“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” – Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des Lois, 1748
Say the word “governance” to a founder running a business of thirty or sixty people and watch what happens. There is a slight flicker of recognition, followed by something closer to mild irritation. It is not their word. It’s for others to worry about – listed companies, regulatory filings, thick compliance manuals, and boardrooms that feel very far from the reality of a business where the founder is still making half the decisions before eight in the morning.
That reaction is not wrong. Governance, as most people have encountered it, belongs to an institutional world. It implies obligation. Audit committees. Terms of reference. Structures that feel designed for an organisation much bigger than yours. If that is what governance means, it is reasonable to conclude that it is someone else’s concern.
The question is whether the word has become a distraction from something more fundamental – that business governance, in some form, is already present in every business, regardless of size, structure, or stage.
What Business Governance Has Come to Mean
Governance, as most SME leaders encounter it, is rarely introduced as a practical way of running a business. It tends to arrive through the language of compliance. Through auditors, through legal requirements, through frameworks that appear fully formed and already complex.
Much of that language was shaped in response to failure. Each collapse produced a wave of regulatory response and, with it, a thickening layer of structures, disclosures, and oversight mechanisms designed to prevent the next one. The intent has been reasonable. The consequence is that governance has become, in the popular imagination, synonymous with compliance.
South Africa’s King Reports – now into their fifth iteration – have been among the more thoughtful attempts globally to articulate governance as something beyond rule-following. The OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, first published in 1999 and revised most recently in 2023, make a similar effort. Both frameworks are built on the recognition that business governance is fundamentally about how authority is exercised and how accountability is maintained – not about which boxes have been ticked. But the compliance framing has proven more durable than the principle, and most founders encounter corporate governance first through its most mechanical expressions: mandatory filings, required disclosures, minimum statutory obligations.
What began as an attempt to improve judgement and accountability is often experienced as a set of obligations. Something to comply with. Something to get right in form, rather than in substance. And once governance is framed that way, it moves to the edge of the business. It becomes something you do when required, rather than something that shapes how governance actually functions within the business.
The unintended consequence is distance – governance is treated as an addition, often grudgingly, rather than a condition.
The Governance That Is Already There
Here is the part that tends to surprise people: corporate governance, in its most fundamental sense, is already present in every business, whether it is named or not.
Not the formal kind, not the documented kind, but governance in the most practical sense of the word. Decisions are made, authority sits somewhere, and information reaches certain people, not others. When a significant hire needs approval, or a new client commitment needs sign-off, or a pricing change needs a decision, the answer to “who decides?” exists – even if it has never been written down.
In most founder-led businesses, those answers are consistent in that they all point in the same direction. The founder decides, or the founder is consulted, or the decision waits until the founder is available. The logic is straightforward – the founder carries the context, holds the relationships, understands the numbers, and can resolve ambiguity in real time. The system works because one person is its integrating mechanism. Business governance, in this form, is not a designed system. It is a pattern of behaviour that has emerged organically from the way the business grew, but it is still governance.
That is not a criticism. It is the natural state of a business that moved faster than its structure. The founder’s centrality was an asset in the early stages – it is what allowed the business to move quickly, to maintain standards, to hold client relationships together during the years when there was no one else capable of doing so. The governance that exists is functional, personal, and embedded. It just may not be clear or distributed enough to serve the business as it continues to grow.
Understanding that informal governance is already present – rather than absent – changes the nature of the question. The question is not “do we need governance?” The question is “is the governance we already have adequate for where the business is now?”
Where Informality Reaches Its Limits
Certain patterns tend to surface as a business grows beyond the point where informal governance can comfortably hold. They are not dramatic. They do not announce themselves clearly, but arrive gradually, and are usually attributed to other causes before their actual source becomes visible.
One is a slowing of decisions that should, by rights, be straightforward. The people who should be making those decisions are capable enough. They are not avoiding responsibility out of laziness or indifference, but because the authority to decide is unclear, and the cost of being wrong feels personal in a way that is difficult to articulate. So matters sit. They are flagged, discussed, returned to, and eventually escalated. The escalation is not always visible as escalation – it often appears as consultation, or as “just keeping the boss informed.” But the effect is the same. Decisions that should happen at one level consistently happen at another.
The second pattern is related but distinct. It is the proliferation of matters that arrive at the founder’s desk not because they require the founder’s judgement, but because no one is certain whose judgement applies. Although this feels like a people problem, it is not. It is a structural problem. The absence of clear decision authority means that the founder becomes the default resolution mechanism for ambiguity, regardless of whether the matter is genuinely strategic or simply uncertain.
Over time, this creates a particular kind of overload – that of being the answer to questions that should have answers elsewhere. There is an earlier piece on the hidden cost of being the final decision point that traces this pattern in more detail.
Then there is a pattern that tends to become visible only in retrospect. It is the founder becoming, by default, the integrating mechanism for the entire organisation – the person through whom strategy, operations, client relationships, cultural standards, and financial judgement all flow. This is a natural outcome of the previous two patterns, but it has a quality of its own. The business has, in effect, organised itself around one person’s presence. Everything functions when they are present and in full capacity. The cracks appear when they are not. This is the structural reality that underpins what is usually described, somewhat inadequately, as founder dependency – a business structure problem, not a leadership one.
