We Built Fences and Called It Governance
- Raimund Laqua
- 1 day ago
- 2 min read
Structural governance asks: are we inside the line?
Directional governance asks: are we going to make it?
Nearly every governance instrument we have answers the first question. The risk register. The control matrix. The attestation. The RAG dashboard. The assurance map. Not one of them answers the second.
A ship inside its shipping lane is not thereby on course.
Four years ago I wrote about bounded-set and centred-set compliance. A bounded set is defined by a boundary and your relation to it — in or out. A centred set is defined by a centre and your direction of movement relative to it — towards or away.
I have been applying that distinction to compliance ever since. Lately I have applied it to governance, and it splits the same way. Structural governance keeps us within the boundaries. Directional governance steers us towards the centre.
Most organizations assume they are doing both.
Three questions will tell you which one you are actually running:
Can it tell you its heading, or only its position?
Does it correct after deviation appears, or before?
Is anyone accountable for the centre — or only for the lines?
The word itself carries the answer. Governance comes from kybernētēs — the steersman. Not the fence. The tiller.
And safety science has been telling us for thirty years that organizations drift into failure even when everyone complies with the rules. Which means inside the lines was never the same thing as on mission.
The original article is below. I would be interested in where you think the distinction holds — and where it breaks down.
Keeping you on-mission, between the lines, and ahead of risk.
