Corporate governance has never been more global, yet the practices that shape it remain deeply rooted in history, culture, and institutional design. Across the world, jurisdictions continue to balance the demands of international investors with the structures that reflect their unique political and social foundations. The Anglo-American tradition, the stakeholder-oriented continental European approach, Asian relationship-based models, and emerging-market governance frameworks all represent different attempts to align corporate power with societal expectations. What is fascinating is not merely how these systems differ, but how they increasingly influence one another.

Corporate governance has evolved from a niche academic topic to a mainstream discipline that shapes how companies create value, manage risk, and earn investor trust. Behind every governance framework lie three practical questions: which philosophy of governance truly works, how national codes differ in practice, and whether companies today are merely complying with rules or actively using governance as a competitive advantage.

Transparency in governance is one of the most defining signals of corporate maturity, especially for companies preparing to enter the public markets. As organisations approach an IPO, their ability to communicate clearly about risk management, internal controls, and board oversight often shapes investor confidence as much as their commercial story. To understand what strong governance disclosure looks like in practice, it is helpful to examine companies recognised for excellence in this area. The FTSE 100 companies 3i, Aviva and BAE Systems were celebrated in the 2010 Transparency in Governance Awards for their disclosures on risk management and internal control. These organisations were distinguished not merely by reporting risks, but by explaining governance architecture with precision: board responsibilities, committee structures, internal audit mechanisms, risk identification, mitigation processes and links to strategic oversight. Their reports show discipline, clarity and an investor-minded approach to communication. When compared to another major listed company like BT Group, one sees clear differences. BT’s 2010 disclosures were comprehensive and compliant, with detailed risk sections, robust financial statements and committee reporting. However, the award-winning organisations demonstrated a deeper narrative about how risks are governed, how internal controls function continuously, and how oversight structures are embedded into culture and strategy. It is this narrative, rather than compliance alone, that gives investors confidence during an IPO.

Corporate governance has evolved through decades of economic shifts, corporate failures, and intellectual debates about the purpose of the modern corporation. At its core, corporate governance concerns how companies are directed and controlled, and particularly how power is distributed and exercised among managers, owners, and stakeholders. The field draws on several theoretical perspectives, each illuminating different aspects of governance. Although these theories sometimes appear to conflict, they are better understood as complementary perspectives on the same fundamental challenge: ensuring that those who manage the corporation act in the best interests of the enterprise, its owners, and society.

Corporate governance has evolved into one of the most important disciplines in modern organisational life. At its core, governance defines how power is exercised, how decisions are made, and how organisations remain accountable to the stakeholders who rely on them. Although the language of corporate governance became common only in the 1980s, the underlying principles have existed for centuries. They reflect humanity’s ongoing attempt to balance authority, responsibility, fairness, and transparency within institutions that grow more complex as economies expand.

Corporate governance is a familiar phrase today, but its rise was surprisingly slow. Although the underlying ideas were understood as early as 1932, when Berle and Means described the separation of ownership and control, the term “corporate governance” itself did not take hold until the 1980s. For much of the twentieth century, management studies focused primarily on how to run companies, strategy, operations, marketing, and leadership, rather than on how power should be overseen or balanced inside firms. Oversight, fiduciary duty, and board accountability were seen as legal or political matters, not management challenges. Academic and professional priorities therefore concentrated on efficiency and growth rather than control, accountability, or the protection of stakeholder interests. This meant that although the concepts existed, the institutional structures and political will required to turn these ideas into a distinct field were missing until major scandals forced attention.

Stepping out of university and into the working world can feel like stepping into fog. The path ahead is unclear, rejections feel personal, the job market seems harsh, and everywhere you turn someone is talking about how AI might replace your skills. If you’re feeling lost, you’re not alone, and more importantly, there is a way forward. As someone with over ten years of experience navigating technology, teams, and the ups and downs of multiple industries, here’s the advice I would give you, my mentee.

The tokenisation of money market funds (MMFs) has shifted from speculative pilots to a strategic transformation led by the world’s largest asset managers. Firms like BlackRock, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton and others are no longer experimenting; they are actively deploying tokenised fund structures to bring institutional liquidity onto blockchain networks. What once seemed experimental is now becoming an infrastructural layer for global cash management, driven by rising interest rates, improved custody solutions, and a maturing technological stack that blends traditional finance with programmable digital assets.

