Laws, policies, terms of reference, organizational charts and corporate governing documents matter. They establish authority, responsibility and expectations.
But having governance documented is different from knowing how to put it into practice.
When GNPCI reviewed fourteen governance frameworks used in British Columbia, Alberta and nationally, thirteen focused mainly on what good governance should look like, with less practical guidance on the steps required to put governance arrangements into use. The review also found limited practical guidance on the working relationship between Council and administration, while twelve of the fourteen said little or nothing about the governance of Nation-owned businesses.
Those findings pointed to a practical gap.
A policy may clearly describe delegated authority, but people still need to know what that authority means in the decisions they make every day.
A board may have strong terms of reference, but the board and management still need a shared understanding of what information comes forward, what management can decide, what the board decides and when owner direction is required.
A job description may say a manager is responsible for a function, but that person may still need clear role-specific expectations around the decisions they make, the budget or authority they control, what they are accountable for and when something should be escalated.
The document provides the foundation. Implementation is what makes it usable.
Governance has to survive first use
A process can look clear while it is being designed and still raise questions once people begin using it.
- Who prepares the information for the decision?
- Who confirms that required checks are complete?
- What happens when the situation does not fit the usual process?
- Who records the decision and follows up on the actions that come from it?
Those questions are often easier to see as people begin putting it into practice than they are on paper.
That is why implementation should not be treated as simply handing over a completed policy, framework or terms of reference. It can include orientation, practical examples, implementation support, clarification of role-specific expectations, adjustments where something is not working as intended and a clear handover for ongoing use.
The goal is not to keep redesigning governance. It is to make sure the agreed governance can actually be understood and used.
Practical implementation should fit the context
Putting governance into practice will not look the same in every situation.
A newly established board may need orientation on its mandate, roles, decision authority, reporting expectations and how those arrangements are meant to work in practice. An experienced board working within a well-established structure may instead need a focused review when membership changes, responsibilities shift, reporting expectations evolve, or an existing process needs clarification.
A process used every week may need to be short and easy to apply. A process used for occasional high-risk decisions may require more documentation, checks or specialist input.
A new policy may be clear on paper but still need practical guidance about who starts the process, what information is required, who makes the decision and what happens afterward.
The point is not to create the same level of process everywhere.
It is to make sure the governance arrangement can actually be understood and used in the context it was designed for.
Questions worth asking
Do our laws, policies, and governing documents match how decisions are actually being made?
Do people understand the authority assigned to their role and what is expected when they use it?
When a new process is introduced, who helps put it into practice and identifies needed adjustments?
Does the level of guidance, documentation and checking fit the frequency, complexity and risk of the decision or process?
Are we creating tools and processes people can use, or documents people have to interpret on their own?
A practical place to start
Before creating something new, look at what is already documented and how it is being used in practice. The gap may be a missing policy, but it may also be an unclear handoff, an undefined decision point, a role that needs clearer expectations or a process that has never been fully implemented.
For a broader introduction to the principles behind these questions, see What Is Governance, Really? Creating Clear Lanes for Better Decisions.
GNPCI supports Indigenous Nations and organizations with practical governance work adapted to their priorities and context. Learn more about GNPCI Governance Advisory, or download the Governance Advisory brochure.
If you are working through a governance question, change, opportunity or recent event and would value a confidential conversation, start a conversation.
