Intrenion

Pattern: Role hollowing

Formal roles retain responsibility while losing meaningful scope or craft.

In this condition, formal roles are defined as accountable for specific outcomes while key decisions and resource controls related to those outcomes are held elsewhere.
In this condition, job descriptions and performance evaluations continue to state end-to-end ownership despite fragmented authority in practice.
In this condition, role holders spend a significant portion of their time on reporting, coordination, and approval-seeking rather than on direct execution or craft.
In this condition, decisions affecting delivery are frequently escalated to committees, senior managers, or centralized functions.
In this condition, tools, systems, and process standards constrain how work is performed with limited room for local modification.
In this condition, rework and delays are observed between the initial execution and final approval stages of work.
In this condition, turnover and expressed dissatisfaction are concentrated in roles that carry high stated responsibility.

This occurs because organizations centralize decision rights to reduce variance and perceived risk, even when this separates authority from accountability.
This occurs because compliance, audit, and governance requirements introduce approval layers that displace local discretion.
This occurs because platformization and shared services models consolidate tooling and expertise away from distributed roles.
This occurs because budgetary control is retained at higher hierarchical levels, limiting the operational scope of formally accountable roles.
This occurs because performance metrics are defined around outcomes without matching control over the primary levers that drive those outcomes.
This occurs because promotion and status incentives reward oversight and coordination functions over direct craft execution.
This occurs because technological systems encode standardized processes that structurally restrict deviation by role holders.

Without structural realignment of authority and accountability, decision bottlenecks accumulate at higher levels, increasing cycle time.
Without restoring meaningful discretion to formally accountable roles, formal accountability mechanisms lose credibility.
Without aligning metrics with the controllable scope, performance evaluation becomes unstable and contentious.
Without redistributing control over tools and budgets, local problem-solving capacity continues to erode.
Without narrowing role definitions to match actual authority, turnover remains concentrated in high responsibility roles.

We decide to formally limit our accountability in writing to outcomes we can directly influence through existing decision rights because this gives us defensible performance boundaries instead of informally accepting end-to-end ownership in meetings and documents, and accept that senior stakeholders interpret this as reduced commitment.
We decide to stop progressing work past predefined checkpoints without explicit written approval from the decision holder because this gives us traceable alignment between authority and action instead of informally absorbing risk and proceeding on implied consent, and accept that delivery speed will decrease in the short term.
We decide to invest weekly time in building and documenting portable craft skills outside the hollowed procedural tasks of the role because this gives us independent career capital instead of dedicating all available time to optimizing internal coordination processes, and accept that our visibility in internal administrative workflows may decline.

I will state in writing that I am accountable only for outcomes I can directly influence through my current decision rights and will not accept broader ownership in meetings or documents.
I will not move work past defined checkpoints without explicit written approval from the named decision holder.
I will block time each week to build and document portable craft skills and will not use that time for internal coordination tasks.