Both can cause failure—but today, many projects fail more from misapplied or excessive governance than from lack of it.Both can lead to failure—but today, it’s more often misapplied governance that slows delivery and delays decisions. In complex, fast-moving projects, success depends on balancing control with adaptability, not choosing one over the other.
While I think both can exist, I think that most of they time they are symptoms, with the root cause being a mismatch between the governance model and the work being governed. Not enough governance and things can run smoothly until new and/or difficult decisions need to be made and either nobody knows who needs to make them or nobody is willing. Too much governance and decisions get delayed because of unnecessary hoops. The outcomes are unsurprisingly similar.
The first company where I worked as a project manager started a PMO three times before it stuck. The first one wasn't memorable - by the time the second one was being formed, nobody could recall anything about the first one except that it failed. The second one tried to impose a process that made it impossible to get approval to propose a small project in less than two weeks - in some cases the approval process took longer than the project. In both cases, the PMOs were more focused on the PMO model than they were on the nature of the work and organizational needs.
The third PMO was not the goldilocks PMO. They just decided to create a small PMO with a very niche focus within the organization. Enterprise governance was less of a concern.
While this was early in my career, it still holds true today. Part of the problem can be too many cooks in the kitchen and they're not all trying to prepare the same meal. You can have a mix of organizations - IT, Marketing, Sales, Finance, etc., that all have varying levels of opinions about how things should be run. PMOs might have a say. Individual project managers likely won't. I guess you could say that governance often lacks governance.
...
1 reply by Sreesudha Ayyalasomayajula
Jun 24, 2026 8:40 AM
Sreesudha Ayyalasomayajula
...
Thank you for sharing your insights. I agree with your perspective both can exist if not well monitored.
While I think both can exist, I think that most of they time they are symptoms, with the root cause being a mismatch between the governance model and the work being governed. Not enough governance and things can run smoothly until new and/or difficult decisions need to be made and either nobody knows who needs to make them or nobody is willing. Too much governance and decisions get delayed because of unnecessary hoops. The outcomes are unsurprisingly similar.
The first company where I worked as a project manager started a PMO three times before it stuck. The first one wasn't memorable - by the time the second one was being formed, nobody could recall anything about the first one except that it failed. The second one tried to impose a process that made it impossible to get approval to propose a small project in less than two weeks - in some cases the approval process took longer than the project. In both cases, the PMOs were more focused on the PMO model than they were on the nature of the work and organizational needs.
The third PMO was not the goldilocks PMO. They just decided to create a small PMO with a very niche focus within the organization. Enterprise governance was less of a concern.
While this was early in my career, it still holds true today. Part of the problem can be too many cooks in the kitchen and they're not all trying to prepare the same meal. You can have a mix of organizations - IT, Marketing, Sales, Finance, etc., that all have varying levels of opinions about how things should be run. PMOs might have a say. Individual project managers likely won't. I guess you could say that governance often lacks governance.
Thank you for sharing your insights. I agree with your perspective both can exist if not well monitored. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Projects struggle with both, but the bigger issue is usually governance that doesn't match the project's context. Too little governance creates confusion, while too much slows decisions and delivery. The goal is to have just enough to support the team without getting in its way.
...
1 reply by Sreesudha Ayyalasomayajula
Jul 01, 2026 2:33 PM
Sreesudha Ayyalasomayajula
...
that's exactly how it has to be "JUST ENOUGH" to get the ball rolling
Projects struggle with both, but the bigger issue is usually governance that doesn't match the project's context. Too little governance creates confusion, while too much slows decisions and delivery. The goal is to have just enough to support the team without getting in its way.
that's exactly how it has to be "JUST ENOUGH" to get the ball rolling Saving Changes...
Both extremes are equally damaging, but in different ways. Lack of governance creates chaos where decisions are made in silos, scope creeps unchecked, and risks go unidentified until they become crises. Too much governance creates paralysis where approval cycles exceed project timelines, teams spend more time on documentation than delivery, and innovation gets buried under compliance layers.
In my experience, the most common failure pattern today is misaligned governance, where controls exist but they do not match the project's complexity, risk profile, or delivery methodology. A lightweight agile initiative drowning in enterprise gate reviews fails just as surely as a complex transformation running with no oversight.
The key is adaptive governance: right-sizing controls to the project context. High-risk, high-value programs need robust governance frameworks. Smaller tactical projects need streamlined decision paths with clear escalation triggers. The PMO's role should be enabling appropriate governance rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all model. Organizations that get this balance right consistently outperform those stuck at either extreme. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
