Everyone treats AI governance as one conversation.
It's six (or more), and they're happening in different rooms.

The CEO worries about moving fast without a blow-up they have to explain to the board.

The CFO asks what getting this wrong costs, and what they're actually funding.

The CIO starts counting what's already running, who owns it, and what it can touch.
All three are right. They're just not in the same conversation.

Here's how governance reads from each seat:

🔵 CEO: I want permission to say yes. 72% of CEOs now say they're the main AI decision maker (BCG, AI Radar 2026).

🟢 CFO: what does doing it badly cost? Firms with clear AI accountability score 2.6 on maturity vs 1.8 without (McKinsey).

🟠 COO: what happens when an agent does the wrong thing, not just says it?

🟣 CIO: shadow AI. Microsoft found more than 80% of the Fortune 500 already run agents, and 29% of staff use ones nobody approved.

🟡 CDO: is the data even good enough to govern on?

🔴 Risk and Legal: can you prove oversight and show an audit trail?

Six views, one foundation underneath all of them:
every agent needs an identity, a named human owner, set permissions, and an audit trail.

Get that right and every seat at the table starts getting what it needs.

♻️ Repost to help raise AI governance up the agenda.
🔔 Follow Clare Kitching for insights on unlocking value with data & AI.