Decision Architecture as Practical Reality
Strip away the regulatory associations and governance resolves into a small number of practical questions that every organisation has to answer. Who decides? On what basis? With what information? And accountable to whom?
In businesses where decision authority tends to be clear, consistent, and shared, decisions happen at the right level without unnecessary delay or escalation. People understand what they are authorised to do and act accordingly. The founder’s attention is directed at the things that genuinely require it.
In businesses where these questions are answered differently each time – depending on who is in the room, or the mood of the meeting, or the perceived risk of the moment – the inconsistency is not merely inefficient, but a cost. It creates uncertainty at every level of the organisation. People learn, over time, that the safest path is to escalate or to wait. The operating rhythm slows. The founder works harder. And the gap between what the business is capable of and what it actually produces slowly widens.
What is worth noting is that this does not necessarily require a formal corporate governance structure. In businesses where things work well, there tends to be a degree of clarity about authority, about the basis on which significant decisions are made, about what information reaches which level of the organisation, and about where accountability sits.
Some businesses develop this clarity naturally, through experience and good instinct. Others accumulate years of structural ambiguity before the cost becomes impossible to ignore. The difference between the two is rarely a question of the founder’s intelligence or commitment, but whether the business structure has kept pace with its growing complexity.
What Governance Looks Like When It Is Working
The organisations where business governance is genuinely functioning rarely describe it as governance. They describe it through other things: a clarity about who is responsible for what, a consistency in how significant matters are handled, a sense that the organisation can hold its own weight without everything passing through one point. The founder is present and influential, but not central to every decision. Meetings produce conclusions, and accountabilities are understood. When something significant needs to change, the mechanism for making that change is clear.
The contrast with businesses where this quality is absent is not always dramatic – at least not at first. It shows up in smaller ways. In the frequency with which decisions are revisited. In the number of conversations that need to happen before something gets done. In the degree to which the business slows when key people are unavailable. And in the particular texture of the founder’s working week, which tends to be full of things that feel important but are not, by any reasonable measure, the best use of a founder’s time and judgement.
There is a value dimension here that tends to enter conversations about business governance only when a company approaches a transition – a partial sale, an investment, a succession. Businesses that operate with structural clarity are more legible to external parties. They are easier to understand, easier to assess, and easier to trust. The authority structures are visible. The decision-making is predictable. The key-person risk is lower.
These qualities do not appear on a balance sheet, but they are reflected in how seriously a business is taken by prospective investors, acquirers, or strategic partners. A business that runs on informal, personal authority may be highly profitable. It is not, however, particularly transferable. The thinking behind building transferable value is worth looking at in this context.
The Inflection Point
Most founders do not decide to address governance as a concept. They reach a point where the cost of not addressing it becomes visible, often through something specific and usually uncomfortable. A key person leaves and the decisions they carried informally have no obvious home. A significant client relationship becomes uncertain because the normal resolution mechanism – the founder, in person – is not available. The business begins to slow in ways that feel external but are, on examination, internal.
These moments are not rare. They are a predictable feature of businesses that have grown without attending to structure. What varies is how prepared the business is when they arrive. The businesses that navigate them with the least disruption are generally those where some degree of structural clarity was already in place – where authority was distributed enough that the absence of any single individual did not bring the decision-making to a halt. Not perfectly distributed. Not formally codified. Simply clear enough that the organisation could function with a degree of confidence in the spaces between.
The inflection point is not a crisis if it is not also the moment of first recognition. When the structure is already partially in place – when people understand their authority, when decisions have a consistent basis, when accountability is attached to roles rather than people – the disruption that would otherwise be destabilising becomes manageable. The business absorbs the shock rather than transmitting it. That capacity to absorb disruption is, in its own way, a form of organisational resilience that formal risk frameworks rarely capture adequately. The relationship between organisational resilience and governance is worth understanding on its own terms.
A Recognition, Not a Resolution
The word governance will continue to do what it does. It will signal the wrong things to the people who most need to think about the right ones. That is unlikely to change, and it may not matter. What matters is whether the underlying questions of decision-making authority – who decides, on what basis, with what information, accountable to whom – have answers that are clear enough and consistent enough to serve the business as it actually is today, not as it was three years ago.
In most founder-led businesses, governance is already happening. It has been there since the first hire, the first client, the first time someone else needed to act on the founder’s behalf. The pattern is embedded. The question is whether it is embedded deliberately or by accident, and whether the answers it produces are adequate for governance in founder-led businesses that are now larger, more complex, and more dependent on people other than the founder to function.
There is no resolution at the end of that question. There is only a more honest look at whether the governance already present in the business – informal, personal, and functional up to a point – is still fit for what the business has become.
Given that governance is already shaping how your business runs, in ways both visible and not, what would you see if you looked at it not as something external, but as the structure already sitting beneath every decision being made today?
If you enjoyed this article you can subscribe here to receive future articles.
—
0 Comments