Accountability Without Authority: How Organisations Design Delivery Leadership to Fail

When a role requires the people in it to develop personal defences against its ordinary demands, the problem is not the people.

A capital project is running late. The executive responsible convenes a review, and the review reaches the conclusion these reviews usually reach: the project management was not strong enough. A more experienced person is sought. The organisation begins looking externally, because the internal bench is thin.

Nobody in the room finds this sequence remarkable. It has happened before, in this organisation and in most others, and it will happen again — which is itself the most interesting fact about it. A diagnosis that recurs indefinitely without ever resolving the condition is not a diagnosis. It is a description of a system that has been left in place.

The system in question is the design of the delivery leadership role itself. It is a role that most large enterprises depend on absolutely, resource poorly, empower minimally, reward inconsistently and then blame reliably. And because the failure appears each time as an individual's shortcoming, the design that produced it is never examined.

The Strategic Context

H. Kent Craig, writing a trade column for mechanical contractors in 2004, set down a set of observations about the project management career that are notable less for their insight than for their candour. Two are worth an executive reading.

The first is about reward. Project managers, he noted, often end up earning less than the people they are managing — particularly once the hours actually worked are taken into account.

The second is about recognition. Unless someone has themselves been a project manager, he argued, they have no real sense of how hard the job is; and practitioners should expect a degree of misunderstanding from the wider management community as a matter of course.

Craig offered these as advice to individuals: expect this, do not let it grind you down. That is reasonable counsel for a person. Read at organisational level, they describe something else entirely — a role positioned at the point where an enterprise's strategy meets its execution, carrying accountability for the outcome, and holding neither the reward nor the standing that would normally accompany that position.

That is not an unfortunate circumstance. It is an organisational design, arrived at by default, and it produces predictable results.

What Leaders Commonly Misread

That the shortage is of skills. It is usually of authority. An organisation that cannot deliver reliably will invest in certification and training for its delivery community, which is easier to authorise and easier to measure than redistributing decision rights. The capability improves. The delivery does not, because the constraint was never capability.

That personal resilience is the answer. Craig's advice includes a rule about proportion. Early in a career, he wrote, the work may reasonably occupy up to half of a person's life — 49.9 per cent, or an even 50 — but it must never be allowed to take majority control at 50.1 per cent or more, because someone who lets it will suffer, psychically and physically, as time passes.

As personal counsel this is sound. As organisational evidence it is damning. Craig is telling practitioners to construct a private defence against the ordinary operation of the role, because the role as designed will otherwise consume them. When a job comes with folk wisdom about how to protect yourself from it, that wisdom is data about the job.

That reward is a market question. Where delivery leads earn less than those they direct, organisations typically explain this as a consequence of technical scarcity — specialist skills command premiums, management does not. That is often true and it is not the whole story. It also reflects that the role has no clear place in the enterprise's value hierarchy: it is not a technical grade and not a general management grade, so it is priced by whichever framework is closer to hand.

That the role is a stepping stone. Treating delivery leadership as a transitional posting on the way to general management guarantees the organisation will never accumulate deep delivery capability, because everyone good enough to develop it is incentivised to leave it.

Reframing the Issue

The reframe: delivery leadership capability is an asset with a long build time and a short depletion time, and most enterprises manage it as though it were a role that can be filled.

Craig's third observation carries the point. A career in this field, he wrote, is a path rather than a single jump — and it will likely be years before a practitioner has enough experience to be trusted with the most demanding work.

Every experienced executive knows this to be true, and organisational planning routinely ignores it. The enterprise that will need four senior program directors in three years cannot recruit them in eighteen months at acceptable cost, and cannot develop them either unless it started some time ago. The lead time on the asset is longer than the planning horizon that would generate demand for it.

Depletion, by contrast, is fast. A capable delivery leader who leaves takes with them the organisational knowledge that makes them effective here rather than anywhere — which relationships work, which estimates are reliable, where the real constraints sit. That knowledge is rarely documented and cannot be recruited.

This asymmetry — years to build, weeks to lose — is what makes the accountability-authority gap a strategic problem rather than an employment one. The gap does not merely make the role unpleasant. It is the mechanism by which the asset depletes.

The Structural Shape of the Problem

That gap is worth breaking into its parts, because each is separately fixable and together they compound. There are three.

Resource authority. In most matrix organisations, the person accountable for a delivery outcome does not control the people producing it. They negotiate for capacity with functional leaders whose own priorities are legitimate and different. When capacity is withdrawn mid-initiative, the delivery lead absorbs the consequence without having had any means of preventing it.

