How much governance is too much?

The question I get asked most by boards isn't "do we have enough governance." It's the quieter worry underneath. Are all these forums and reports actually protecting us, or just slowing us down. Both can be true at once.

Good governance does two things. It gives decision-makers a true picture, and it makes the next decision faster because the information is already there. If a forum does neither, it isn't governance. It's a meeting.

The clearest sign of too much governance is when the people doing the work spend more energy reporting on it than doing it. I have walked into programmes where a delivery lead lost two days a week to status packs that three different committees each read differently. That is not control. It is drag dressed up as assurance.

The opposite failure is just as common, and more dangerous. Light governance feels fast right up until the moment a risk that everyone half-knew about lands on the board with no warning. Speed that hides risk isn't speed. It is debt.

The right amount sits between those two, and it moves. Early in a programme, when uncertainty is high, you want tighter oversight and shorter loops. As delivery stabilises, you should be actively removing governance, not adding it. A governance model that only ever grows is a warning sign.

So the test I apply is simple. For every forum, every report, every sign-off, I ask one thing: what decision does this enable, and who makes it. If there is no decision and no owner, it comes out. If you are buying delivery, that is the question worth pressing your delivery leader on. Not "how much governance do we have," but "what is each piece of it for."