Intrenion

Pattern: Blame avoidance

Actions are shaped primarily to minimize personal exposure rather than to achieve outcomes.

Situation

  1. In this condition, decisions are routinely escalated to higher levels even when authority formally exists at lower levels.
  2. In this condition, written communication contains extensive references to policies and procedures to justify actions.
  3. In this condition, employees avoid taking ownership of initiatives that involve uncertain outcomes.
  4. In this condition, approval chains expand to include additional stakeholders beyond those operationally required.
  5. In this condition, project proposals prioritize compliance with existing rules over projected impact.
  6. In this condition, post-incident reviews focus on identifying responsible individuals rather than examining systemic factors.
  7. In this condition, timelines extend due to repeated review cycles before final commitment.

Assessment

  1. This occurs because punishment for visible individual failure is more predictable and concentrated than rewards for collective success.
  2. This occurs because formal accountability structures attach consequences to named decision makers while benefits diffuse across groups.
  3. This occurs because audit and compliance systems prioritize traceable adherence over demonstrable effectiveness.
  4. This occurs because hierarchical approval models centralize reputational risk at identifiable authority nodes.
  5. This occurs because promotion and retention criteria favor error avoidance over high-variance initiative outcomes.
  6. This occurs because ambiguous authority boundaries allow actors to shift or dilute responsibility without formally violating policy.
  7. This occurs because short leadership tenures incentivize deferring high-risk decisions beyond one’s tenure.

Consequence

  1. Without a decision to alter incentive alignment, innovation capacity becomes structurally constrained by defensive risk minimization.
  2. Without a decision to clarify and rebalance accountability structures, authority and responsibility remain misaligned and unstable.
  3. Without a decision to redefine evaluation criteria, procedural compliance continues to dominate over substantive effectiveness.
  4. Without a decision to concentrate ownership at enforceable points of control, escalation layers continue to expand, slowing commitment.
  5. Without a decision to counteract tenure-based risk deferral, high-impact initiatives remain postponed beyond meaningful time horizons.

Decisions

  1. We decide to accept ownership only for outcomes where we have direct control over the key variables because this gives us enforceable authority over execution instead of informally agreeing to deliver results shaped by others’ decisions, and accept that we will be excluded from some strategic initiatives.
  2. We decide to document our risk assessments and chosen trade-offs in writing before committing to action because this gives us a fixed accountability record instead of relying on shared verbal alignment in meetings, and accept that this will slow initial commitment and create visible friction.
  3. We decide to decline participation in approval chains where our role is advisory without decision rights because this gives us a clear boundary between input and accountability instead of remaining listed as an approver for collective cover, and accept that we may lose influence over final outcomes.

Direct formulations

  1. I will take responsibility only for outcomes I control; I will decline ownership when authority is fragmented.
  2. I will record my risk assessment and chosen trade-offs in writing before acting, so my position is fixed and can be reviewed.
  3. I will remove my name from approval chains where I have no decision rights and will participate only as an explicit advisor without shared accountability.