Full guide in Portal →
Methodology Guides/Governance & Accountability
🏛️
OM Layer 06 — Operating Model

Governance & Accountability.

Decision rights that are clear and respected in practice. Committees that make decisions. Accountability that is real rather than diffused.

Full practitioner methodology in the CN Portal Log in →
The key principles

How CN approaches this work.

01
Map decisions before designing governance
Governance design that starts with the governance structure produces structures that reflect existing power dynamics rather than operational requirements. Start with a decision audit: what decisions are made, how frequently, at what level, with what authority and information. The governance structure is designed to enable those decisions, not to reflect the existing hierarchy.
02
Distinguish between governance that decides and governance that reports
Most organisations have too many committees. Many of them exist not to make decisions but to receive reports, provide oversight, and create a record of having been informed. These are not governance — they are accountability theatre. Governance that decides requires different design from governance that reports, and they should not be conflated.
03
Decision rights must be specific enough to use
A decision rights framework that says "the executive team is responsible for strategic decisions" is not a decision rights framework. It is a statement of the obvious. Useful decision rights specify what can be decided at what level, with what information, with what consultation requirement, and what triggers escalation. They are specific enough to resolve a dispute.
04
Accountability without consequence is nominal
Accountability frameworks that specify who is responsible for what outcome are only as good as the consequences that follow when the outcome is not achieved. Designing accountability requires designing the performance management process alongside the accountability framework.
05
Governance must enable the operating speed the organisation needs
Governance that slows the organisation below the speed at which it needs to operate will be worked around. The design challenge is rigour where rigour is required and speed where speed matters — distinguishing between decisions that warrant a committee and decisions that should be made by an individual within minutes.
What good looks like
  • Decision rights specific enough to resolve a dispute without escalation
  • Committees designed around decision requirements, not reporting requirements
  • Accountability connected to performance management and consequences
  • Governance designed for the operating speed the organisation requires
  • Decision audit completed before governance structure is designed
  • Delegated authority framework reviewed and stress-tested
Warning signs
  • Decision rights frameworks too vague to use in practice
  • Committees that brief rather than decide
  • Accountability diffused across enough people that no one is truly accountable
  • Governance used to create distance from difficult decisions
  • Risk ownership nominal — everyone involved, no one accountable
Diagnostic questions

Use these in client conversations or team reviews to quickly surface where the real issues are.

QCan you identify a decision made in the last month that required escalation but should not have — and a decision made at the wrong level?
QFor the most important decision made by each committee last quarter: could it have been made faster without the committee, and at what cost?
QWhere accountability is shared between two roles: who actually gets held to account when it goes wrong?
Full Practitioner Guide

The complete methodology is in the CN Portal.

The full guide covers: decision audit methodology, governance structure design principles, decision rights framework construction, committee design and terms of reference, delegated authority framework, accountability mapping, risk framework design, and the integration with performance management.

Access Portal Join the network