Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
When teams repeatedly bypass processes, it may not be a discipline issue. It can signal that the model is not aligned with how work actually happens, forcing teams to adapt around it.
I think it could be both. When governance goals or objectives do not align with a team’s day-to-day work and processes, adding governance steps and artifacts can create resistance, especially when teams feel they add work without clear value to their responsibilities or the organization’s objectives. Frequent exceptions can also consume significant time, effort and coordination that may not have been accounted for in the team’s capacity.
However, when governance is mandatory and adds clear value, such as regulatory requirements, the focus should be on collaborating with teams and their leads or delivery managers. They should understand the process, its importance, relevance and the effort required upfront. At the same time, governance should be adapted to the team’s capacity, context and needs wherever possible, while still meeting the required objectives. This can create better alignment, reduce unnecessary friction and minimize the need for exceptions.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:53 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
I agree, Srikana. I think the value behind the governance requirement matters a lot. When teams understand why something is required, especially in regulatory environments, it is easier to separate necessary governance from steps that may simply be creating extra work.
Frequent exceptions may stem from either an inadequate governance policy that is not aligned with strategic business objectives, leaving stakeholders and team members unmotivated to comply, or from team member resistance to following procedures; therefore, all staff must be adequately trained to clearly understand the requirements, and, above all, the purpose behind them must be explained to foster comprehension and willingness rather than resistance.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:54 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
Explaining the purpose behind a process can make a big difference. Sometimes what looks like resistance is simply a lack of understanding of why the requirement exists or how it connects to the work the team is doing.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
A very relevant question. I would treat frequent exceptions as a signal for reassessment, but not as a diagnosis in themselves.
Repeated bypasses may indicate that governance no longer fits operational reality, but they may also reflect capability constraints, misaligned incentives, unclear decision rights, temporary conditions or deliberate non-compliance. The pattern matters, but so does the mechanism producing it.
I would also distinguish governed exceptions from normalized workarounds. An exception can be legitimate when its rationale, authority, boundaries and duration are explicit. The greater risk arises when repeated deviations quietly become the real operating model while the formal governance model remains unchanged.
So the question should perhaps move beyond resistance versus governance misfit. What conditions are repeatedly producing the exceptions, what purpose was the original constraint intended to protect, and does that purpose remain valid?
Frequent exceptions should trigger inquiry, not automatic enforcement or automatic relaxation. The objective is to determine whether governance should adapt, execution should change, or both.
...
1 reply by Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
Aug 21, 2026 12:56 PM
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
When the workaround becomes the normal way of getting work done, that is probably a stronger signal that something needs to be reviewed. At that point, I would want to understand why teams keep choosing that path before deciding whether the problem is the process or the behavior.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aug 17, 2026 11:36 AM
Replying to Srikana Ray
...
I think it could be both. When governance goals or objectives do not align with a team’s day-to-day work and processes, adding governance steps and artifacts can create resistance, especially when teams feel they add work without clear value to their responsibilities or the organization’s objectives. Frequent exceptions can also consume significant time, effort and coordination that may not have been accounted for in the team’s capacity.
However, when governance is mandatory and adds clear value, such as regulatory requirements, the focus should be on collaborating with teams and their leads or delivery managers. They should understand the process, its importance, relevance and the effort required upfront. At the same time, governance should be adapted to the team’s capacity, context and needs wherever possible, while still meeting the required objectives. This can create better alignment, reduce unnecessary friction and minimize the need for exceptions.
I agree, Srikana. I think the value behind the governance requirement matters a lot. When teams understand why something is required, especially in regulatory environments, it is easier to separate necessary governance from steps that may simply be creating extra work. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aug 20, 2026 11:26 AM
Replying to Verónica Elizabeth Pozo Ruiz
...
Frequent exceptions may stem from either an inadequate governance policy that is not aligned with strategic business objectives, leaving stakeholders and team members unmotivated to comply, or from team member resistance to following procedures; therefore, all staff must be adequately trained to clearly understand the requirements, and, above all, the purpose behind them must be explained to foster comprehension and willingness rather than resistance.
Explaining the purpose behind a process can make a big difference. Sometimes what looks like resistance is simply a lack of understanding of why the requirement exists or how it connects to the work the team is doing. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aug 20, 2026 11:42 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
A very relevant question. I would treat frequent exceptions as a signal for reassessment, but not as a diagnosis in themselves.
Repeated bypasses may indicate that governance no longer fits operational reality, but they may also reflect capability constraints, misaligned incentives, unclear decision rights, temporary conditions or deliberate non-compliance. The pattern matters, but so does the mechanism producing it.
I would also distinguish governed exceptions from normalized workarounds. An exception can be legitimate when its rationale, authority, boundaries and duration are explicit. The greater risk arises when repeated deviations quietly become the real operating model while the formal governance model remains unchanged.
So the question should perhaps move beyond resistance versus governance misfit. What conditions are repeatedly producing the exceptions, what purpose was the original constraint intended to protect, and does that purpose remain valid?
Frequent exceptions should trigger inquiry, not automatic enforcement or automatic relaxation. The objective is to determine whether governance should adapt, execution should change, or both.
When the workaround becomes the normal way of getting work done, that is probably a stronger signal that something needs to be reviewed. At that point, I would want to understand why teams keep choosing that path before deciding whether the problem is the process or the behavior.
Community Champion
