One of the challenges this exposes is the obsession with individual accountability. Effective systems are about collective responsibility, not attributing blame.
Yes Kenny, I agree on collective responsibility & that's exactly what the Decision Integrity Chain™ surfaces. Every layer did its job. The failure was architectural, not individual.
But collective responsibility without clear ownership of specific signals becomes diffuse accountability - which is precisely how drift accumulates undetected for quarters. Someone has to own the question of whether the stability assumptions still hold. That has to sit somewhere formal.
The Fiduciary Gap isn't a people failure. It's a design failure. Fixing it still requires someone to own the redesign.
Fair point and an important one. While ownership is structural, accountability is cultural. One can assign ownership without ever building accountability. In this instance, the bank had was neither - the question of behavioural stability wasn’t owned, and therefore couldn’t be accounted for. That’s the design gap.
One of the challenges this exposes is the obsession with individual accountability. Effective systems are about collective responsibility, not attributing blame.
Yes Kenny, I agree on collective responsibility & that's exactly what the Decision Integrity Chain™ surfaces. Every layer did its job. The failure was architectural, not individual.
But collective responsibility without clear ownership of specific signals becomes diffuse accountability - which is precisely how drift accumulates undetected for quarters. Someone has to own the question of whether the stability assumptions still hold. That has to sit somewhere formal.
The Fiduciary Gap isn't a people failure. It's a design failure. Fixing it still requires someone to own the redesign.
Agreed but I think ownership and accountability are not always the same thing.
Fair point and an important one. While ownership is structural, accountability is cultural. One can assign ownership without ever building accountability. In this instance, the bank had was neither - the question of behavioural stability wasn’t owned, and therefore couldn’t be accounted for. That’s the design gap.
Great way to frame it - thanks