What Breathable Governance Actually Looks Like

This took longer than I planned.

Not because I forgot (even though the long delay would imply that). Instead, because every time I tried to wrap it up, the story kept teaching me something new. I said I'd share what breathable governance or structure actually looks like in practice. Turns out, I had to experience it again at three different times with a recent client before I could explain it clearly.

So here we are.

In the last post, I walked through why too much structure suffocates change. How leaders add process to feel safer, only to find decisions stalling, meetings multiplying, and people quietly clinging to old systems just to get their work done.

This time, I want to show you what happens when you get it right.

Not the polished version. The lived one. Where structure mattered, resistance was real, and the balance wasn’t obvious at first.

Here’s what happened.

A wealth management firm needed to transition its CRM.

This wasn’t a cosmetic change. The CRM was the heartbeat of operations. Every workflow, every system, every person who touched client data was affected. Change this, and you’re changing how the firm actually functions day to day.

Their private equity partners understood the risk. So they mandated governance and recommended steering committees, weekly meetings, and formal documentation. All reasonable on paper. All things I do regularly.

The challenge came from the tech leaders inside the firm.

Historically, they moved fast. Sometimes uncomfortably fast. Quick decisions. Minimal process. Teams scrambling to catch up on go-live day.
Not ideal, but the firm was growing rapidly, and this tactic worked for them.

Now the firm was larger. More complex. And those same leaders were being asked to slow down, formalize, and meet weekly to build something sustainable they could leverage again and again.

They resisted. Quietly at first. Then more openly.

The same leaders who had burned teams with chaotic rollouts were now pushing back on the structure that could prevent it from happening again.

I couldn't blame them. Their remarkable accomplishments allowed them to keep pace with the growing demands.

That’s when it clicked for me.

Breathable governance is like Goldilocks. It's about finding the right-fit structure - not too much and not too little. And sometimes, you don’t find it on the first (or second or fifth) try.

What we tried (three times)

Round 1: Absorb, don't add

The PE firm wanted a standing steering committee. Weekly. Full attendance. Makes sense. Oversight, decisions, a clear communication channel.

The problem? These leaders were already drowning in meetings.

So instead of adding another one, we absorbed the steering function into their existing standing meetings. Same oversight. Same accountability. Different delivery.

We learned that structure doesn’t always mean building something new. Sometimes it means plugging into what already exists.

The breathable approach meant no new calendar drain. Same rigor, less friction.

Round 2: One source, many channels

This part surprised us.

By absorbing the steering committee into seven different standing meetings, we accidentally created seven different communication channels with seven different audiences.

Now tech leaders were expected to deliver updates across all of them. But pulling from what? Memory? Scattered notes? Half-written Slack messages? That’s not sustainable.

So we created a single living document. Dashboard-style. Progress, blockers, decisions, risks. Scannable in under two minutes. One place to see the whole picture.

We initially updated it weekly. Then realized that cadence was too much. We shifted to every other week…and it stuck!

We learned that when you decentralize meetings, you have to centralize information.

This breathable approach allowed leaders to pull what they needed for each audience without reconstructing the entire narrative every time.

Round 3: Invite people when it matters

We still needed a CRM committee. Cross-functional voices to weigh in on configuration, testing, and validation.

The traditional approach would’ve been a standing meeting with full attendance every week.

We didn’t do that.

Everyone attended the kickoff. After that, attendance became topic-specific.

Integrations? Advisors and client services joined. Billing and reporting? Billing showed up. Everyone else got their hour back.

We learned that people engage when they’re there because they need to be and not because they’re required to be.

This breathable approach wasted no one’s time in meetings that didn’t apply to their actual work.

What breathable governance actually means

This wasn’t just about one CRM project. I see this pattern everywhere.

Breathable governance is adaptive, not prescriptive.

Some teams need more process. Some need less. Some need it delivered differently. The starting point isn’t the governance playbook - it’s asking, what does this team actually need to succeed?

Breathable governance works with how people already operate.

If your structure requires people to completely rewire their rhythm, tools, or decision-making style, you’re inviting resistance. Find where structure can support what’s already working instead of replacing it.

Breathable governance takes iteration.

We thought absorbing the steering committee into standing meetings was the win. Then communication splintered. We adjusted. Then we refined again.

This isn’t one-and-done (although that would be nice!). It’s responsive.

The question that changes everything

Here’s the question I ask leaders now, every time we design governance for a major initiative:

Where are your people adapting themselves to the structure, instead of the structure adapting to them?

That’s usually where the strain shows up.

When governance fits, people speak up sooner. They use the tools as intended. Decisions surface in the open.

When it doesn’t, work reroutes quietly. Side conversations multiply. Progress happens off-system, out of view, and harder to steer.

Breathable governance keeps what truly supports the work. It reshapes what doesn’t.

Where This Leaves You

If you're an executive and your people are bending themselves to fit the governance instead of the governance supporting the work, it’s worth pausing. I help firms shape oversight that gives leaders visibility without pushing the real work underground so that change actually sticks.

If you're a leader carrying change inside systems that don’t quite fit how your team works, you’re not imagining the strain. I help leaders navigate that tension by working within existing structures while gently reshaping them so the work can move more freely.

On the path with you,
Erica

P.S. If you're reading this and thinking, "Yes, but how do I actually convince my COO/PE partners/leadership team to try this?" - that's the conversation I have with leaders every week. Sometimes the hardest part isn't designing breathable governance. It's getting permission (perhaps from yourself!) to try something that doesn't look like the playbook everyone else is following.