Addressing distrust for better governance

60% of directors say the candor of board-management discussions needs improvement. That finding, from the NACD 2025 Trends and Priorities Survey, should alarm every board member. Six out of ten directors believe management is not being straight with them about what is actually happening in their organizations. Without honest dialogue about where technology capabilities fall short, boards cannot ask the right questions. Without the right questions, management optimizes for what gets measured in quarterly reports rather than what actually protects the organization. The cycle continues until a material incident forces the conversation that should have happened years earlier. This matters because technology risk now sits at the top of most board agendas. With 41% of directors ranking cybersecurity threats and 30% ranking AI among their top concerns for 2025, the consequences of incomplete information have never been more severe. Boards that want better technology oversight do not need more dashboards. They need different conversations. The kind with additional context provided, where a shares CISO "we are making a calculated risk accepting this vulnerability because fixing it would require stopping three other initiatives which involves more risks to our clients and business" and the board understands the trade-off being made. Where a CTO can explain that the AI strategy being presented is six months behind what competitors have deployed, and everyone acknowledges the gap rather than pretending it does not exist. Technology governance is not a reporting problem. It is a trust problem. Until boards and executives create the conditions for candor, they will continue governing with incomplete information about their most material risks. What are you doing to ensure the conversations in your boardroom reflect reality?

Operations: “I do check-ins. Five minutes—updates, blockers, done.” Relational Leader: “That’s a status report. Try asking, ‘What do I need to know that might affect your trust or focus today?’ Then stop talking.” Finance: “You mean personal stuff?” Leader: “Not personal—relational. It shows you where the system builds or hides friction.” 1. Measure the Space, Not Just the Task Finance: “We measure performance. You can’t manage what you can’t measure.” Leader: “Then measure safety. Ask, ‘How safe do you feel bringing bad news?’ That number predicts everything.” HR: “We already do engagement surveys.” Leader: “Engagement isn’t trust. If surveys don’t change policy, you’re collecting fear in polite language.” 2. Name the Invisible Work Operations: “If I can’t see it, I can’t fund it.” Leader: “Then you’ll never see why people burn out. Mentoring, calming, translating—make that work visible.” HR: “But how do we reward it?” Leader: “Start by writing it down. You can’t reward what your system refuses to name.” 3. Use Systems as Trust Tools Tech: “Our systems are built for consistency, not emotion.” Leader: “Then make fairness visible. Transparency isn’t emotional—it’s ethical.” Finance: “So publish everyone’s salaries?” Leader: “No. Publish reasoning. Secrecy breeds distrust; clarity breeds calm.” 4. Rebuild Accountability as Reciprocity Fundraising: “I hold people accountable. Donors expect results.” Leader: “Accountability without reciprocity is extraction. Ask, ‘What do you need from me to deliver this?’” Operations: “Then I’m responsible for excuses.” Leader: “No—you’re responsible for environment. Safety breeds performance.” 5. Be Curious Before You Correct HR: “When performance slips, I act fast.” Leader: “Act—but begin with curiosity: ‘What might I be missing?’ Curiosity finds system failure faster than punishment.” 6. Normalize Reflection Research: “Reflection sounds like therapy.” Leader: “It’s maintenance. Ask once a month, ‘What are we pretending not to see?’ That’s culture work.” 7. Redefine Professionalism HR: “Professionalism means composure.” Leader: “Without humanity, it’s surveillance. If people can’t be real, they can’t be resilient.” Finance: “Emotions cloud decisions.” Leader: “Ignoring them costs more—in turnover, cynicism, silence.” 8. Practice Relational Intelligence Daily “I don’t know, but I’m listening.” “You don’t owe me comfort—just honesty.” “Let’s fix the trust first, then the process.” These sentences are infrastructure. They keep the organization standing when your strategy shakes. Relational leadership doesn’t replace structure— it makes structure trustworthy. When relationships are healthy, everything else works better— even the spreadsheets.

Opinion: Why Risk and Governance Must Be Front and Centre in First Nations Leadership By Nicole Brown There’s been a renewed interest in good governance and best practice across First Nations organisations — and rightly so. As the stakes get higher, so too must our standards. Whether we’re managing land, culture, community services or enterprise, the risks we face are real. But perhaps none more so than the risk to reputation when transparency and accountability are lacking, and community trust begins to erode. In our cultural context, reputation isn’t just about public image — it’s about the strength of our relationships. When trust is broken, it doesn’t just impact one board meeting or one funding decision. It sends shockwaves through generations. Our Elders lose confidence, our young people turn away, and the very fabric of our community weakens. We must be honest about where things have gone wrong. Closed-door decisions. Infrequent or inaccessible reporting. Community voices sidelined. Poor handling of conflict and cultural obligations. These issues aren’t just governance failures — they’re risks that, left unchecked, threaten the legitimacy of our leadership. Strong governance in the First Nations space means more than balancing budgets or following policy. It means embedding cultural governance alongside Western systems. It means making decisions that are accountable to our people — and delivering those decisions in ways that make sense to mob. It means elevating transparency as a cultural value, not just a corporate one. Risk management is not a tick-box process. It’s about anticipating harm — to reputation, relationships, and long-term impact — and taking action early. It’s about creating safe pathways for feedback and ensuring there are clear mechanisms for the community to raise concerns and see them addressed. Accountability, when done right, is empowering. It reminds us who we serve. It strengthens our legitimacy. And it makes us better leaders — not weaker ones. The greatest risk facing our organisations isn’t running out of funding. It’s running out of community faith. It’s time we raise the bar — not because government tells us to, but because our people deserve it. It’s time to create governance systems that reflect who we are, where we come from, and where we want to go. Systems built on truth-telling, responsibility, and care. Because real leadership is not about power — it’s about trust. And trust must be earned every single day.

