When organizations initially deployed artificial intelligence (AI) systems, these technologies were typically limited in scope, handling tasks such as filtering resumes, identifying anomalies, or predicting demand based on historical data. Recently, however, a new generation of AI systems has emerged—agentic systems—that can establish goals, decompose tasks, gather contextual information, and operate independently. Unlike previous models that responded passively to prompts, these systems are becoming proactive participants in enterprise workflows.
This shift raises a crucial question about the governance of systems capable of independent action. Agentic AI presents a fundamentally different risk profile compared to traditional automation tools, which operate within strict, predefined boundaries. Their behavior is generally consistent and explainable due to manual logic programming. Conversely, agentic systems integrate planning, reasoning, and real-time learning, leading to unpredictability, particularly when used in dynamic and open-ended environments.
Agentic systems incorporate various components, including goal inference engines, memory-augmented architectures, symbolic planners, and policy optimization layers. These components enable the systems to plan and execute tasks iteratively over extended periods, refining strategies based on internal feedback. However, this architectural adaptability results in behaviors that may not always be clear, even to developers, further complicating the landscape of governance as autonomy increases.
Effective governance must be approached as a systems-level challenge. The first principle involves formalizing constraints. Agentic systems should be designed with restrictions that govern permissible behavior, including both soft constraints—such as policy guidance and ethical considerations—and hard constraints defined as prerequisites within the agent’s action space. For example, an agent focused on optimizing workflows should not override user permissions or reallocate resources without appropriate authorization. These constraints must be embedded at the planning layer and enforced continuously.
Secondly, the concept of explainability must shift from retrospective model interpretation to proactive behavior tracing. It is essential for agentic systems to log intermediate steps, including goal formation, plan selection, environmental observations, and policy updates, thereby creating a transparent audit trail for unexpected outcomes. Techniques like causal graph tracking, plan visualization, and action-state heatmaps can aid in interpreting agent behavior for review and troubleshooting.
Third, accountability should be stratified and role-specific. At the infrastructure level, observability tools must flag any divergences from expected behaviors. Operationally, clear ownership of each deployment instance is necessary, including defined escalation paths based on the nature and impact of any decisions made. Enterprises may designate “agent owners,” akin to service owners in microservices architecture, to oversee updates, evaluate risks, and conduct performance reviews.
Fairness and value alignment are dynamic challenges. As agents learn from feedback, they may reach local optima that reinforce biases or contravene broader ethical norms. To mitigate such issues, organizations can integrate synthetic audits, counterfactual scenario testing, and fairness-focused reward shaping into the model lifecycle. Therefore, governance must extend beyond mere model accuracy to encompass behavioral robustness.
Consent and control mechanisms are equally imperative. Autonomous agents must operate under dynamic permissions that vary by user role, task sensitivity, and data classification. Users should have visibility into their interactions with autonomous systems and the ability to pause or redirect decisions when necessary.
Governance of autonomous intelligence does not aim to restrict capabilities; rather, it seeks to ensure that agents’ choices remain legible, aligned with organizational values, and subject to reversal if needed.
As agentic AI systems expand, enterprises will require adaptive governance frameworks that evolve alongside technological advancements. Rigid policies and manual oversight will no longer suffice; governance must be integrated as a parallel system that evolves with the agents, audits their decision-making processes, and safeguards against unanticipated changes.
Establishing trust in autonomous systems is not an automatic process; it must be intentionally designed.
The author of this article is Balakrishna DR (Bali), Executive Vice President and Global Services Head for AI and Industry Verticals at Infosys.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of ETCIO. ETCIO is not liable for any damage caused directly or indirectly to any individual or organization.
This article aligns with the objectives of the Making AI Work Summit & Awards, recognized as India’s most influential AI summit and event. It emphasizes not only discussions but also recognition, honoring the pioneers, developers, and businesses showcased at the AI Summit who are implementing AI to deliver real impact, demonstrating that the future of AI is being constructed today.
