Intrenion

Pattern: Delegation without availability

Tasks are assigned by decision-makers who lack the time or willingness to engage during execution.

Situation

  1. In this condition, tasks are assigned by decision-makers who are not consistently available during execution.
  2. In this condition, executors experience delayed or missing responses when seeking clarification or approval.
  3. In this condition, executors are formally designated as responsible for outcomes, while certain required decisions are not issued at execution time.
  4. In this condition, deadlines remain fixed even when access to decision makers is limited.
  5. In this condition, documented escalation channels are present, yet escalations submitted through them do not receive responses within expected timeframes.
  6. In this condition, sponsors participate in initial task assignment but are absent from subsequent checkpoints.
  7. In this condition, executors proceed with interim assumptions in the absence of timely interaction with the assigning authority.

Assessment

  1. This occurs because decision rights over scope, priorities, or trade-offs remain centralized even after execution responsibility is transferred.
  2. This occurs because senior roles are structurally rewarded for initiating work rather than sustaining involvement during implementation.
  3. This occurs because time scarcity at higher hierarchical levels leads to selective engagement limited to high-visibility moments.
  4. This occurs because formal delegation processes separate accountability for outcomes from authority to make binding decisions.
  5. This occurs because organizational norms discourage repeated upward escalation for clarification or access.
  6. This occurs because performance measurement systems prioritize adherence to deadlines and output delivery over decision-cycle quality.
  7. This occurs because hierarchical distance reduces decision makers’ direct exposure to execution friction and unresolved dependencies.

Consequence

  1. Without redistribution of decision rights or increased availability, execution delays accumulate as unresolved questions wait for input.
  2. Without sustained sponsor engagement, executors may formalize assumptions that later conflict with the original intent.
  3. Without timely resolution of escalations, informal workarounds replace documented governance mechanisms.
  4. Without alignment between accountability and authority, responsibility for failure is shifted to those without decision-making authority.
  5. Without structural correction, trust in delegation processes erodes across hierarchical levels.

Decisions

  1. We decide to proceed after one documented clarification request within a fixed response window because this gives us predictable decision cadence instead of waiting indefinitely for verbal confirmation in meetings, and accept that some deliverables will reflect unverified assumptions that may later require rework.
  2. We decide to narrow each assigned task to the portion that can be executed without additional approval because this gives us full control over scope and timeline instead of attempting to deliver the entire requested outcome while repeatedly seeking unavailable authorization, and accept that stakeholders may judge the result as incomplete.
  3. We decide to refuse responsibility for outcomes that depend on decisions not formally delegated to us because this gives us clear accountability boundaries instead of informally absorbing strategic risk through implied ownership, and accept that this may reduce perceived loyalty or promotion prospects.

Direct formulations

  1. I will send a written clarification request with a defined deadline and proceed based on my stated assumptions if I do not receive a response.
  2. I will limit delivery to the portion of the task I can complete without further approval, and leave the rest incomplete until authority is clarified.
  3. I will explicitly state that I am not accountable for outcomes that depend on decisions not delegated to me.