whose leadership style may not align with the company's evolving needs. This move raises questions about corporate governance and the selection process for top board positions.

This critique stems from concerns about Manifold's perceived autocratic tendencies, which could clash with the collaborative approach required for navigating complex energy transitions and stakeholder relations. The author implies that BP overlooked potential governance risks in favor of perceived executive strength, potentially jeopardizing the board's effectiveness and strategic direction.

BP's choice underscores a broader debate on executive control versus board oversight. The implication is that a board's primary duty is to ensure robust governance, not to defer to a single powerful figure. The Financial Times' assessment suggests BP may have misjudged the balance, prioritizing a strong personality over a balanced leadership structure for its future challenges.