The best intentions and the largest budget grind to a halt when governance is poorly designed.
A few years ago I sat at the table for inter-governmental programme steering meetings, on a project that looked perfect on paper: broad support, substantial resources, an ambitious mandate. The governance had been set up 'democratically'. Everyone could participate in decisions; every partner had a vote in the steering committee. It seemed like a strong foundation. What followed was a constant, exhausting game of manoeuvring.
The problem was not the content
The problem was not in the content of the decisions, but in the way they were being made. We were trapped in a game of balanced vetoes. Everyone was simultaneously too important and too insufficiently authorised. Discussions were long, conclusions vague. We were busy proving our right to speak rather than working toward a shared goal. This is the trap of over-governance.
The core issue was unclear decision-making authority. We were operating under an illusion of consensus while in reality being stuck in a network of potential conflicts.
From mechanism to adaptive model
The difference lies in the transition from a rigid decision-making mechanism to an adaptive governance model.
Weak governance is reactive. It waits for the next major incident to act as 'glue'. This leads to the mandate being revisited over and over, as if you have to renegotiate the basic agreement every quarter.
Mature governance is proactive and flexible. It sets out who decides, under what conditions, and with what frequency decisions can be revisited. The goal is not to defend the current structure, but to build in mechanisms that anticipate shifts in the urgency of interests.
A system check, not a meeting
Look at the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. The failure was not in an absence of legislation, but in the absence of a clear, dynamic process for testing the impact of policy against actual human and administrative capacity.
Well-designed governance builds lessons learned directly into the steering committee. It creates a mandatory, periodic moment for assessment: is the current structure still suited to the current challenges? That is not a meeting — that is a system check.
Think of governance as the engine of the programme, not as the dress code of the meeting. The real art is designing governance so that the organisation can evolve without every small deviation immediately triggering a full-blown governance crisis.