Governance often grows in response to uncertainty. A decision is missed, so another meeting is created. A risk is discovered late, so an additional approval is introduced. Leaders want greater visibility, so teams are asked for more columns, more commentary and more frequent updates.
Each addition may be reasonable on its own. Together they can produce a system where many people are involved but authority is harder to see. Teams spend time preparing for forums that do not make decisions. The same issue appears in several places. Escalation happens because the route exists, not because a higher level is required.
Governance is not the number of people gathered around a decision. It is the clarity with which the decision can be made, challenged and understood.
Start with the decision
The most useful governance question is not “Which meeting owns this?” It is “What decision needs to be made?” Once the decision is clear, the organisation can determine who has authority, what evidence matters, whose perspective is needed and when escalation adds value.
This sounds basic, but many governance systems begin with structures. They inherit forums, templates and reporting cycles from an earlier stage of the programme. The work changes, while the governance remains. People then adapt their behaviour to satisfy the structure rather than using the structure to improve the work.
What better looks like
Before: “We have several forums and a lot of reporting, but people are still unclear who decides and issues keep returning.”
After: “The decision, authority and evidence are clear. People know where challenge belongs, when escalation is needed and what happens next.”
Useful governance makes five things visible
The decision
People should be able to state the decision in a sentence. “Review project status” is an activity. “Decide whether to release the next stage of funding” is a decision.
The authority
Who can make the decision? Who advises, who must be consulted and who can challenge? Unclear authority often creates informal vetoes, repeated escalation or decisions that appear agreed but are not acted upon.
The evidence
What information could change the decision? Governance becomes heavier when every available measure is reported rather than the evidence that helps people choose. A shorter pack can create better scrutiny if the relationship between evidence and decision is visible.
The consequence
What happens after the decision? Who acts, what is communicated and how is the outcome recorded? Governance loses credibility when decisions are made but the operating system does not move.
The learning loop
How will the organisation know whether the decision produced the intended effect? Review should support learning, not simply confirm that the process was followed.
Proportion matters
Not every decision requires the same control. A reversible, low-impact choice should not travel through the same route as a decision involving significant financial, regulatory or human consequences. When governance does not distinguish between them, teams either slow down unnecessarily or begin working around the system.
Proportionate governance can be described through clear thresholds. What can be decided locally? What requires advice? What must be escalated? What evidence is sufficient at each level? These thresholds should be understandable to the people doing the work, not only the people who designed the framework.
Look at the lived experience
A governance map may look coherent while the lived experience is confusing. Ask people how they actually get a decision made. Where do they seek informal agreement before the formal forum? Which meeting do they attend because they are afraid of missing something? What information do they prepare that nobody discusses?
Those behaviours are not simply resistance. They are evidence about where the system is not creating enough confidence or clarity. The people closest to the work often know exactly where governance adds value and where it creates friction.
A practical governance reset
- Choose one recurring decision that currently feels slow or unclear.
- Write the decision, authority, evidence and consequence on one page.
- Map every current meeting, report and approval against those needs.
- Remove, combine or redesign anything that does not improve the decision.
- Test the new route with the people who must use it.
The goal is not minimal governance. It is governance that people can understand and trust. Sometimes that requires stronger control. Sometimes it requires fewer layers. The answer depends on the decision, the risk and the people affected.
When governance works, people do not simply comply with it. They can explain how it helps them make a better decision.