Why good governance lives in the grey

By Hayley Igbokwe, Governance Manager, Association of Colleges

I often ask people how they would describe governance in one word. The common answers are things like community, authenticity, curiosity, purpose. No-one says minutes, policies or audit trail (although I say that with deep affection for everyone who loves a beautifully maintained action log.)

Conversations about good governance tend to quickly move away from governance as a procedural exercise and towards governance as culture. People talk about integrity, trust, transparency and the need for governance to feel real rather than performative. And that's because good governance is not simply about whether the right process has been followed. It is about whether the right questions are being asked, by the right people, for the right reasons.

Compliance matters, but it is not the destination

Let’s be clear: compliance matters. College corporations are statutory corporations and exempt charities. Governors are trustees. Boards are responsible for educational character and mission, strategy, accountability, financial oversight, legal compliance and assurance. That is not optional. Nor should it be.

But compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. A board can be compliant and still not be curious. It can receive every report, approve every policy and meet every deadline, while still failing to ask the question that would have changed the conversation.

Good governance asks more than have we done what we were supposed to do? It asks what are we here to achieve? Who benefits from this decision? What are we not seeing? Whose voice is missing? What are we prepared to stop doing? This is where governance becomes purposeful and moves from being a mechanism of control to a form of strategic stewardship.

There is a familiar, and important distinction between strategic and operational governance. Governors are not there to manage the college. Executives must be able to lead. Boards should not drift into operational delivery or start rewriting timetables, marking schemes or rooming plans.

However, in practice, the line is not always neat. And (whisper it quietly) I have always quite liked the grey bit. That does not mean role confusion. It means recognising that strategic questions often emerge from operational reality.

A pattern in student complaints may be operational data, but it could point to a strategic issue about curriculum design, staffing, inclusion or learner support. Poor attendance in one area may be an operational concern, but it could also raise questions about student wellbeing, timetable design, transport, poverty or belonging. Staff feedback may arrive as a local frustration, but it may reveal something significant about culture, workload or leadership capacity.

The board’s role is not to fix those issues directly. The board’s role is to notice the pattern, test the assumptions, ask for assurance and understand whether the response is proportionate. That is not slipping into operations. That is governing well.

Curiosity is a governance skill

As the governance manager at AoC the best boards I see are not necessarily the ones with the thickest papers or the most polished dashboards. They are the ones with the strongest habits of curiosity. Curiosity is not suspicion. It is not trying to catch leaders out. It is the disciplined practice of asking better questions in the interests of the college, its learners and its communities.

A curious board does not simply ask: are we performing well? It asks: for whom? It does not simply ask: what does the average tell us? It asks: what might the average be hiding? It does not simply ask: have students been consulted? It asks: which students, how, and what changed as a result?

That shift matters because governance is not just about receiving assurance. It is about understanding whether the assurance is meaningful.

This is why staff and student governors matter. They sit in one of the most interesting spaces in governance. They are full members of the board, with the same collective responsibility as other governors, but they also bring insight from lived experience within the organisation.

They are not there simply to “represent” a group in the narrow sense. They are not delegates arriving with instructions. But their presence can change the quality of board conversation.

A student governor may ask a question no one else thought to ask because they experience the college differently. A staff governor may notice the practical implications of a decision that looks straightforward in a report. A parent or community voice, where part of the governance model, may bring a perspective from outside the institution that helps the board understand how the college is experienced by those it serves.

Good boards know how to use those perspectives without placing an unfair burden on individuals to speak for everyone. They understand that lived experience is not the same as formal representation, but it can be a powerful source of insight.

Governance between meetings  

Effective governance cannot live only in formal meetings. The board meeting is important; papers matter, minutes matter, and decisions need to be recorded properly. I will defend good governance process with a surprising amount of passion, and possibly a spreadsheet,  but governance culture is built between meetings too.

It is built when governors visit the college and listen carefully. It is built when boards seek out student and staff voice before decisions become final. It is built when governors ask how community insight is gathered, not just whether consultation happened. It is built when the board is visible enough to understand the organisation, but disciplined enough not to manage it.

That is the balance. Not distant. Not interfering. Present, curious and clear about role.

So, what does governance that makes a difference look like?

• It looks like boards that understand compliance but are not trapped by it.
• It looks like governors who know their role and still have the courage to ask difficult questions.
• It looks like chairs who create space for all voices, not just the most confident ones.
• It looks like executives who welcome challenge because they understand it strengthens decisions.
• It looks like having respected governance professionals who help boards focus on what matters, not just what is next on the agenda.
• It looks like student and staff governors being valued as full contributors, not symbolic appointments.
• It looks like boards noticing who is not in the room and doing something intentional about it.

• And perhaps most importantly, it looks like governance that remains connected to purpose.