Intrenion

Pattern: Containment roles

Individuals are expected to stabilize situations without authority to change them.

Situation

  1. In this condition, individuals are held responsible for maintaining operational stability even though they lack formal authority to change underlying policies, budgets, or structures.
  2. In this condition, recurring issues are repeatedly resolved at the surface level without alteration of the systemic sources that generate them.
  3. In this condition, stakeholders treat certain roles as de facto problem solvers even though their decision rights are limited.
  4. In this condition, formal escalation channels exist but are rarely used or are informally discouraged.
  5. In this condition, workload expands through the accumulation of exceptions and workarounds rather than through formal mandate changes.
  6. In this condition, performance evaluation emphasizes the absence of disruption over structural correction.
  7. In this condition, turnover or burnout is concentrated in roles that combine high responsibility with low discretion.

Assessment

  1. This occurs because authority over structural variables such as budget, staffing, and policy is centralized, while operational accountability is distributed downward.
  2. This occurs because senior decision makers face fewer immediate costs from systemic inefficiencies than from visible instability.
  3. This occurs because performance metrics prioritize short-term continuity and penalize disruption more than latent structural flaws.
  4. This occurs because informal political risks are attached to escalation, even when formal processes allow it.
  5. This occurs because redesigning structures requires coordination and power redistribution that incumbents are incentivized to avoid.
  6. This occurs because replacing or overburdening individuals is administratively simpler than altering governance arrangements.
  7. This occurs because buffering roles shield decision makers from direct exposure to the consequences of their structural choices.

Consequence

  1. Without redistributing authority to match responsibility, operational stability will continue to depend on individual endurance rather than structural design.
  2. Without exposing decision makers to the full impact of systemic inefficiencies, structural flaws will remain deprioritized.
  3. Without altering performance criteria, incentives will continue to reward containment over correction.
  4. Without reducing the informal penalties attached to escalation, systemic issues will remain localized and repeatedly absorbed.
  5. Without structural redesign, turnover and burnout in containment roles will remain a recurring feature rather than an anomaly.

Decisions

  1. We decide to stop resolving recurring structural issues after one documented escalation because this gives us a visible record of misaligned authority instead of continuing to apply informal fixes each cycle, and accept that short-term instability and complaints will increase.
  2. We decide to define and communicate a written scope of decisions we will and will not make because this gives us a clear boundary that limits implicit responsibility instead of verbally absorbing additional expectations in meetings, and accept that some stakeholders will label us uncooperative.
  3. We decide to redirect every request that requires structural authority to the named decision owner in writing because this gives us traceable accountability at the correct level instead of acting as an intermediary negotiating unofficial compromises, and accept that relationships with senior actors may cool.

Direct formulations

  1. I will escalate this structural issue once in writing and will not continue patching it afterward.
  2. I will state in writing which decisions I will make and which I will not make, and I will not accept additional responsibilities outside that scope.
  3. I will forward requests that require structural authority to the named decision owner and will not negotiate or absorb them myself.