Scope authority. The person accountable for the outcome frequently cannot decline changes to what the outcome is supposed to be. Where decision rights over purpose are diffuse, the delivery lead is held to a target that others may move. [Related article: Drivers, Supporters and Observers: Who Is Allowed to Change What Your Program Is For]

Standing. Craig's point about recognition is a structural observation, not a complaint. Where delivery leadership is not represented at the level where trade-offs between initiatives are made, its accountability is exercised entirely downward while the decisions that determine whether it can succeed are made elsewhere.

An engineering and construction context makes the compounding visible; the situation described here is hypothetical. A project director is accountable for schedule and cost on a large asset. Design changes originate with a client or a design authority they do not control. Specialist resources are allocated by a discipline function balancing several projects. Subcontractor performance is shaped by procurement decisions made before they were appointed. Their actual levers are sequencing, relationships and personal effort — and personal effort is the only one that scales with the size of the problem.

Which is precisely why it gets used.

Ritual, and What It Is Actually Doing

One further observation from Craig deserves attention, because it points at something organisations misclassify.

Project management, he argued, is more than general management a matter of agreed-upon rituals — and his advice was not to resist them but to learn and inhabit them.

Craig himself does not develop the point; his counsel is simply that ritual is part of the work and should be inhabited rather than resisted. But executives instinctively hear "ritual" as a synonym for bureaucracy, and the substitution is worth resisting too.

Read as a systems question rather than a career one — and this reading is ERANORTH's extension rather than Craig's argument — ritual looks like a coordination technology: shared, repeated practices that let people who do not know each other well work together quickly, that make expectations legible, and that carry judgement between generations of practitioners without requiring it to be written down.

If that reading holds, it has a consequence. Training transmits method; continuity of practice is what transmits judgement, and judgement is what distinguishes a competent practitioner from a senior one.

An organisation that continually re-forms its delivery teams, contracts out its delivery leadership, or treats the role as a rotation destroys the continuity that ritual requires. It will then observe that its people follow process without exercising judgement, and will conclude that it needs better process.

Decision Framework

A diagnostic for whether delivery leadership is designed to succeed.

Failing Resource authority and Scope authority together is the critical combination: it defines a role that is accountable for a result it cannot materially influence, and no calibre of individual will overcome it.

From Strategy to Execution

Immediate. For the three most senior delivery roles in the enterprise, write down what each can decide alone, what they must negotiate, and what is decided over them. The exercise takes an afternoon and is usually uncomfortable, because the middle column dominates.

Medium term. Establish a delivery career architecture with genuine seniority in it — levels a person can reach without leaving the discipline, priced deliberately rather than by proximity to another framework. Until advancement requires exit, the enterprise is systematically exporting its most capable delivery people into general management and then recruiting replacements at a premium. [Related article: Why "The Principles Apply to Any Project" Is Only Half True]

Long term. Plan delivery capability on the horizon the asset actually requires. If the enterprise's strategy implies major programs five years out, the people who will lead them should be identifiable now and should be accumulating the specific organisational knowledge that makes them effective here.

Signals to Monitor

• Senior delivery roles filled externally as a matter of routine. Evidence the internal build is not happening.
• Delivery leads whose tenure is shorter than their initiatives. Guarantees knowledge loss at the worst point.
• Reviews concluding that project management was insufficient. Recurring diagnosis, unchanged condition.
• Progression requiring a move out of delivery. The clearest indicator of a missing career architecture.
• Informal advice within the delivery community about protecting yourself from the job. Folk wisdom about self-defence is a measurement of role design.

Questions for the Leadership Team

1. What can our most senior delivery leader decide without negotiation — and is the list longer than three items?
2. Can a person build a full career in delivery here without moving into general management to advance?
3. Who will lead the major programs our strategy implies for five years' time, and are they in the organisation now?
4. Where does delivery leadership sit when trade-offs between initiatives are made — in the room, or represented by someone else?
5. When we last concluded that delivery capability was the problem, did we examine what authority that role actually held?

Closing Perspective

Every enterprise that intends to convert strategy into outcomes depends on a group of people to do the converting. Most have designed that group's role by accumulation rather than intention — assigning accountability as problems arose, and authority almost never.

The result is a role that only exceptional individuals can perform well, and that exceptional individuals leave. This is not a talent-market condition. It is a design, and designs can be changed by the people who hold them.

Related article: Drivers, Supporters and Observers: Who Is Allowed to Change What Your Program Is For

Related article: Why "The Principles Apply to Any Project" Is Only Half True

Related article: Whose Knowledge Does Your Governance System Actually Hear?

About the author
Kevin Jogin is Founder & Principal Advisor at EraNorth. Meet the Founder.

Copy link Print