Why Real Governance Starts With Mission-Critical Objectives

Key Takeaways

• Mission-Critical Objectives Are Where Real Risk Lives: The most consequential risks sit at the intersection of strategy, value creation, and value preservation, yet they are rarely the focus of board-level risk reporting.
• Don’t Tell / Don’t Ask Governance Persists: Many CEOs avoid sharing uncertainty tied to mission-critical objectives, and many boards avoid asking for it, creating a self-reinforcing governance failure.
• Risk and Audit Are Underutilized: Most CROs and CAEs are not expected or permitted to assess and report on the composite effect of uncertainty on mission-critical objectives, limiting their relevance and impact.
• Institutions and Regulators Lag Reality: Professional bodies and regulators largely fail to require or enable meaningful reporting on uncertainty linked to key objectives, despite decades of governance failures proving its necessity.
• A Small Minority Gets It Right: Only an estimated 3–5 percent of organizations truly empower CROs and CAEs to support boards with decision-useful insight on mission-critical risk and uncertainty.

Deep Dive

As noted in my most recent LinkedIn post, 2025 turned out to be an unexpectedly big year for these conversations, with more than one million views and over 200,000 reactions. That level of engagement doesn’t happen by accident. It suggests there’s a deep and growing frustration across the risk, audit, and governance community that something fundamental still isn’t clicking inside corporate boardrooms.

Looking ahead to 2026, the hope expressed in that post is a simple one, though far from easy. For CROs and CAEs who want careers that feel meaningful and valued, find an organization that actually wants you working on what matters most. Find a company that allows risk and audit leaders to focus on mission-critical objectives, the strategic and value-defining goals that determine long-term success or failure.

Those objectives are where real top risks live. They are the points where uncertainty, performance, fiduciary responsibility, and decision-making collide. And yet, in most organizations today, CROs and CAEs are not expected or permitted to assess and report on risk and uncertainty tied to those objectives at the board level. When that happens, it’s not surprising that many in these roles feel sidelined, underutilized, or stuck reporting on issues that feel disconnected from how the business actually wins or loses.

The harder truth, as the post lays out, is that this isn’t just an operational gap. It’s a governance one. Extensive global research, including work tied to AI and executive decision-making, suggests that many CEOs simply do not want to share risk and uncertainty linked to mission-critical objectives with their boards. At the same time, many boards don’t want to ask for it. That dynamic has been labeled the “Don’t Tell / Don’t Ask Governance Syndrome,” and it may be the single most damaging flaw in modern corporate governance.

CEOs aren’t the only contributors to the problem. Professional institutions play a role as well. Risk and audit bodies rarely train or expect their members to assess and report on the combined effect of uncertainty on mission-critical objectives. Regulators, meanwhile, continue to stop short of requiring systems that give boards reliable, decision-useful insight into uncertainty tied to those objectives. All of this persists despite the ISO definition of risk as the effect of uncertainty on objectives, and despite decades of governance failures that trace back to weak board oversight of risk linked to mission critical objectives

Boards can’t oversee what they don’t see. When they don’t receive reliable information about uncertainty linked to mission-critical objectives, oversight becomes ceremonial. Over time, that absence becomes normalized. Boards don’t ask because they don’t expect meaningful answers. Executives don’t offer because they aren’t asked. And risk and audit functions remain trapped in a self-fulfilling loop that keeps them away from the decisions that matter most.

For those already working in organizations that expect CROs and CAEs to help management assess and report on risk linked to mission-critical objectives, you are, by any reasonable measure, among the lucky few. Estimates suggest only three to five percent of CROs and CAEs today operate in environments where this level of contribution is expected and supported.

The post closes with a seasonal wish, and it’s worth repeating here. Warm wishes for a joyful holiday season and a healthy, prosperous 2026. And perhaps, borrowing from a very old and classic Christmas film, if you say “I believe” often enough, something might just change. Not because of magic, but because enough people finally decide governance can work better than this.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.