The project failed. Not spectacularly, not with a bang. It died quietly, over weeks, in coordination loops and forwarded emails. In hindsight, the project manager says: “I thought sales would deliver the figures.” The sales manager says: “I thought that was with controlling.” Controlling says: “We never received an order.” Everyone was involved. No one was responsible.
Responsibility that is shared without anyone carrying it personally is not responsibility. It is an illusion that works until something goes wrong.
A division head I accompanied had a recurring problem: projects started, milestones were set, roles distributed. But when things got tight, no one showed initiative. When asked who was responsible for the result, everyone pointed to someone else. “I don’t understand why no one takes ownership,” he said. The answer was simple: because he had never demanded it. In none of his kickoff meetings was there the sentence “You are personally responsible for this result.” There were roles, tasks, schedules. But no accountability.
Responsibility does not disappear in organizations because people reject it. It disappears because structures and leadership behavior systematically dilute it. Three mechanisms drive this: diffusion of responsibility through committees, because the more people involved in a decision, the less each individual feels responsible. Unclear responsibilities despite organizational charts, because job descriptions list activities instead of accountability for results. And freedom from consequences, which makes avoiding responsibility a rational strategy.
| What is said | What actually happens |
|---|---|
| “We carry the responsibility together.” | No one feels personally accountable |
| “This still needs to be coordinated.” | The decision is delayed until it becomes unnecessary |
| “I understood that you were taking care of it.” | The task falls between two stools |
| “The team has decided.” | No one stands up for the decision if it fails |
The price is high. The high performers who want to deliver results see colleagues ducking out without consequences. Eventually, they stop engaging. Or they leave. Three levers break this pattern.
Social psychology knows this effect as the diffusion of responsibility, described as early as the 1960s by researchers Darley and Latané, initially known as the Ringelmann effect. What applies to emergency situations on the street also applies to organizations: when everyone is responsible, no one acts. Committees, steering circles, and coordination rounds do not create more responsibility. They distribute it so widely that it disappears.
For every result, every project, every decision, there must be exactly one person who stands for it personally. Not a committee, not a team. One person with a name and a face. This does not mean that this person does everything alone. It means that they carry the accountability and ensure that the result is delivered. In practice, this means: end every meeting in which a decision is made or a task is agreed upon with the question: “Who is personally accountable, and by when?” If the answer is “all of us,” you have not assigned responsibility.
Nothing undermines responsibility faster than the separation of accountability and decision-making authority. If you make someone responsible for a result but do not give them the means and authority to influence that result, you create frustration, not commitment.
An executive I advised described her dilemma like this: “I am supposed to be responsible for the project, but I am not allowed to release budget or change the priorities of the teams involved.” In matrix structures, full authority for project managers is often not achievable. The project manager has no disciplinary authority over team members from other divisions. If you cannot give formal power, give two things instead: unconditional backing and a fast-track right of escalation. Those who have no formal authority need the clear commitment from their manager that obstacles will be removed quickly and bindingly.
Check with every assignment of responsibility: Does this person have the resources, the freedom to decide, and the access to actually influence the result? If not, you must either expand the authority or assign the responsibility differently. Responsibility without authority is a trap that your best people recognize the fastest and tolerate the least.
A manager in a workshop asked me: “How do I get my team to take more responsibility?” My counter-question was: “How do you take responsibility yourself when something goes wrong in your area?” The answer came hesitantly. In hindsight, it became clear: in meetings with his superior, he spoke about failed projects exclusively in the third person. “The team didn’t meet the deadline.” “The process wasn’t mature.” Never: “I underestimated that.”
Responsibility flows from the top down in organizations. If the manager delegates responsibility but takes none themselves, the team understands the actual message: responsibility is something for others. Changing this begins with visible actions. In the next round where something hasn’t worked, say: “That is my responsibility. I should have done X sooner.” The effect is greater than you think, because your team does not observe what you demand, but what you do.
At the same time, responsibility needs consequences, in both directions. If someone takes responsibility and fails, they deserve respect and a fair analysis. That is error culture, not leniency. If someone consistently evades responsibility, it must be addressed. The message must be clear: mistakes are acceptable. Not taking responsibility is not. You get more of what you reward. And the culture that emerges is not shown in your mission statements, but in what you tolerate.
First: Go through your three most important ongoing projects. Can you name exactly one person for each who is personally responsible for the result? If the answer is a committee or a team, you have a responsibility problem.
Second: Does the person you have in mind actually have the authority and resources to influence the result? If not, clarify this week what they need.
Third: Remember your last meeting where a problem was discussed. Did you speak in the first person, “I underestimated that,” or in the third, “The process wasn’t mature”? Next time, consciously choose the first person.
In most organizations, there is not too little responsibility. There are too many people involved, too many committees included, too many coordination loops built in. Responsibility does not disappear because no one wants it. It disappears because it is distributed so widely that no one feels it anymore.
Responsibility does not begin with your team. It begins at the moment you stop speaking in the third person about your own results.
Breaking the culture of self-protection – When no one decides because everyone is playing it safe, that is the sister of responsibility diffusion.
Learning to let go – Delegation only works when responsibility and authority are handed over together.
All Insights can be found in the overview.
Proven tools and models for self-application are available under Solutions.
If you want to take these thoughts further for your company, a no-obligation initial conversation is worthwhile.