As enterprise architects, we spend much of our time shaping the future state of an organisation, its business capabilities, its technology landscape, and its operating model. Yet in the rush to design target architectures, many of us forget the most critical blueprint: the one for ourselves. Becoming the architect our organisation truly needs is not about titles, frameworks, or artefacts. It begins with defining, and deliberately inhabiting, our ideal professional self.

As enterprise architects, we often gravitate toward the things we can control, frameworks, technical depth, governance, and execution. These are tangible, measurable, and deeply satisfying to master. But if your “career bank account” is full of expertise and achievements while the relationship column stays empty, you risk becoming an architectural hermit: highly skilled, highly driven, yet disconnected from the very people who determine the success of your work. Our role is inherently connective. We bridge teams, align technology with business intent, and influence direction. Yet the relationship-building aspect of our work is often overlooked or undervalued. We invest heavily in developing skills, but far too little in the human networks that give those skills real impact.

In the world of enterprise architecture, we often speak in terms of systems, integrations, dependencies, and capabilities. Yet the most defining architecture we build throughout our careers is not found in a blueprint or a solution design. It is the architecture of relationships. The modern workplace is volatile. One day you may be leading a major transformation program; the next day, market shifts or organisational restructuring may force you to start again. Global instability, economic uncertainty, and technological disruption all remind us of a timeless truth: your real career capital is who you know, what you can do, how you show up, and how hard you are willing to try.

Achieving strategic goals is often framed as a grand pursuit, a bold vision, a multi-year transformation, a sweeping program to reshape the organization. Yet, in practice, strategy rarely fails because the vision is unclear. It fails because the path between the present and the future is too abstract for people to act on. Leaders speak in outcomes; teams operate in tasks. The gap between the two is where momentum is lost.

The role of the Enterprise Architect (EA) sits at the intersection of business strategy, technology direction, and organizational change. Yet when it comes to defining goals and KPIs, many organizations struggle to articulate what success looks like. Unlike delivery teams where progress is easily measured in terms of completed tasks or shipped features, the EA operates primarily in the domain of outcomes. These outcomes are multi-dimensional, interdependent, and influenced by forces well beyond the architect’s direct span of control. The value of the EA is real, but it is often indirect, systemic, and revealed over time.

Cloud has fundamentally changed how organizations consume technology. In the traditional IT world, engineers would submit infrastructure requests that flowed through long procurement cycles. Capacity was purchased upfront, often with estimates based on peak demand, and the result was frequently over-provisioned resources that sat idle. Cost was predictable, but it was also disconnected from actual usage and the pace of innovation was slowed by waiting for hardware approvals and manual provisioning.

This year, I returned to New Asia College at the Chinese University of Hong Kong as a mentor in the Mentorship Programme. More than a decade has passed since I graduated in 2012, yet walking back onto campus still feels familiar and different at the same time. During my student years, I received support, guidance, and encouragement from professors, seniors, and alumni. Now, it feels meaningful to give back and to walk alongside younger students who may be feeling uncertain about their direction in life, stressed about academic expectations, or anxious about the future.

In many large organizations, it has become almost instinctive to bring in external consulting firms whenever challenges arise. Firms like Accenture, Deloitte, or PwC arrive with polished slide decks, ready-made frameworks, and a promise of quick impact. And indeed, they often deliver rapid results. But the pace at which these “wins” are achieved, and the incentive models that underpin them, can lead to deeper structural issues that only surface after the consultants have already moved on.

In a world obsessed with technical mastery and digital transformation, one truth remains unchanged: organizations are made of people. For Enterprise Architects, the challenge is not just about designing scalable systems or aligning technology with strategy; it is about managing up.

Transitioning from a Solution Architect to an Enterprise Architect is not merely a career move; it’s an evolution of perspective. It marks the point where technical mastery must give way to strategic influence, where depth of knowledge is no longer enough without breadth of vision. In this role, the measure of success is not how much you build, but how effectively you align, enable, and inspire across an organization that never stands still.

Every conversation about the future of work circles back to one undeniable truth: the world of jobs is transforming faster than ever before. Automation, AI, and digital platforms are redefining what it means to be employable. The anxiety is real, and many worry about mass unemployment if machines can replicate human tasks. One speaker at a seminar I attended once warned, “If you can write an algorithm for your job, your job will be automated.”

In today’s business landscape, data has become the most underutilized asset on the balance sheet. Organizations often collect it in abundance, yet struggle to translate it into measurable impact. The question is no longer whether companies should use data, but how they can unlock its true value in ways that improve sales performance, drive productivity, and shape better decisions.