Governance adds value when it reduces uncertainty about decisions. It destroys value when it adds uncertainty about how decisions get made.
Complex programs need governance. They also suffer from governance.
Both statements can be true at the same time.
The first is familiar. Complex work creates interdependencies, competing stakeholder interests, emerging risk and strategic decisions that cannot be resolved inside individual projects. Clear sponsorship, escalation, review and decision rights are therefore essential.
The second is less comfortable. Every additional committee, approval layer, reporting requirement and control point creates another interface. If governance is poorly designed, teams spend more time navigating the control system than resolving the problem the control system was created to address.
The issue is not whether to have governance. It is whether governance reduces more complexity than it creates.
The Strategic Context
The supplied PMI material gives strong practitioner support for governance in complex environments. From Complexity to Dexterity describes an Astellas Pharma case in which governance included stakeholder goal alignment, progress tracking, conflict resolution, risk escalation and regular review. The objective was to keep work connected to its intended goals while responding to regulatory change.
The same report describes governance as a way to help determine which initiatives should be accelerated, slowed or stopped as conditions evolve.
Yet Levin and Ward introduce a crucial counterpoint in their 2013 program-management paper. They describe a governance board as valuable for oversight, phase decisions, issue resolution and strategic alignment, while explicitly warning that an over-controlling board can itself become another layer of complexity.
That tension should sit at the centre of governance design.
What Leaders Commonly Misread
The first misread is to treat governance as a synonym for oversight. Effective governance also allocates authority, resolves trade-offs, protects benefits and creates conditions for action.
The second is to believe that more senior involvement is always better. Senior leaders add enterprise perspective and decision authority, but scarce executive attention can become a queue. If every decision needs escalation, governance has centralised information faster than it has centralised capacity.
The third is to add controls after every failure without removing old controls. Organisations accumulate governance debt in the same way systems accumulate technical debt. A new approval is added to prevent recurrence, but the combined burden of controls is rarely reviewed.
The fourth is to measure governance quality by compliance. A program can complete every report and stage review while important decisions remain unresolved.
The fifth is to assume decentralisation is inherently agile. Local authority without clear boundaries can create inconsistent commitments, duplicated investment and unmanaged enterprise risk.
The design challenge is not centralisation versus decentralisation. It is placing each decision at the lowest level that has sufficient information, authority and enterprise perspective.
Reframing the Issue
Governance is best understood as a decision architecture.
A good governance system answers:
- What decisions must be made?
- Who owns each decision?
- What evidence is required?
- Which stakeholders must be consulted?
- What thresholds trigger escalation?
- How quickly must a decision be made?
- How is the decision recorded and revisited?
- Who owns the resulting benefit, risk or consequence?
Once governance is framed this way, unnecessary structures become easier to see. A committee with no unique decision authority may be a communication forum, not a governance body. A report no one uses to make a decision is information overhead. A stage gate that repeats earlier analysis without changing commitment is ceremony.
Related article: Portfolio Governance Is a Decision-Rights System
The Governance Paradox
Complexity creates demand for more coordination. More coordination creates transaction cost. That transaction cost can then increase complexity.
The paradox can be managed through four principles.
1. Strengthen purpose before adding process
If governance does not know the strategic objective and benefits it is protecting, more reporting simply produces more data.
2. Escalate exceptions, not ordinary work
Governance should focus scarce senior attention on cross-boundary decisions, material risk, benefit trade-offs and strategic change. Routine execution should remain with accountable delivery leaders.
3. Match cadence to volatility
A monthly board may be sufficient for a stable program and dangerously slow for a rapidly changing digital transformation. Conversely, daily executive intervention can destabilise work that requires continuity.
4. Design for decision closure
Meetings that repeatedly discuss the same issue without a decision create hidden queues. Every material issue should have a decision owner, deadline and clear next state.
Decision Framework: Minimum Viable Governance
Before creating another board or stage gate, test the governance design across six dimensions.
| Dimension | Test |
|---|---|
| Purpose | What enterprise outcome does this governance mechanism protect? |
| Authority | What decisions can this body actually make? |
| Information | What evidence is genuinely necessary for those decisions? |
| Escalation | What cannot be resolved at lower levels, and why? |
| Cadence | Is the decision cycle fast enough for the rate of change? |
| Cost | What time, delay and coordination burden does this mechanism create? |
If the first two questions cannot be answered clearly, the governance layer is probably not mature enough to justify its cost.
Sponsorship Without Micromanagement
PMI's 2013 complexity research emphasised active sponsorship and leadership in high-performing organisations. The principle remains useful even when historical percentages are set aside: complex initiatives need executives who can protect strategic intent, resolve organisational conflict and communicate why the work matters.
But sponsorship should not become substitute program management.
A sponsor adds value by:
- making enterprise-level trade-offs;
- protecting strategic alignment when local incentives conflict;
- securing resources or stopping lower-value work;
- resolving issues beyond the program manager's authority;
- maintaining legitimacy with senior stakeholders;
- helping determine whether the program should continue when conditions change.
A sponsor destroys value when every operational decision becomes a personal approval, or when teams change direction in response to informal executive preferences outside agreed governance.
Complexity rises when formal and informal decision systems diverge.
Related article: The Right Stakeholder at the Wrong Time Can Damage Portfolio Decisions
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action is to map decision rights for the most consequential program. List its recurring decisions and identify who currently makes them, where they wait, and where formal authority differs from actual practice.
Medium-term capability is to rationalise governance. Remove duplicate reviews, consolidate reporting around decisions, define escalation thresholds and give component leaders clear delegated authority. Measure decision latency as well as delivery status.
Long-term positioning is to build governance that can change with context. A program entering implementation may need different forums from one exploring strategic options. A portfolio under acute disruption may need a faster investment cadence than one in a stable environment. Governance should have a design lifecycle rather than becoming permanent organisational furniture.
The result should be fewer ambiguous interfaces, not more.
Signals to Monitor
Governance may be adding complexity when:
- issues are presented to several forums before any body can decide;
- teams wait for approvals that routinely confirm their original recommendation;
- senior leaders are surprised by decisions despite heavy reporting;
- unofficial conversations determine outcomes before formal meetings;
- the same information is reformatted for different committees;
- escalation volume rises because delegated authority is too narrow;
- meeting preparation consumes material delivery capacity;
- stage gates approve continuation without testing whether strategic value still exists.
These are governance-design problems, not merely administrative inefficiencies.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- Which decisions genuinely require executive authority?
- Where are decisions waiting because governance is slower than the environment?
- What governance activities would we stop if we had to reduce coordination effort by 25 per cent?
- Which reports directly change a decision, and which exist because they have always existed?
- Where does informal authority override formal decision rights?
- Are sponsors resolving enterprise trade-offs or micromanaging delivery?
- When was the governance model itself last reviewed against the program's current phase and complexity?
Closing Perspective
Complexity makes governance necessary, but it does not make every control valuable.
The best governance systems create clarity about purpose, authority, evidence and escalation. They concentrate executive attention where enterprise judgement is required and leave accountable teams enough space to act.
Governance should be judged by the decisions it improves and the friction it removes, not by the number of forums it creates.
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.