Authority Without Commitment

The system has authority on paper, but no mechanism that requires it to be exercised. Indecision is not neutral. Its cost is simply transferred.

Authority is formally assigned. Governance models exist. Roles are defined.

Under pressure:

• Decisions stall
• Risk is acknowledged but not owned
• Direction remains unresolved while work continues

The system does not feel blocked.

It feels reasonable, cautious, and polite.

Work proceeds through workarounds while commitment remains deferred.

Only observable behaviors:

• Decisions deferred despite clear ownership
• "Let's wait for more data" after risk is acknowledged
• Consensus sought for decisions already within scope
• Escalations routed laterally instead of upward
• Ownership clarified after outcomes, not before decisions
• "We should" replacing "I will" in consequential moments

If authority exists but commitment never arrives, this condition is present.

Because most systems reward optionality more than decisiveness.

Authority is granted without clear thresholds for when it must be exercised. Deferring decisions carries less immediate cost than committing to them. Ambiguity protects leaders from visible error while shifting the cost of indecision elsewhere.

The system preserves flexibility by externalizing consequence.

• "We're being thoughtful"
• "This needs more alignment"
• "We don't want to rush it"
• "The timing isn't right"
• "Let's socialize this more"

These explanations frame indecision as prudence. They obscure the structural absence of commitment.

• Responsibility drifts downward
• Informal decision-makers emerge
• Direction is negotiated after execution
• Trust erodes without a visible failure
• Edge teams absorb the cost of unresolved authority

The system continues to function, but coherence degrades.

Primary:

• FM-03 Responsibility Without Authority

Secondary:

• FM-01 Responsibility Compression at the Edge
• FM-02 Escalation Inversion
• FM-05 Normalized Workarounds