Intrenion

Pattern: Procedural veto points

Formal processes create multiple points at which action can be stalled without an explicit refusal.

In this condition, formal processes contain multiple required approval, review, or sign-off steps before action can proceed.
In this condition, progress on initiatives often pauses between procedural stages without an explicit rejection.
In this condition, actors responsible for specific checkpoints can delay movement by failing to respond or by requesting additional information.
In this condition, escalation paths exist formally but are seldom activated in practice.
In this condition, project tracking systems show items remaining in pending or under review status for extended periods.
In this condition, deadlines shift or lapse while the underlying proposal remains neither approved nor denied.
In this condition, responsibility for stalled initiatives is unclear because no single actor has formally declined to act.

This occurs because formal procedures distribute required approvals across multiple roles, creating sequential dependencies that condition action on each checkpoint.
This occurs because withholding approval or requesting additional information carries a lower visible risk than issuing an explicit refusal.
This occurs because silence or inaction is not structurally defined as approval, so delays go unchallenged and do not trigger conflict-resolution mechanisms.
This occurs because accountability for delay is diffused across roles, making the cost of stalling less attributable to any single actor.
This occurs because escalation paths impose relational or political costs that discourage their routine use.
This occurs because organizations accumulate additional review steps after past failures, increasing the number of procedural veto points over time.
This occurs because control over timing becomes a form of indirect authority even when formal decision rights are limited.

Without a decision to alter the structure, initiatives will continue to experience cumulative delays as each procedural checkpoint retains blocking capacity.
Without a decision to redefine accountability, responsibility for stalled actions will remain diffused and difficult to attribute.
Without a decision to modify the escalation use, unresolved items will remain in procedural limbo rather than reach formal closure.
Without a decision to reduce or time limit veto points, silence and inaction will continue to function as de facto blocking mechanisms.
Without a decision to consolidate authority, control over timing will remain a dispersed and opaque source of power.

We decide to set a fixed personal response deadline for each required approval and to withdraw the initiative from active effort if no response is received by that date, because this gives us control over our time allocation instead of continuing follow-up and informal escalation attempts, and accept that some initiatives will terminate without formal resolution.
We decide to submit proposals only after obtaining written confirmation of explicit approval criteria from each required reviewer because this gives us a defined standard against which to close the loop instead of entering open-ended revision cycles based on shifting expectations, and accept that some reviewers may refuse to provide criteria and thereby block submission.
We decide to limit revisions to one consolidated update per reviewer and then freeze further changes unless a formal written rejection is issued because this gives us a clear stopping rule instead of engaging in iterative informal adjustments to satisfy unstated concerns, and accept that some proposals will be rejected outright rather than gradually adapted.

I will stop working on this initiative if I do not receive a response by the deadline I set, and will not continue chasing approvals informally.
I will not submit this proposal until each required reviewer provides written approval criteria, and I will treat the absence of such criteria as grounds for not proceeding.
I will make one consolidated revision per reviewer and will not implement further changes unless I receive a formal written rejection.