When Governance Reacts—And When It Leads
Governance is the allocation of power and decision-making in an organization. And whether it happens by design or by default, it always leaves a mark. It sets the tone for how leaders lead, how strategy moves, and how trust holds—or frays.
Sometimes governance slips out of rhythm. Not through crisis, necessarily— but through more familiar signs:
Meetings are full, but not fruitful
Strategy is discussed, but rarely moves
Board members are committed, but unsure of their role
Executives feel accountable, but not fully supported
This kind of organizational strain might be understood as reactive governance— not a single failure, but a system responding to stress without the clarity it needs.
It tends to show up in three recognizable ways:
Fight – Control, micromanagement, second-guessing
Flight – Avoidance, disengagement, delay
Freeze – Endless debate, analysis paralysis, fear of risk
It’s not about bad board members. It’s about what happens when a system doesn’t have a rhythm that matches its reality.
And while it may look functional on the surface—maybe even busy—it comes at a cost:
Decisions get delayed when clarity is most needed
Authority blurs between board and management
Strategy drifts as urgency overtakes intention
And trust begins to fray, even if everyone’s still “being nice”
What should act as the organization’s compass ends up spinning with the storm.
So what does governance look like when it’s steady—yet responsive?
Not perfect. Not static. But clear enough to move, and grounded enough to adapt.
Because governance isn’t something you fix. It’s something you practice. And as organizations grow, governance has to grow with them.
Over time, I’ve come to see that: Your governance model should evolve with your organization.
What works in a startup won’t work in a merger. What fits in a crisis won’t fit in a reinvention.
Too often, boards inherit a model—or mimic what “good boards” are supposed to do—without asking:
What do we actually need right now—for who we are and where we’re headed?
One framework that’s proven helpful in answering that is Governance as Leadership (Chait, Ryan, and Taylor), which identifies three essential board modes:
Fiduciary – Oversight and accountability
Strategic – Planning and resource alignment
Generative – Exploring purpose, identity, and long-term meaning
Healthy boards don’t pick one mode. They learn to move between them—with intention and timing that fits the moment.
In my work, I often look at governance through four lenses:
Model – What approach to governance is being used, and does it fit the organization’s current context? (This could be Governance as Leadership, a Carver model, a management board, or another framework.)
Board Member Lifecycle – How people are recruited, supported, and transitioned
Structures – Committees, roles, and clarity around who does what
Rhythms & Practices – How the work actually unfolds in meetings, timelines, and conversations
That first lens—model and mindset—is often where the biggest shift starts. Because boards don’t have to be perfect. But they do have to be aligned.
Alignment between board and mission. Between purpose and process. Between structure and stage.
When governance is aligned:
✔️ Decisions are timely
✔️Strategy gains traction
✔️Trust holds
✔️And leadership has space to focus on what matters most
Next up: The Board Lifecycle: Members Who Lead We’ll explore how recruiting, onboarding, and transitioning board members can either build alignment—or quietly fray it.
A few questions to reflect on (past or present):
Have you ever seen a board respond to stress by defaulting to control, avoidance, or paralysis?
Where have you seen governance evolve—or stall—in response to a changing organization?
What frameworks or practices have helped clarify your role (or someone else’s) in board work?
To read more about governance, follow me on LinkedIn and find my recent posts that continue this conversation.
