Intrenion

Pattern: Strategic neglect

Known problem areas remain unsupported because addressing them would create conflict.

In this condition, known problem areas are repeatedly identified across reporting cycles without sustained remediation.
In this condition, responsibility for the problem shifts between departments or roles over time.
In this condition, temporary task forces or committees are formed but are not made permanent; they are dissolved without structural change.
In this condition, resource requests tied to the problem area are deferred, partially funded, or left pending.
In this condition, metrics for the neglected domain plateau or decline across multiple reporting periods.
In this condition, employees use informal workarounds instead of formal processes for the problem area.
In this condition, staff in the problem area experience higher turnover than in comparable units.

This occurs because addressing the problem would require confronting stakeholders whose interests are protected by existing power structures.
This occurs because responsibility for the issue is fragmented across roles that lack aligned authority and incentives.
This occurs because initiating remediation concentrates political and reputational risk on the actor who raises the issue.
This occurs because performance metrics and budget structures do not materially reward correction of chronic weaknesses.
This occurs because conflict resolution mechanisms are weak, making escalation costly and prolonged.
This occurs because short leadership tenures incentivize deferring structurally complex fixes.
This occurs because informal norms penalize disruptions to group stability more than they tolerate ongoing deficiencies.

Without reallocating authority and resources to a single accountable owner, responsibility for the problem will continue to diffuse across units.
Without accepting the political cost of confrontation, the underlying issue will remain formally acknowledged but practically unresolved.
Without altering incentive and metric structures, remediation efforts will remain episodic and symbolic.
Without strengthening escalation and conflict resolution mechanisms, actors will avoid initiating corrective action.
Without decisive intervention, operational risk in the neglected domain will accumulate, increasing the likelihood of a crisis.

We decide to document and send a written risk summary to the formally accountable role without seeking prior alignment because this gives us traceable evidence of escalation instead of continuing to manage the issue informally in meetings, and accept that this may strain our relationship with that role.
We decide to stop performing compensatory work outside our formal scope after explicitly stating the boundary in writing because this gives us workload clarity and exposes the structural gap instead of continuing to absorb the deficiency through informal fixes, and accept that visible performance in the neglected area may temporarily decline.
We decide to decline participation in symbolic task forces that lack decision authority or budget because this gives us time and positional clarity instead of joining advisory groups that signal action without mandate, and accept that we may be excluded from related discussions.

I will send a written risk summary to the formally accountable role and stop handling this issue in informal conversations.
I will no longer perform work outside my formal scope to compensate for this gap and will let the shortfall remain visible.
I will not join task forces that lack decision-making authority or budget, and I will use that time for my defined responsibilities.