Intrenion

Pattern: Output opacity

Most work cannot be evaluated directly by decision-makers and must be assessed indirectly.

Situation

1. In this condition, most work outputs are not directly observable by the individuals who hold formal decision authority.
2. In this condition, performance evaluation occurs primarily through reports, metrics, summaries, and presentations rather than through direct inspection of work.
3. In this condition, multiple hierarchical layers separate those who perform tasks from those who evaluate them.
4. In this condition, formal performance reviews rely on documented artifacts and standardized indicators.
5. In this condition, some roles produce outputs that are intangible, delayed, or technically complex for non-specialists to verify.
6. In this condition, time is regularly allocated to producing documentation for evaluation purposes.
7. In this condition, roles differ in how easily their outputs can be translated into visible and measurable artifacts.

Assessment

1. This occurs because decision authority is structurally separated from task execution in order to manage scale and specialization.
2. This occurs because direct observation of all work would impose prohibitive time and coordination costs on decision-makers.
3. This occurs because many outputs are intangible, delayed, or technically complex, which limits non-specialist verification.
4. This occurs because organizations rely on standardized metrics to reduce ambiguity and enable comparisons across units.
5. This occurs because hierarchical reporting channels filter and compress information before it reaches formal evaluators.
6. This occurs because incentives tie rewards and sanctions to documented indicators rather than to independently validated output.
7. This occurs because traceable records reduce perceived legal, financial, and reputational risk compared to informal judgment.

Consequence

1. Without a change in evaluation structure, measured indicators will continue to shape how work is defined and prioritized.
2. Without direct verification mechanisms, decision-makers will remain dependent on filtered and curated information.
3. Without adjustments to incentive systems, individuals will continue to allocate effort toward what is visible rather than what is substantively impactful.
4. Without alternative visibility channels, roles with intangible or delayed outputs will remain structurally disadvantaged in advancement and resource allocation.
5. Without structural correction, blind spots will persist in areas where no reliable proxy for output can be constructed.

Decisions

1. We decide to document every significant deliverable in a dated and shareable format because this gives us an independent record of output that can be referenced in evaluations instead of relying on verbal summaries in meetings, and accept that this increases our administrative workload.
2. We decide to allocate a fixed and limited portion of our weekly time to formal reporting tasks because this gives us protected capacity for substantive work instead of continuously expanding documentation to satisfy perceived expectations, and accept that some stakeholders may view our reporting as insufficient.
3. We decide to prioritize tasks that produce externally verifiable artifacts over those that generate only internal narrative visibility because this gives us defensible evidence of contribution in opaque evaluation environments instead of investing in impression management through informal updates, and accept that some relational influence may decline.

Direct formulations

1. I will record every significant deliverable in a dated and shareable document and stop relying on verbal explanations in meetings to represent my work.
2. I will cap the time I spend on formal reporting each week and refuse to exceed that limit, even if informal expectations push for more documentation.
3. I will choose tasks that result in externally verifiable artifacts and decline work that depends only on narrative visibility for recognition.