Organizations have been optimized for decades for efficiency, scale and predictability. Governance frameworks, risk reports and control mechanisms have been added alongside. In stable conditions, that combination looks sufficient.
Under pressure, it often is not. A new round of interviews with executive and supervisory board members, conducted by Schuberg Philis, finds a consistent pattern: the confidence that comes with governance and control investments does not always reflect the actual state of operational resilience.
In control is not continuity; The need to govern for adaptability in a volatile world sets out why operational resilience has moved from a risk management topic to a board level responsibility, and what boards can do about it starting now.
- See why control frameworks can create false confidence, and what that gap costs when disruption hits.
- Understand the four trade-offs no board can delegate, and how to govern them explicitly instead of by accident.
- Take away four actions for your next board meeting, before circumstance turns them into a crisis.
