Governance Gaps That Quietly Erode GBS Accountability

When Global Business Services (GBS) performance begins to struggle, governance is often the first place organisations look for reassurance. Steering committees are in place, escalation paths are documented, and review meetings are running on schedule. From the outside, the model appears controlled and appropriately supervised.

Across multiple GBS recovery programmes we have supported, governance was rarely the missing element. The deeper issue was that governance had gradually taken on decisions that no leader was clearly authorised, or willing, to own. This shift does not occur suddenly. It develops over time as trade-offs remain unresolved, pressure on cost and service expectations increases, and leaders hesitate to make decisions that carry visible organisational consequences.

When Governance Starts Carrying the Decisions

During stable operating periods, ownership appears clear. Delivery leaders manage operations, KPIs are reviewed routinely, and escalation remains limited. The pattern changes when pressure increases, typically when cost commitments tighten, service expectations rise, or transformation benefits take longer than anticipated. Under these conditions, routine decisions become more politically and operationally sensitive.

In these situations, we repeatedly observe demand prioritisation being escalated because declining work would disrupt senior stakeholder relationships, enterprise standardisation being delayed because no single leader holds authority across functions, and centrally approved automation programmes stalling because local adoption ownership was never defined. In each case, governance forums step in to resolve what are fundamentally ownership decisions. What begins as escalation support gradually becomes routine decision-making, and accountability has already started to erode by the time this shift becomes visible.

The Slow Drift Leaders Rarely See

This erosion rarely presents as dramatic failure. Service levels may hold, projects may continue, and the growing number of meetings can create the impression that issues are being actively managed. The underlying operating reality, however, changes in meaningful ways.

Decisions take longer because consensus is required among stakeholders who do not carry equal accountability for outcomes. Trade-offs soften as leaders avoid visible ownership of downside risk. Escalations become a normal operating practice rather than true exceptions. Over time, governance stops enabling decisions and starts absorbing them. At this stage, the GBS has not failed, but it has lost speed, clarity, and leadership confidence — losses that accumulate gradually yet materially affect performance.

Why More Governance Makes the Problem Worse

When performance becomes uncertain, organisations often respond by strengthening governance. Additional forums are introduced, reporting requirements increase, and more leaders are invited into decision discussions. In several recovery programmes we have supported, governance activity doubled within a year in an attempt to restore control. Decision speed declined further, and accountability became harder, not easier, to trace.

Governance functions effectively only when ownership already exists. Without clear decision owners, governance becomes a holding space for unresolved organisational tension. Participation expands, but consequence disappears. Structural oversight increases while accountability quietly contracts, reinforcing the very uncertainty governance was intended to resolve.

The Consequences Appear Later

The earliest impact of this drift appears as operational friction: slower decisions, softer enforcement of standards, and delayed realisation of expected benefits. The more significant impact emerges over time, as confidence in the GBS weakens, leadership questions whether promised value will materialise, and performance explanations become more complex than the outcomes themselves.

In multiple recovery situations, organisations initially concluded that the GBS model itself was flawed. In practice, the underlying design often remained sound. What had deteriorated was ownership, long before performance visibly declined. By the time this becomes clear, restoring confidence requires more than operational improvement. It requires rebuilding decision authority and accountability.

Governance Cannot Replace Ownership

Most governance structures are designed with the right intent: alignment, control, and risk management. Governance can clarify escalation paths, reinforce operational discipline, and provide transparency to senior leadership. What it cannot do is assume responsibility for decisions that organisational leaders do not own.

When governance is forced into this role, performance rarely collapses immediately. Instead, accountability fades progressively until organisational confidence is materially affected. At that point, the issue extends beyond execution and begins to challenge the credibility of the model itself.

Why This Matters Beyond the GBS

Once governance is carrying operational decisions, the issue is no longer contained within the GBS. Senior leadership begins to ask more fundamental questions, results become harder to explain, and confidence shifts from certainty toward concern. The conversation moves beyond delivery performance to organisational credibility.

In the next article, we examine why these governance and ownership gaps become even more critical in public-listed companies, where performance visibility, board scrutiny, and market expectations leave far less room for ambiguity.

Talk To Us