Trust in local government currently sits just above 50%. It’s going to be a top issue for 2025. Over the past 15-20 years, trust levels in local government have fallen significantly. Looking at root causes of this disconnect, long-term studies are now finally showing what we’ve been seeing on the ground for years: 1️⃣ Perceived Lack of Transparency 👉 Residents feeling as though they aren’t seeing what’s happening in their municipality — even if it’s their own fault for not looking for the info — drives a massive wedge in resident-government trust. 👉 If information is difficult to find as soon as they need it (including on your website), residents perceive that as intentional. To them, you’re hiding something. 👉 Not seeing the “why” behind the “what” results in residents defaulting to speculation. More often than not, that speculation skews to the negative. 2️⃣ Perceived Lack of Representation 👉 If resident voices aren’t incorporated into municipal decisions, they feel like they’re being governed “down to” instead of governed for. 👉 If residents participate in engagement but don’t see how engagement results are used, they feel wronged and disrespected. 👉 If residents don’t feel “heard,” they will feel slighted. There you have it: The Top 2 trust disrupters. It’s not about specific decisions made. It’s not about dollars taxed. It’s not about services delivered. The main two drivers of distrust in local government fall to proactive public communications and meaningful public engagement. Too many organizations still aren’t investing in these areas to the extent required, saying they can’t afford to bolster comms and engagement right now. In reality, in both the short-term and long-term, you can’t afford not to. Let’s get to work 💪 #localgovernment #localgov

One of the most important steps any government should take upon assuming power is to establish a social listening team. A team dedicated to understanding what the average citizen is genuinely thinking and feeling—free from the filters of political bias, partisan rhetoric, or blind loyalty. Governance isn’t just about implementing policies; it’s also about perception management. In Ghana, for instance, where surveys have shown declining trust in governmental institutions, effective social listening could provide critical insights into the ‘true state of the nation’ from the perspective of the people. This doesn’t have to involve a large, formal structure. By leveraging social listening tools, monitoring opinion leaders on social media, and having real conversations with everyday Ghanaians—trotro mates, market traders, hawkers—a government can gather valuable feedback. These insights can then guide decisions and messaging to reinforce hope, build trust, and align leadership with the needs of the citizens. Governments that prioritize listening are better equipped to lead. After all, leadership is about connection. #SocialListening #CitizenEngagement #PublicRelations #GovernmentRelations H.E John Dramani Mahama #MahamaThePresident #BrandBuilding

Modern GRC is shifting toward governance through automation. Instead of drowning in spreadsheets and emails, we now use AI and automation to enforce consistency, track accountability, and reduce human error. This is the same mindset that AI governance uses; clear rules, reliable monitoring, and trust through transparency. Step 1: Spot a Governance Gap Ask: Where do things fall through the cracks? Examples: • People forget to update policies on time. • Evidence gets stored in ten different places. • Risk owners don’t close out tasks consistently. Step 2: Translate the Rules into Actions Think like governance, not coding. Write it out as: • Who owns it? • What should happen every time? • Where should the record live? • When is it considered complete? This is the same as setting “guardrails” in AI governance. Step 3: Apply an Automation Layer Tools you can try: • Zapier or n8n to move evidence automatically. • Notion or Airtable to track risks with built-in reminders. • AI summarizers to scan vendor reports or questionnaires. • Compliance platforms like Vanta to pull logs and link controls. Step 4: Measure Trust and Accountability Instead of only saying “we automated it,” show governance impact: • Audit evidence always stored in one system of record. • Late reviews reduced by half. • Stakeholders notified automatically, not manually. Choose one process you manage (policies, risks, access, evidence). Write out the “rules” of governance for it. In the next step, we’ll show how to layer automation or AI on top of those rules so the process runs more smoothly.

Your people don’t trust each other because you don’t trust each other. That’s the hard truth at the C-suite level. When executives don’t trust each other, the whole organization feels it: ▪︎ Leaders compete instead of collaborate. ▪︎ Priorities conflict. ▪︎ Big decisions stall. And employees notice. They may not sit in the boardroom, but they read the signals fast. If you don’t trust each other, why should they trust you? Here’s the catch: when mistrust is at the top, no amount of middle-management heroics can fix it. That’s not their job. It’s yours. And the cost is steep: deals slow, talent leaves, and competitors move faster. But what if the CEO doesn’t see it? That’s often the case. Which is why this work can’t wait for a memo from the corner office. When trust is missing at the executive table, everything else sits on shaky ground. Which means without trust at the top, accountability everywhere else is just theater. If you’re in the C-suite and you do see it, here are three moves that matter: 1. Find the entry point. It doesn’t have to start with the CEO. Two or three peers can choose to work differently and set a new tone. 2. Frame it in business terms. “Trust” can sound soft, but lack of it costs speed, talent, and deals. That’s harder to ignore. 3. Use a container. Off-sites and facilitated sessions give space for candor you won’t reach in the daily grind. Have you been in a room where the trust gap was obvious? What actually helped shift it? #Leadership #ChangeInfluence #LeadershipInAction #Trust #TrustMatters