Intrenion

Pattern: Structural dishonesty

The organization depends on practices it cannot openly acknowledge to function.

Situation

  1. In this condition, the organization publicly presents policies and values that differ from how work is actually performed in daily operations.
  2. In this condition, employees routinely rely on informal workarounds that are not documented in official procedures.
  3. In this condition, performance targets are consistently met despite formal processes that appear insufficient to achieve them.
  4. In this condition, documentation and reports reflect compliance even when underlying practices deviate from written rules.
  5. In this condition, meetings and formal communications repeat standards that staff privately acknowledge are not followed as written.
  6. In this condition, exceptions to rules occur frequently but remain unofficial and uncodified.
  7. In this condition, individuals who openly reference the gap between policy and practice are rare and socially isolated.

Assessment

  1. This occurs because organizational targets are set at levels that cannot be achieved solely through officially sanctioned processes.
  2. This occurs because leadership incentives prioritize visible performance outcomes over strict procedural adherence.
  3. This occurs because accountability systems penalize failure more reliably than they penalize rule-bending that preserves results.
  4. This occurs because admitting the gap between policy and practice would expose the organization to reputational or legal risk.
  5. This occurs because middle managers informally redistribute risk downward to maintain both output and plausible compliance.
  6. This occurs because compliance functions are structurally limited to reviewing documentation rather than verifying operational reality.
  7. This occurs because individuals who surface discrepancies face higher immediate personal costs than those who remain silent.

Consequence

  1. Without a decision to realign targets with formal processes, the gap between official policy and operational practice becomes structurally permanent.
  2. Without a decision to change incentive structures, rule-bending remains the rational strategy for maintaining performance.
  3. Without a decision to acknowledge actual constraints, risk accumulates in areas that lack transparent monitoring.
  4. Without a decision to redistribute accountability with authority, execution risk continues to concentrate at lower organizational levels.
  5. Without a decision to reconcile public claims with internal practice, the likelihood of an abrupt reputational or regulatory crisis increases.

Decisions

  1. We decide to refuse to alter, smooth, or reinterpret data to fit expected compliance narratives because this gives us a defensible personal record of factual reporting instead of informally correcting figures before submission, and accept that performance evaluations may rate us as less cooperative or results-oriented.
  2. We decide to document capacity limits and procedural constraints in writing before accepting deliverables because this gives us traceable evidence of stated conditions instead of verbally agreeing to unrealistic timelines in meetings, and accept that we may be excluded from high-visibility projects.
  3. We decide to decline participation in undocumented exceptions that create personal liability because this gives us a clear boundary around accountable actions instead of executing informal shortcuts at a manager’s request, and accept that advancement within the current unit may slow or stop.

Direct formulations

  1. I will submit the data exactly as it is and will not adjust figures to align with expected compliance narratives.
  2. I will state my capacity limits and procedural constraints in writing before agreeing to any deliverable.
  3. I will refuse to carry out undocumented exceptions that shift liability onto me.