oncept of original sin, we are faced with the need for a code of morality and a process of self governance. As Geoff Mulgan suggests morality is a word that can be notoriously abused. Thus making self governance an imperfect art and a shaky foundation for the governance of groups . As corporates realised this, new models of governance came to the fore.Muller defines governance thus: Governance is concerned with the intrinsic nature, purpose, integrity and identity of an institution with a primary focus on the entitys relevance, continuity and fiduciary aspects. Thus Governance involves monitoring and overseeing strategic direction, socioeconomic and cultural contexts, externalities and constituencies of the institution.Thus, the primary goal of governance is making sure the right questions get asked at the right time, at the right place, by the right persons, to the right persons and in the right manner. It is not a coincidence that the worst corporate performers are the ones that had once been so securely on top that they stopped asking questions.Governance is usually delivered through an agreed constitution, through a complex web of customs and practices, underpinned by a shared system of ethics, to a range of stakeholders from the shareholder to the customer in that institution. Styles of governance vary depending on the nature and size of the body concerned. At one extreme is the rule-based style adopted by public sector bodies, which may be concerned with conformity rather than performance. At the other extreme are the churches and clubs where governance is based on trust. Most corporate bodies have an amalgam of both trust and rules in appropriate proportions. The Logic being that trust can only work with open governance.The basic prerequisite to achieving successful and effective governance is the establishment of certain criteria for systematic governance. As a minimum these are likely to be:1.the identity of the body2.defin...
