Putting a vocal supporter of a change with no delivery record in charge of it lets the appointer pin the expected failure on execution or on the strategy, whichever suits.
An example
Told by its owners to launch a paid digital subscription product, the publisher of a regional newspaper group privately expected it to fail. He named as its head the features editor who had argued for paywalls at every editorial meeting for three years and had never run a project with a budget. She got full authority, no deputy, and a six-month deadline. At the launch party he called her the soul of the project. Subscriptions came in at a third of target. In a post-mortem memo, circulated before the six months were up, the publisher wrote that the strategy had been tested by its strongest believer and had not found a market. Anyone who suggested the appointment was the problem had to say so about a colleague who was visibly struggling.
Why it works
Public enthusiasm from the appointee makes the preferred explanation for failure easy to accept: observers can blame execution or the strategy without considering the appointment. It makes the rigged-appointment theory look worse, since few would believe someone sabotaged a project by appointing its champion. Making that case is costly, because it means publicly doubting a struggling colleague, which looks like envy or scapegoating. It depends on documented enthusiasm, genuine operational weakness, a role with real autonomy, and the appointer shaping the post-mortem early. It fails when the appointee partly succeeds, when a competent deputy compensates, or when the audience traces the appointment back.
The thinking behind it
Lee Ross Ross's The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process (1977) named the fundamental attribution error: people explain outcomes by the person involved and underrate the situation. When an enthusiast with no delivery record fails, observers blame the person or the idea they championed, and rarely the appointment that put them there. Post-mortems that review who made the appointment correct for that error.
Niccolò Machiavelli Machiavelli's The Prince (1532) advises leaving affairs of reproach to the management of others and keeping those of grace in one's own hands, with the example of a ruler who placed a harsh deputy in charge of an unpopular task so it would not be traced to him. An appointer who puts an enthusiast in charge of a doomed initiative keeps the reproach at the same distance.
Warning signs
Passionate believers with no operational track record are given autonomous, high-stakes roles, often with no experienced deputy. The appointer praises the appointee's passion more than their plan. A post-mortem story takes shape before the outcome is known. When the failure comes, it is explained as proof that the idea did not work, or that the person could not execute, whichever the appointer prefers.
How to defend yourself
Act at the appointment if you care about the initiative, since the appointment is the leading indicator.
- Ask for an appointment committee or two-key sign-off on the leaders of high-stakes initiatives.
- Push for a competent deputy with real authority. A strong deputy is one of the ways this setup fails.
- Ask the appointer, in writing, what success looks like and how the leader was chosen.
- If you are the appointee, ask for experienced support before accepting, and put the request on record.
After a failure, run or request a forensic post-mortem that looks at who made the appointment as well as how the appointee performed.
How a leader shuts it down
Treat the appointment of an enthusiast with no delivery record to a high-stakes role as an early warning about the appointer. Use appointment committees and two-key sign-off for leaders of major initiatives, and require a competent deputy. In post-mortems, review the appointment decision alongside the execution.