Minimum Viable Governance

When a company is small, governance barely exists.

Decisions happen quickly. Information flows informally. The founder usually knows almost everything that’s going on.

For a while, that works remarkably well.

But as the company begins to scale, something subtle changes.

There are more people. More capital at risk. More customers depending on you. More complexity in the system.

And suddenly the way decisions used to happen - quickly, instinctively, often in a conversation - starts to feel less reliable.

This is the moment when many companies stumble.

Not because the product is wrong, or the market disappears, but because the organisation has quietly outgrown the way decisions are being made.

At this point, governance usually arrives.

Unfortunately, it often arrives in one of two unhelpful forms.

Sometimes there’s still almost none of it. The founder is carrying most of the strategic thinking alone, the board meetings feel more like updates than conversations, and important risks remain hidden until they become urgent.

Or the opposite happens. Governance suddenly becomes heavy: longer board packs, more reporting, more process. The intention is sensible - more oversight, more discipline - but the side effect can be slower decisions and less space for strategic thinking.

Neither approach works particularly well for a scaling company.

Startups operate on speed and instinct.
Large corporates operate on process and control.

Scale-ups sit awkwardly in the middle.

Too big for pure founder instinct, but still moving far too fast for corporate governance structures.

What they actually need is something different.

Not minimal governance.
And not corporate governance.

But Minimum Viable Governance.

The smallest governance structure that helps a growing company make better decisions, surface risks earlier, and support the founder as the business becomes more complex.

Because the real purpose of governance isn’t to slow a company down.

It’s to ensure the right decisions keep happening as the stakes get higher.

Governance tends to emerge when three things begin to change.

First, complexity increases.

There are more teams, more customers, more product decisions, and more financial exposure. The consequences of a wrong decision become larger.

Second, the founder can no longer see everything.

Information that used to sit in one person’s head is now distributed across teams. Signals about problems or opportunities can easily get lost.

Third, decisions become more expensive.

A misstep in pricing, hiring, or product direction might once have been easy to recover from. As the organisation grows, those decisions carry much bigger consequences.

Governance, at its best, is simply a way of improving how decisions are made under those conditions.

But when it evolves accidentally rather than intentionally, it can produce some predictable problems.

After working with a number of founders and boards, the same governance patterns appear again and again.

As the company grows, the founder often remains the person holding the strategic picture together.

Board meetings become presentations rather than discussions. The founder updates the board on what’s happening, but the deeper strategic thinking still happens largely alone.

Over time this can leave founders overloaded and reactive, without the space to step back and think.

Some boards exist largely to approve decisions that have already been made.

Papers are circulated. The meeting runs through the agenda. Everyone nods.

It feels efficient.

But the real work of governance - constructive challenge and strategic debate - never quite happens.

In some companies the board conversation becomes dominated by investor priorities: fundraising timelines, valuation, and exit scenarios.

Those topics matter. But if they dominate the boardroom, the company risks losing focus on the things that actually create long-term value: product, customers, culture, and leadership.

Other boards drift too far in the opposite direction.

The agenda fills up with operational detail - marketing campaigns, product roadmaps, weekly metrics.

Important topics, but not board-level ones.

When this happens, the meeting becomes long and exhausting, and the strategic conversation never quite finds its place.

Finally, some companies delay governance structures until something goes wrong.

Financial visibility weakens. Decision ownership becomes unclear. Risks accumulate quietly.

Then suddenly the board is trying to stabilise a problem that could have been surfaced much earlier.

None of these situations arise because anyone intended them.

They are simply what happens when governance evolves without design.

There is another reason governance conversations sometimes feel awkward.

Many founders privately feel that board meetings are designed more for investor oversight than for company thinking.

The agenda fills up with reporting.
The board pack gets longer.
The conversation revolves around numbers everyone has already read.

Meanwhile the most important questions - the ones that actually shape the future of the company - are squeezed into the final ten minutes.

It’s rarely intentional. It’s just what happens when governance grows through habit rather than intention.

But when that happens, the board slowly stops being a place where the company thinks strategically together.

And that’s when governance stops adding value.

Minimum Viable Governance borrows a simple idea from product development.

Instead of building a large governance structure all at once, companies ask:

What is the smallest structure we need to support better decisions as we grow?

The goal is speed with discipline.

Enough governance to:

• sharpen strategic thinking

• surface risks early

• support the founder

• protect the company as complexity increases

But not so much governance that decision-making slows or leadership energy disappears into reporting.

Done well, governance should feel less like oversight and more like a framework for better thinking.

In practice, Minimum Viable Governance rests on three foundations.

The board’s most important responsibility is helping the company pursue the right direction.

This isn’t about reviewing what has already been decided.
It’s about creating space for the conversations that shape what happens next.

A good board spends time on questions like:

• Is the strategy still sound?

• Are we pursuing the right growth priorities?

• What choices will matter most in the next phase of the company?

And crucially, it doesn’t rush these conversations.

Because without this, companies can execute extremely well - just in slightly the wrong direction.

Governance fails most often when boards simply don’t see problems early enough.

Minimum Viable Governance requires enough information to provide early signals without overwhelming the room.

That typically includes:

• financial performance

• cash runway

• a small number of meaningful operating metrics

• emerging risks

But good visibility is not just about numbers.

It relies on the CEO being able to share what is really happening - not just what looks good on paper.

The aim is not exhaustive reporting.

It is creating a shared understanding of the business early enough to act on it.

As organisations grow, decision ownership can become blurred.

Minimum Viable Governance keeps the boundaries clear - but that doesn’t mean rigid.

The board is not there to run the company.
But nor is it simply there to observe.

A good board plays a more active role than that.

It helps shape the most important decisions by:

• challenging assumptions

• asking better questions

• bringing pattern recognition from other companies

• supporting the CEO through difficult trade-offs

The formal responsibilities still sit where they should:

• the board holds accountability for strategy, funding, and CEO performance

• the CEO runs the company

• the leadership team executes

But in practice, the boundary is not a wall. It’s a working line.

When it’s working well, the board is neither passive nor overbearing.

It is engaged in the thinking - without taking over the doing.

When that balance slips, two familiar problems appear:

• boards that sit back and add very little

• boards that get pulled into operating decisions

Neither is particularly helpful.

The right governance structure changes as a company grows.

A small startup can operate with almost no formal governance.

An early scale-up benefits from a small but engaged board, basic financial visibility, and clear strategic discussion.

Later-stage companies may introduce independent directors, stronger reporting discipline, and eventually board committees.

The mistake many companies make is trying to adopt corporate governance structures far too early, or avoiding governance entirely until problems emerge.

Good governance evolves gradually as complexity increases.

One way to assess governance is to think about the quality of the conversation in the boardroom.

Do board meetings sharpen how the company thinks about strategy?

Do problems surface early enough to act on them?

Does the board help the CEO think better about the most difficult decisions?

And does governance strengthen the company without slowing it down?

If the answer to those questions is yes, the structure is probably about right.

Governance is often described in terms of compliance, reporting, and control.

But in scaling companies its role is much simpler than that.

Good governance creates the conditions for better decisions.

It ensures the company is heading in the right direction, that everyone can see what is really happening, and that the big decisions have clear ownership.

The goal is not to build the perfect governance system.

It is to introduce just enough structure to support the next stage of growth.

That is Minimum Viable Governance.