Intrenion

Pattern: Normalization of dysfunction

Persistent breakdowns are treated as normal operating conditions.

Situation

  1. In this condition, recurring operational breakdowns appear regularly across reporting periods and are treated as part of the standard workflow.
  2. In this condition, temporary fixes remain in place for extended periods and are used routinely.
  3. In this condition, official performance standards exist on paper while everyday work consistently deviates from them without formal acknowledgment.
  4. In this condition, teams allocate a predictable amount of time and resources to managing issues that were originally described as exceptional.
  5. In this condition, performance targets are adjusted or reinterpreted after repeated shortfalls rather than restored to prior levels.
  6. In this condition, employees rely on informal coordination channels to complete tasks that formal processes do not reliably support.
  7. In this condition, the same categories of complaints or incident reports reappear across reporting cycles.

Assessment

  1. This occurs because short-term performance stability is rewarded more consistently than exposing structural weaknesses.
  2. This occurs because individuals who escalate recurring failures risk reputational damage and increased scrutiny.
  3. This occurs because budget and planning cycles favor incremental patches over disruptive redesign.
  4. This occurs because accountability systems isolate incidents rather than aggregating patterns over time.
  5. This occurs because authority to redesign processes is centralized while operational burden is decentralized.
  6. This occurs because formal metrics can be met through compensatory effort even when underlying systems degrade.
  7. This occurs because institutional memory erodes through turnover, allowing chronic issues to be reframed as inherited constraints.

Consequence

  1. Without a decision to interrupt the pattern, degraded performance baselines become institutionalized as the new standard.
  2. Without a decision to interrupt the pattern, risk accumulates in low-visibility areas until triggered by external stress.
  3. Without a decision to interrupt the pattern, adaptive capacity is consumed by continuous firefighting rather than structural repair.
  4. Without a decision to interrupt the pattern, formal accountability loses credibility as repeated deviations remain unaddressed.
  5. Without a decision to interrupt the pattern, the organization becomes increasingly dependent on informal workarounds controlled by a few individuals.

Decisions

  1. We decide to document every recurring breakdown in a personal log with dates and impact because this gives us a defensible record of pattern frequency instead of relying on meeting summaries or shared trackers, and accept that this creates tension with colleagues who prefer informal handling.
  2. We decide to stop building new workarounds for failures that have already recurred three times and instead let the task fail visibly because this gives us a clear signal of structural instability instead of silently compensating with additional effort, and accept that short-term performance metrics may decline.
  3. We decide to align our task execution strictly with written procedures and decline undocumented deviations because this gives us a stable personal standard of compliance instead of adapting to degraded informal norms, and accept that we will be perceived as uncooperative in urgent situations.

Direct formulations

  1. I will keep a dated log of every recurring breakdown and its impact rather than relying on shared summaries or memory.
  2. I will stop creating new workarounds after the third recurrence of the same failure and let the task fail rather than work around it with extra effort.
  3. I will follow only documented procedures and refuse any undocumented deviations, even when others expect immediate flexibility.