Governance and the Invisible Hierarchies
Big organizations are tackling how AI is governed across their structures, helping shape the frameworks and operating models that ensure their approach can scale across regions and functions. But before we talk about the combined elements that make it possible, we should understand what governance is and what it is not.
Governance is often described as a system of visible structures with committees, risk frameworks, compliance programs, audit trails. Those formal layers only tell part of the story, because there’s another side in the unwritten rules of organizations, in the hierarchies that define who holds power, who remains visible, and who is rendered invisible. These hierarchies determine whether governance is truly about accountability or merely about appearances, in the worst case scenarios.
At Credit Suisse, I came to see this reality up close, my formal role as a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt gave me the authority to lead projects, challenge inefficiencies, and guide colleagues through structured improvement. Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that when I arrived, there was no visible authority flowing from senior vice presidents with tenure, title or passed by a single framework alone. Accepting the rules to be followed was an act of faith on invisible hierarchies, shaped by the day-by-day work and culture more than by formal governance.
Walking into the bank’s offices, the hierarchical divisions were palpable even if nobody spoke about it. On the floor, the executive glass offices carried an aura of privilege, closed doors and people wearing three-piece suits just half a world apart. Just opposite, operational teams were sitting shoulder to shoulder staring at multiple screens, and handling the transactions and data flows that kept the bank alive.
I started wearing a suit to blend in with executives, and spoke their language about efficiency, metrics, and controls. At first sight, it might have seemed that I belonged to their circle, but the hierarchy was enforced by a set of unwritten rules. At the top were the executives and senior directors whose decisions were rarely questioned. Their work set the tone, but they were shielded from many of the Controls that applied downward. In the middle layers there were technical experts, project leaders, data architects and managers like me. We were expected to make change happen, but always within boundaries drawn by the highest levels which would include a legion of senior vice presidents and assistant vice presidents. Our influence was conditional, dependent on our ability to align with the preferences of those above us in the org charts.
And at the bottom of the pyramid were the operational staff, the employees who worked long shifts through the night, who carried the responsibility of making sure systems functioned without halting, day after day. They were essential, but their contributions were rarely recognized outside their immediate circles.
Midnight on December 31st
The inequity of this meritocracy crystallized on December 31st at midnight. While many of the executives celebrated the arrival of a new year at ski resorts or distant islands, the operations teams at Credit Suisse were busy ensuring that reference data product updates were completed before the stroke of midnight.
These updates were not like anything glamorous or complex, they were rather tedious checks, reconciliations, and manual confirmations which would be later replaced by RPA. But without them, back-office processes could fail on January 1st, disrupting markets and triggering compliance issues. Someone had a bottle which consisted mainly of sparkling water and sugar, the cheapest non-alcoholic beverage that money could afford and that passed for champagne. While keeping an eye on the screens, that popped out while outside fireworks would flash the skies, silently. A minute later, the shift continued until someone would come to replace the next employees. Those were the real circumstances of a hustle culture which cared indeed very little for the well being of their workforce.
In governance terms, these employees which were committed but prone to human errors were the most reliable form of control. They guaranteed continuity under pressure and yet, were invisible to the broader institution. Their work was rarely acknowledged by leaders who toasted the new year elsewhere.
This invisible structure reflected old hierarchies common across Asia and Europe, informal but still deeply entrenched in countries like India. Like these social systems that can’t be even mentioned, hierarchies in corporations were often measuring worth by position rather than contribution, unchallenged. Executives at the top experienced governance as a loose framework, something negotiable.
Professionals in the middle experienced governance as a balancing act, trying to comply with rules while at same time striving for power and influence. Workers at the bottom experienced governance as relentless productivity tools that had to be filled manually, with every action being monitored, timed, and measured. Which means to say, there were controls but no fairness. Governance, in theory, is meant to be fair to all, but in practice it can be just another way for reinforcing inequality.
Controls Without Equity
That paradox was striking, with back office employees giving everything they had to deliver more, and since they were ones most crucial to governance, the first line of defence was told to work harder. They embodied control, logging in at midnight, checking data and preventing disruptions. But they were also the ones least empowered, least visible, least valued, venting poisoned words and smoke in cigarette breaks.
Controls applied downward but rarely upward, with constant micro management and oversight for those doing the most demanding tasks, while those with strategic oversight worked on other things. Governance became asymmetric, rigid for some and optional for others.
This imbalance created fragility, having employees complying with what governance required but feeling completely disengaged from their leaders. They performed tasks without trust, checked boxes without conviction, followed procedures without belief that fairness was possible. That was a case when the set of rules strengthened all what should in theory unify departments and units, and employees stopped surfacing risks proactively because there was an assumption that AVPs, VPs and Directors would ignore them. Problems were hidden, not resolved and resentment built across layers of the hierarchy, when trust disappeared from the picture.
Over time, this cultural corrosion weakened not only the framework which was built to standardize procedures and outputs, but the accountability. An audit was still producing clean reports, compliance dashboards would still flash green but the lived experience of employees contradicted the narrative. And when that contradiction grew too wide, systems failed beyond repair.
Implications for Transformation
For organizations pursuing digital transformation, the lesson is critical. Digital tools promise empowerment: real-time analytics, automated workflows, decision-making closer to the front line. But if invisible hierarchies persist, those promises will be empty.
An algorithm can reinforce inequity, assigning more scrutiny to one group and more freedom to another. A process automation may reduce visibility for those already at the bottom and without equitable governance, digital transformation risks magnifying existing divides rather than bridging them.
True governance requires more than metrics. It requires fairness:
- Consistency in measurement. The same standards applied across roles.
- Transparency in accountability. Leaders held to the same scrutiny as staff.
- Recognition in contribution. Invisible work treated with the respect it deserves.
Controls without equity are fragile, while those embedded in fairness make things last.
The Human Face of Governance
Governance is often imagined as something not tangible, something you can’t see with complex frameworks, policies, and charts. But at its core, it is about how comprehensive that’s made for the workforce. Roles and responsibilities need to be clearly defined, highlighting who bears the burden of compliance, along with ethical considerations on who benefits from discretion, who is visible, and who is forgotten.
At Credit Suisse, inequality created governance blind spots that weakened the institution. The midnight labor of operational staff, the professional class blending into a world they could not control, the executives shielded from oversight, all pointed out at an operating model where governance had no fairness at all.
Those invisible hierarchies undermine any attempts to set guidelines from inside, turning into another governance blind spot, which is the lack of consistency across processes and metrics. Having that in mind, even the most disciplined organizations can fail. On other hand, identifying actionable points, setting standards and guardrails can become not constraints but enablers of fair, sustainable controls.