Intrenion

Pattern: Risk displacement

Risk is pushed downward while authority remains upward.

Situation

  1. In this condition, individuals at lower hierarchical levels are formally held responsible for delivering outcomes that are defined by actors above them.
  2. In this condition, key variables such as budget, staffing, scope, and timelines are controlled by higher levels than those accountable for results.
  3. In this condition, performance evaluations focus on ownership of results at the operational level, regardless of control over strategic decisions.
  4. In this condition, targets and priorities are set centrally while execution risk is borne locally.
  5. In this condition, failures are attributed primarily to lower-level implementation rather than to upstream decisions.
  6. In this condition, escalation channels formally exist and are used less frequently than the recurrence of documented constraints would suggest.
  7. In this condition, strategic changes can be introduced from above without corresponding renegotiation of accountability at lower levels.

Assessment

  1. This occurs because decision rights over strategic direction and resource allocation are centralized, while performance accountability is formally assigned to operational roles.
  2. This occurs because higher hierarchical levels can externalize downside exposure by defining outcomes without transferring equivalent control variables.
  3. This occurs because performance management systems measure results without weighting the degree of authority over inputs.
  4. This occurs because middle layers transmit targets downward to avoid imposing challenging constraints on the upper layers, thereby preserving their positional stability.
  5. This occurs because escalation carries informal reputational or career costs that reduce its practical use despite formal availability.
  6. This occurs because organizations prioritize centralized coordination and message control over distributed authority symmetry.
  7. This occurs because liability, compensation, and status structures reward retained authority more than shared risk ownership.

Consequence

  1. Without redistributing authority to match accountability, operational actors remain exposed to outcomes they cannot materially control.
  2. Without altering performance measurement criteria, misattribution of failure to execution rather than strategy becomes structurally reinforced.
  3. Without reducing the informal costs of escalation, structural constraints continue to be absorbed locally rather than corrected centrally.
  4. Without aligning resource control with outcome responsibility, decision quality at higher levels remains insulated from full downside exposure.
  5. Without structural correction, talent attrition and defensive behavior increase as individuals limit discretionary effort to manage asymmetric risk.

Decisions

  1. We decide to accept responsibility only for deliverables whose scope, budget, and timeline variables we directly control because this gives us enforceable accountability boundaries instead of agreeing to outcome ownership defined entirely by higher management, and accept that this may reduce perceived flexibility and limit advancement opportunities.
  2. We decide to convert outcome commitments into documented input and effort commitments within our authority because this gives us defensible performance criteria instead of promising target metrics set without our resource control, and accept that this may lead to conflict over perceived lack of ownership.
  3. We decide to decline new targets or scope expansions unless corresponding resources or decision rights are explicitly transferred to us because this gives us symmetry between exposure and authority instead of absorbing additional risk through informal acceptance in meetings, and accept that this may result in exclusion from high-visibility initiatives.

Direct formulations

  1. I will not accept responsibility for outcomes unless I control the scope, budget, and timeline that determine them.
  2. I will commit only to the inputs and actions I directly control, and I will not promise to meet target metrics set without my authority over resources.
  3. I will refuse additional targets or scope increases unless decision rights or resources are transferred to me.