The Hidden Gap: How Operational Reality Outpaces Board Oversight, According to Nick Curum

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum explores a critical disconnect that often emerges between strategic plans approved by boards and the evolving operational realities on the ground. Curum highlights how, even when plans are diligently approved and budgets signed off, the pace of real-world execution can outstrip the formal reporting cycles that boards rely on. This lag, he argues, creates a subtle but significant gap in governance.

The Unseen Evolution of Projects

Curum points out that by the time major projects are formally underway and budgets are set, the operational landscape has often already begun to shift. This isn’t necessarily due to flawed planning or hidden mismanagement, but rather the inherent speed of reality compared to the cadence of official updates. He identifies several subtle indicators of this divergence:

• Timelines that appear feasible on paper but become increasingly tight in practice.
• Dependencies that are formally marked as ‘under control’ but are quietly becoming fragile.
• Informal workarounds emerging before they are formally recognized as risks.
• A sense of uncertainty on the ground that is not reflected in formal updates.

These are not typically the dramatic issues that trigger immediate board-level concern, but rather the everyday adjustments made during delivery. As Curum puts it:

“None of this looks dramatic. That is exactly why it matters.

He elaborates that these adjustments are often made by operational leads and teams absorbing resource gaps or managing supplier delays informally, all while hoping issues can still be recovered. The project might still be rated as ‘on track’ in formal reports, but the underlying operations have already begun adapting to a reality the board has not yet perceived.

How the Governance Gap Widens

Curum argues that this gap widens not through overt failure, but through the normal, adaptive processes of operations that never quite make it into formal board reporting. This means that by the time a board clearly sees an issue, the organization may have been navigating it for weeks or months, leading to narrowed choices, increased costs, and more difficult recovery efforts.

According to Curum, this leads to a fundamental governance challenge: a board that governs only what it is shown is destined to be surprised by what it is not shown. He emphasizes:

A board that governs only what it is shown will always be surprised by what it was not shown.

Proactive Governance: Testing the Narrative

The solution, as outlined by Curum, lies in more proactive governance. He suggests that the strongest boards do not passively await the next update but actively test the information they receive. This involves asking critical questions that go beyond the surface-level reports.

Key Questions for Proactive Oversight

Curum proposes a series of probing questions that boards should consider to ensure their oversight remains relevant to lived reality:

1. When did we last see this first-hand?
2. Who have we heard from beyond the formal paper?
3. What is being managed operationally that has not yet been surfaced?
4. What might be true here that is not written down?
5. What has changed since approval that still has not reached the board?

He clarifies that these are not questions born of mistrust, but of effective governance. As Curum notes:

Good oversight is not just reviewing the quality of the paper. It is checking whether the paper still reflects the lived reality of delivery.

As the year progresses, Curum concludes, one question becomes paramount for boards seeking to maintain effective oversight: What has changed since approval that has not yet been surfaced?