Governance Theater Presents: The Data Villains
Welcome back to Governance Theater.
The continued saga of The Data Villains, a tragicomedy in five acts.
Act II: The Governance Ghost
Last week, we met the Report Hoarder – the lone analyst guarding their spreadsheet empire like a dragon hoarding gold.
This week, we dim the lights and cue the fog machine.
Because our next character isn’t defiant.
They’re absent.
Enter: The Governance Ghost
They were named the data steward.
They nodded during kickoff.
They even showed up to the first glossary meeting.
But now?
They’ve vanished.
No glossary updates. No lineage reviews. No response to your Slack message asking, “Can you confirm which product code is valid?”
They’re not malicious. They’re just… missing.
And when governance depends on role clarity, their absence becomes a silent failure pattern.
Why This Matters
Ghosts don’t break governance.
They just leave it unfinished.
- KPIs drift without stewardship
- Definitions go stale
- Conflicting logic spreads across teams
- And no one knows who’s supposed to fix it
It’s not a system problem.
It’s a casting problem.
This Week’s Mission
We’re not here to exorcise ghosts.
We’re here to rewrite the scene.
All week, we’ll explore:
- How role ambiguity derails governance
- Why stewardship needs time-boxed commitments
- How to refresh responsibilities without drama
- And how to make ghosts visible, without making them villains
Because governance isn’t just about policies.
It’s about people.
And if you don’t activate the roles, the framework is just theater.
Spotlight on the real villain – Role Ambiguity
Where does it all Breakdown?
You assigned the stewardship role.
You added their name to the RACI.
You even gave them a glossary login.
But no one clarified:
- What decisions they own
- What cadence they follow
- What “stewardship” actually means in practice
So they drift.
Not out of malice, but out of misalignment.
Why This Derails Governance
When roles are vague, accountability evaporates, and governance becomes theater without a script.
- Glossaries go stale – because no one is responsible for reviewing them.
- Pro tip: bake glossary reviews into the framework. Annual cadence works for most orgs, but fast-moving environments may need quarterly refreshes.
- Bonus: It’s not just glossaries—policies, lineage maps, ownership assignments, and process documentation all need periodic care. Governance isn’t “set it and forget it.”
- KPIs get redefined – Because there’s no clear link to business activity – and no one owns the impact of corrective action.
- Pro tip: Add retrospective checkpoints to review KPIs and assess whether fixes are driving real performance gains.
- Bonus: As operations evolve, KPIs should too. Static metrics in a dynamic business? That’s how misalignment spreads.
- Data quality issues linger – because no one’s accountable for resolving them. When quality is ignored, workarounds emerge, just enough duct tape to keep the business machine running. But beneath the surface: wasted time, lost trust, and invisible opportunity costs.
- Pro Tip: Assign clear ownership for quality domains. Automate monitoring where possible.
- Bonus: Every workaround is a symptom. Governance should treat the root cause, not just the noise.
Rewrite the Scene
Want to make ghosts visible? Start with clarity.
- Define stewardship in business terms
- Time-box commitments (quarterly reviews, not eternal titles)
- Align roles with actual decision rights
- Use public recognition to reinforce visibility
Because governance isn’t just about assigning roles.
It’s about activating them.