Governance Theatre¶

Uncomfortable Reading

What Is Governance Theatre?¶

Governance theatre is when the appearance of governance replaces actual governance.

It's the organizational equivalent of security theatre at airports - visible activity that makes people feel safer without necessarily making them safer.

Signs you're doing governance theatre:

• More time discussing risks than mitigating them
• Documents that exist to prove a process happened, not to inform decisions
• Committees that approve everything (or nothing) with equal thoughtfulness
• Compliance percentages that look great while projects fail
• More governance for small projects than large ones (because large ones have powerful sponsors)

The Governance Theatre Playbook¶

Act 1: The Risk Workshop¶

The performance: - 15 people in a room for 3 hours - Post-it notes on a wall - Everyone contributes "risks" - Facilitator groups them into themes - Someone takes a photo of the wall - The photo goes into a document

What actually happens: - Same 5 risks identified as every other project - No one with authority to address root causes is present - "Mitigations" are vague commitments with no owners - Risk register created, filed, never updated - Project proceeds unchanged

What governance should look like: - 3 people who can actually do something about risks - 30 minutes - Walk out with 3 specific actions, owners, and dates - Follow up next week to verify actions happened

Act 2: The Ethics Review¶

The performance: - 40-page ethics assessment document - Scheduled review meeting with the ethics committee - Presenter reads from the document - Committee asks questions that are already answered in the document they didn't read - Approval granted with "conditions" - Conditions are vague enough to mean anything - Project proceeds with ability to claim "ethics approved"

What actually happens: - Real ethical tensions never surfaced - Committee lacks context to ask hard questions - Approval is administrative, not substantive - "Ethics approved" becomes a shield against future criticism - When harm occurs: "but it was ethics approved!"

What ethics review should look like: - Honest discussion of genuine tensions and tradeoffs - Real debate about hard cases - Sometimes: "no, you can't do this" - Sometimes: "yes, but change X and Y" - Clear reasoning documented, not just the decision

Act 3: The Stakeholder Consultation¶

The performance: - Survey sent to 500 stakeholders - 47 respond (the same 47 who respond to everything) - Focus groups scheduled - Only people with flexible calendars attend - Report compiled: "Stakeholders were consulted" - Findings selectively quoted to support predetermined direction

What actually happens: - People most affected never heard about the consultation - People who responded aren't representative - Negative feedback buried in appendices - "Consultation" used to legitimize decisions already made - When criticism emerges: "but we consulted!"

What stakeholder engagement should look like: - Deliberate effort to reach people who don't usually respond - Genuine openness to changing direction based on feedback - Transparent reporting of what you heard, including the hard stuff - Clear explanation of what you did and didn't act on, and why

Act 4: The Assurance Review¶

The performance: - External consultants engaged - Interviews conducted - Impressive slide deck produced - Traffic light dashboard (mostly green and amber, never red) - Recommendations are generic and non-threatening - Management "accepts all recommendations" - Recommendations added to register, tracked quarterly, eventually closed

What actually happens: - Consultants don't want to blow up the client relationship - Hard findings softened before final report - Dashboard colors negotiated, not assessed - Recommendations designed to be closeable, not impactful - Same issues will appear in next review

What assurance should look like: - Reviewers with permission and incentive to find problems - Findings that sometimes genuinely surprise management - Some recommendations that are hard and uncomfortable - Evidence that findings changed what happened

The Theatre Detection Checklist¶

Score your governance honestly:

Scoring: - 7-8 Yes: You have real governance - 4-6 Yes: You have partial governance with significant theatre - 0-3 Yes: You have governance theatre

The Root Causes of Governance Theatre¶

1. Accountability Without Authority¶

Governance bodies that can recommend but not require. They become advisory theatre - lots of advice, no consequence for ignoring it.

The fix: Either give governance teeth, or stop pretending it has authority.

2. Volume Over Value¶

Measuring governance by quantity (number of reviews, documents, meetings) rather than outcomes (decisions improved, harms prevented).

The fix: Track what governance actually changed, not just what governance touched.

3. CYA Culture¶

When the goal is having documentation to point to when things go wrong, rather than preventing things from going wrong.

The fix: Stop rewarding "we followed the process" when outcomes are bad. Start rewarding "we raised the concern" even when it was uncomfortable.

4. Risk Intolerance¶

When any risk is unacceptable, everything becomes a risk mitigation exercise. Real tradeoffs are hidden behind a pretense that everything can be controlled.

The fix: Accept that some risk is inherent. Focus governance on the risks that actually matter.

5. Governance Sprawl¶

When governance expands to fill available time and budget, regardless of whether it's adding value.

The fix: Regularly ask "what would we lose if we stopped this governance activity?" Kill activities where the answer is "nothing."

How to Do Governance That's Not Theatre¶

Principle 1: Less, Better¶

• Fewer reviews, done properly
• Shorter documents, actually read
• Smaller committees, with authority
• Focus on decisions, not documentation

Principle 2: Skin in the Game¶

People involved in governance should have: - Accountability for outcomes, not just process - Permission to say no and make it stick - Consequences if they approve something that fails obviously

Principle 3: Show Your Work¶

• Document disagreements, not just conclusions
• Record what you considered, not just what you decided
• Be explicit about uncertainty and tradeoffs
• Make it possible to learn from governance decisions

Principle 4: Time-Box Everything¶

• No meeting longer than an hour
• No document longer than can be read in 15 minutes
• No process that takes longer than the decision is worth
• Build in automatic expiration of governance requirements

Principle 5: Test Your Governance¶

• Simulate scenarios: would your governance have caught this?
• Do retrospectives: did governance add value on this project?
• Red team: try to get a bad project through your governance
• If it passes easily, your governance is theatre

The Governance Theatre Exit Strategy¶

If you're trapped in governance theatre, here's how to start escaping:

Step 1: Measure Time Spent¶

Track how many person-hours go into governance activities per project. Create visibility.

Step 2: Map Value Added¶

For each governance activity, ask: what decision or outcome did this improve? Document the answer honestly.

Step 3: Identify the Sacred Cows¶

Which governance activities are untouchable because of who owns them, not because they add value?

Step 4: Run an Experiment¶

Pick one project. Do minimum viable governance. See what happens. Compare outcomes to fully-governed projects.

Step 5: Build the Case¶

Use data from steps 1-4 to propose governance reform. Frame it as "better outcomes with less burden" not "less governance."

Step 6: Find Air Cover¶

This will upset people who benefit from governance theatre. Find senior sponsors who want results over process.

The Honest Questions¶

Ask these in your next governance meeting:

• "When did this governance process last catch something we would have missed otherwise?"
• "What would happen if we skipped this review?"
• "Are we documenting this to inform a decision or to prove we had a process?"
• "Who has the authority to act on what we discuss here?"
• "Is anyone in this room going to read this document after today?"

Watch the reactions. They'll tell you whether you have governance or theatre.

A Final Thought¶

The purpose of governance is to make better decisions and prevent bad outcomes.

If your governance is not visibly doing those things, you don't have governance. You have a compliance ritual that makes people feel safe while accomplishing nothing.

That's worse than no governance at all - because at least with no governance, people know they're responsible for their own judgment.

Theatre creates the illusion that someone else is handling it.

Nobody is.

"Governance is not what you document. It's what you change."