Let’s be honest.  When people hear “IT governance,” they think bureaucracy, red tape, and committees that slow everything down.

For many, governance is a synonym for “No.”
No to speed.
No to experimentation.
No to moving forward without a PowerPoint.

But governance done right? It doesn’t restrict. It enables.

It creates clarity. It builds trust. It aligns action to strategy.
The problem isn’t governance…it’s how we do it.

So let’s reframe the conversation. What does good governance actually look like today? And how do you create guardrails that empower instead of frustrate?

Governance should create clarity, not confusion

In too many organizations, governance becomes a maze: multiple approval layers, unclear thresholds, and policies written for auditors instead of operators.

When no one knows what the rules are, they either avoid action or work around it.

Good governance makes decision-making easier, not harder. It defines:

• Who can say yes
• What needs to be reviewed
• What criteria apply to different types of investments

Ambiguity kills momentum. Clarity drives confidence.

Governance must be proportionate to the risk

Too often, we apply heavyweight governance to low-risk decisions and leave high-risk decisions up to chance or influence.

This creates two problems:

• High-value projects stall.
• Low-value projects slip through.

Modern governance is adaptive. It recognizes that not all decisions carry equal weight. It applies the right level of scrutiny based on impact and complexity, not organizational habit.

Example: A healthcare organization created a “risk/impact matrix” for technology proposals. If a project affected patient data or mission-critical infrastructure, it triggered a higher tier of review. Everything else moved faster.

Governance is about alignment, not control

Bad governance tries to prevent people from making mistakes.
Good governance helps them make better decisions.

That requires:

• Shared goals
• Transparent criteria
• A culture of co-ownership

When teams know why governance exists and how it supports strategy they’re more likely to engage, not resist.

Governance should feel like a seatbelt, not a straitjacket.

Example: One CIO introduced a “narrative first” rule for investment proposals: before any form or deck, teams had to write a 1-page rationale answering:
“What business value are we delivering?”
“How does this connect to our strategy?”
That one-page doc became the foundation of every governance conversation.

Governance needs visibility, not just approval

Too many governance models are stuck in email chains and one-off reviews. There’s no shared view of what’s been approved, what’s in review, or what’s stuck.

Without visibility, governance loses its power to coordinate and prioritize across the enterprise.

Better governance builds in real-time transparency:

• Dashboards of active proposals
• Review timelines
• Decision outcomes tied to business goals

It moves the process from isolated judgment to shared stewardship.

So how do you make governance not suck?

You treat it as a leadership system, not a control system.
You build it around:

• Clarity of roles and thresholds
• Proportionality of process
• Transparency of progress
• Shared understanding of purpose

And you remind people that governance isn’t about slowing down.
It’s about speeding up…the right things, in the right way.

When governance is done well, it doesn’t feel like governance at all.
It just feels like good decision-making.