How should governance respond to non-compliance?

• A. Provide supportive coaching with no penalties.
• B. Enforce consequences for non-compliance.
• C. Ignore minor violations.
• D. Move non-compliant projects to another department.

Answer: (B)

The main idea being tested is how governance maintains accountability when rules aren’t followed. In a governance system, when non-compliance occurs, enforcing consequences is essential because it sends a clear message that policies are binding and that there are real outcomes for not meeting them. This accountability helps deter future violations, protects stakeholders, and preserves the integrity of the governance process. It also provides a structured path for remediation—addressing the root causes, implementing corrective actions, and escalating as needed to the appropriate governance body.

Consequence-based responses should be proportionate, timely, and applied consistently. That consistency builds trust that rules are not negotiable and that everyone is held to the same standards. While support and remediation are important, they work best when paired with appropriate consequences that reinforce that non-compliance has tangible effects.

Other approaches fall short because coaching without penalties may not deter ongoing non-compliance, ignoring minor violations weakens control and invites drift, and moving a project to another department avoids responsibility and doesn’t fix underlying issues.