Governance is supposed to protect projects.
- Clear roles.
- Defined forums.
- Escalation pathways.
And yet, some of the most tightly governed projects deliver the worst outcomes.
Not because governance is wrong — but because it’s often mistaken for leadership.
I’ve seen projects with impeccable governance structures:
- Steering committees that meet on schedule
- Papers that are thorough and well-written
- Decisions that are formally minuted
And still, everyone leaves the room knowing the real issue wasn’t addressed.
The problem isn’t the absence of governance.
It’s governance without consequence.
When decisions are spread across committees, subcommittees, and working groups, accountability becomes abstract. Everyone contributes. No one owns the outcome.
That’s how difficult decisions get reframed as:
“Let’s take this offline”
“We’ll note the risk”
“We’ll revisit next meeting”
On paper, the project is being governed.
In reality, it’s being deferred.
This is the same pattern I described when writing about how risk accumulates after plans are approved — not because people are careless, but because responsibility becomes diluted.
Good governance should sharpen decisions.
Instead, it often cushions them.
Experienced project managers recognise this early. They don’t try to remove governance — they re-anchor it.
They ask uncomfortable questions in the room:
Who is accountable for the outcome of this decision?
What happens if we’re wrong?
What decision are we avoiding because it will create friction?
Those questions don’t always make meetings smoother.
They do make projects more honest.
Because governance that protects people from discomfort rarely protects the project.
And the projects that succeed aren’t the ones with the most governance artefacts — they’re the ones where someone is clearly accountable when it matters.
Ben Webb — Project Manager
AIPM Australian Project Manager of the Year (2022)
https://benwebb.au
Top comments (0)