What are the big investigations into governance failure telling us?

Insights from GGi's latest monthly webinar

Public inquiries into governance failure are no longer rare events – they are a constant feature of the public sector landscape. From the Post Office Horizon scandal to repeated failures across health and local government, the same underlying patterns continue to emerge. The question is no longer what goes wrong, but why the lessons are so often not learnt.

GGi’s March webinar brought together nearly 150 public sector leaders to explore exactly that – what these investigations reveal about how governance breaks down in practice and why change remains so elusive.

Chaired by GGi principal consultant Aidan Rave, the session featured Dr Katy Steward, Max Caller CBE and Professor Andrew Corbett-Nolan, each offering their own distinctive perspective drawn from direct experience of high-profile investigations.

Dr Steward opened with reflections from her work as an expert witness to the Post Office Horizon Inquiry. She highlighted how governance failure often sits within a wider system of weak accountability, cultural dysfunction and organisational pressure. In the Post Office case, she noted the marginalisation of sub-postmasters’ voices and a board that did not sufficiently interrogate warning signs coming from multiple sources.

Key governance weaknesses included limited board independence, a failure to integrate legal advice into operational decision-making, and a lack of structured engagement with frontline insight. Underpinning all of this was a board that was not consistently on the front foot in identifying and escalating risk.

Governance stretched to breaking point

Max Caller built on this by focusing on the patterns he has observed across local government interventions. He argued that while failures present with different symptoms, their root causes are strikingly consistent: leadership, culture and governance. As he put it, “Failure happens when leaders breach norms and stretch governance to breaking point and beyond.”

He emphasised that a defining characteristic of failing organisations is a lack of curiosity at a senior level – a tendency to accept reassurance rather than probe and to avoid uncomfortable truths.

Risk management was another focus. Caller challenged the common practice of treating risk as a compliance exercise, warning that simply documenting risks does not equate to managing them. “Risk is something people think is academic until it punches you in the face,” he said, highlighting the failure of organisations to consider what happens when risks materialise and mitigation strategies fall short. In many cases, he noted, organisations persist with flawed approaches rather than stepping back and reassessing.

Andrew Corbett-Nolan offered insight from GGi’s own investigative work, focusing on the governance systems that fail to prevent harm. A recurring theme was the poor quality of governance processes themselves – from inadequate board papers and weak minute-taking to a lack of appreciation that formal records may later be subject to scrutiny in legal or regulatory contexts.

Andrew also highlighted the prevalence of poorly commissioned or under-resourced initial investigations, which can obscure issues and delay effective resolution. Alongside this, he stressed the importance of understanding and applying the Nolan Principles in practice, rather than treating them as abstract ideals.

Marginalising independent voices

The Q&A and chat discussion reinforced and extended these themes. Participants highlighted persistent challenges such as pack mentality in boards, the marginalisation of independent voices, and the fear of raising concerns without a ready-made solution.

There was debate about the role of non-executive directors, including whether current remuneration and recruitment practices undervalue their contribution and limit diversity of thought.

A particularly rich thread focused on the fundamentals of governance practice. Contributors emphasised the importance of high-quality minutes that accurately reflect risk, challenge and decision-making, rather than obscuring them through vague or passive language.

The role of the governance professional was highlighted as critical in shaping the integrity of the organisational record and supporting effective board functioning. There was also discussion about the value of professional expertise more broadly, including internal audit and governance advisory roles, and the need to protect their independence.

The discussion also explored the tension between strong and autocratic leadership. While organisations often seek decisive leaders, participants noted the risk that this can suppress challenge and narrow perspectives if not balanced by a culture that actively welcomes questioning. As one contribution captured, leaders who are not questioned become inherently more vulnerable.

Avoiding repeated failures

The session closed with a clear and perhaps uncomfortable reflection. There is no shortage of evidence about what good governance looks like – nor of detailed analysis of what happens when it fails. What is missing is consistent application. Time and again, organisations defer difficult conversations, underinvest in governance capability, or allow cultures to develop where challenge is unwelcome. The result is that warning signs are missed, risks are normalised, and failures that appear sudden are, in reality, long in the making.

The task for boards and leaders is not simply to absorb the findings of the latest inquiry but to act on them – deliberately, consistently, and before the next failure emerges.