When no one at the top makes the call, the decision doesn't disappear. It migrates downward until someone least equipped to make it is left holding it
In late 2011, the flooding that had worked its way south through Thailand since July reached Bangkok. At its peak, three-quarters of the city sat under water. Transport networks collapsed. Residents relocated to wherever was dry.
Ann, a consultant, had taken refuge in a conference room with the rest of her family. Her home had been submerged, and its contents destroyed. Having received little guidance from the firm, she continued to travel to the client daily – wading through floodwater, navigating broken public transport, and boarding an overcrowded military truck, the only vehicle tall enough to make it through a metre of water.
Senior management sent out a firm-wide email celebrating her commitment, noting that, despite her personal losses, she had continued to travel to the client, billing and delivering work. The underlying message was clear: others should do the same.
The tone was not lost on the rest of the firm. The celebratory and directive nature of the email contrasted with daily news of electrocutions and drownings.
This is not a story about the flood. It is a story of when governance fails.
The Silence That Travels Downward
Ann's decision, on the back of that truck, was not whether the firm should continue operating. That question had long since been settled: by silence. This is what governance failure actually looks like at ground level – not a boardroom catastrophe, but a junior consultant doing risk calculus she was never meant to do, with information she didn't have, in floodwater.
Silence is not the absence of a decision. It is a decision made by default. What happens is that decision rights migrate downwards to the lowest point in the hierarchy. The CEO, by not declaring operations suspended, had effectively delegated the question to the partnership. The partners, reading the CEO’s silence as permission, passed it to their managers. The managers passed it to the field. By the time it reached Ann, the original question of “should the firm continue to operate in a national emergency” had changed into “what do I do to keep my job?”
By that time, it was no longer a governance question. At each layer, the calculus was the same: making the call carried personal risk. Not making it did not.
In a well-governed organisation, decision rights exist to ensure that consequential questions have owners: people with the authority, the information, and the organisational standing to make them. Someone decides to suspend operations. Someone above them ratifies it. The organisation shifts into emergency mode. It is not a cheap decision, or a comfortable one. But it is a decision, made by someone accountable for it, rather than a silence that travels downward until it finds the person least equipped to carry it.
One team leader, in the same firm, during the same flood, made a different calculation. He told his team to stay home and re-organise client work around the assumption that the firm was, for the moment, not operating normally. His team did not end up on army trucks. The organisation did not notice the difference.
Fukushima
The same governance failure, at a different scale, cost Japan three reactor meltdowns, the forced evacuation of 150,000 people, and the only Level 7 nuclear event outside Chernobyl.
The engineering problem was relatively simple. The governance problem was not. The reactors had lost cooling and needed to be vented and flooded with seawater – a technical call which would also destroy the plant commercially. TEPCO’s headquarters, working from incomplete information at a distance, neither ordered the action nor delegated the authority to order it. Plant manager Masao Yoshida had the ground-level picture but not the organisational mandate. Headquarters approved instructions that contradicted decisions already made at the plant. The subsequent investigation was unable to identify, for several critical decisions, who had been authorised to make them.
When Yoshida was eventually ordered to stop the seawater injection, he ignored the instruction and continued pumping. The decision probably saved Tokyo, and subsequent investigations vindicated it. What it did not vindicate was the governance that forced him into it. A system that requires a plant manager to disobey a direct order to produce the right outcome is not a system. Good outcomes delivered in that manner are not governance. They are luck, dressed up.
Repossessing the Question
If Thailand and Fukushima show what happens when decision rights migrate downward, Alcoa shows the opposite: what it looks like when a leader deliberately pulls decision rights upward and refuses to let silence govern the system.
When Paul O’Neill took over aluminium producer Alcoa in 1987, injuries and fatalities were routine. They were technically compliant with regulations, and had a ‘low’ lost workday injury rate of 1.86 per 100 employees, compared to a US industry average of 5.0 per 100 employees. Plants were decentralised, with their own cultures and management.
O’Neill believed injuries were not an acceptable cost of doing business. Six months into his tenure, a new employee was killed when he was crushed helping to fix a jam inside their machines. O’Neill’s response was pointed: “We killed this man. It’s my failure of leadership. I caused his death.”
Even when a plant achieved a period without a lost-time injury, O’Neill asked them to also show near misses, and what they had fixed as a result. He refused to let the absence of a bad outcome act as evidence that the system was working.
This was tested in Mexico where 150 employees were injured after a carbon monoxide leak at a plant. The local executive did not report the incident, and O’Neill was unaware until a Benedictine nun from the area raised the issue at a shareholders meeting. He ordered an investigation, and discovered evidence of a cover up. The executive was immediately fired.
Each of these moves was an effort to repossess decision rights. The authority to define the system's health was pulled upward, out of the hands of the people whose performance depended on the system looking healthy.
Alcoa's lost-workday injury rate fell by approximately 90 per cent over O'Neill's tenure. He built an organisation that can distinguish between ‘the system worked’ and ‘we were lucky’. The same discipline that kept injuries from being concealed upward kept quality problems, supply failures, and strategic weaknesses from being concealed upward. Safety was the first domain. The governance architecture expanded to other functions.
Success by Omission
Back in Bangkok, the firm celebrated success because nothing had gone wrong. Ann made it back to the office. She billed. She delivered. By every measure of success, the system had worked.
But it had not. It simply transferred the cost of its own failures, and of its unmade decisions, onto the person least equipped to bear it – and then patted her on the back for doing so.
The most dangerous governance system is the one that appears to be working, mistaking omission for success. Fukushima produced a commission, a Level 7 classification, and a national reckoning. Ann's firm produced a congratulatory email. One of these organisations learned something. The other may still do it again.
Comments