Claiming a rival department owned a critical output that was never assigned to it, an executive then blames the department when the output is missing.
An example
A packaged-snacks maker launched a new protein-bar line without the in-store displays its two largest retailers had expected. In the post-mortem with the board, the chief product officer said in passing that "displays were marketing's piece, since they own the brand," and moved on to supply issues. No charter or kickoff memo had assigned displays to anyone. Two directors wrote it down. The chief marketing officer, sitting beside him, said the displays had never been scoped to her team, and the board chair asked whether that was really the point. She had raised the gap with the launch team in a February email, but she had not copied the product officer and did not have it with her. Her next performance review mentioned "ownership gaps on the bar launch."
Why it works
Accepting the claim is easy for the audience. It offers a clean culprit and spares everyone the work of reconstructing who owned what, or of admitting that the assignment process is broken. The rival's defense, that the work was never assigned, is heard as an excuse or a sign of disorganization even when it is true, so their side looks worse. Disputing it is costly, since it means litigating the accountability record in front of the people who matter, which looks petty whoever is right. It depends on an ambiguous or undocumented assignment record, an audience with little appetite for forensic reconstruction, and an actor who speaks first or with more authority.
The thinking behind it
Oliver E. Williamson In Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (1975), Williamson argues that bounded rationality makes contracts always incomplete, and that organizations exist partly to safeguard transactions against opportunism. A launch charter that assigns no owner to an output is an incomplete contract, and the gap is where a claim of ownership can be planted afterward. Flagging unowned work in writing, before delivery, closes the gap.
Amos Tversky Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1974) describes anchoring: people adjust from a starting value, usually too little. The executive who says first, in passing, that an output was marketing's piece sets the starting point, and the rival's reply is heard as an adjustment from it. Answering with the charter and the dated email replaces the anchor with a record.
Warning signs
In passing, and often in a high-stakes forum such as a board post-mortem, a senior colleague says your team owned an output nobody assigned. The claim traces to no charter, responsibility chart, or kickoff record. It comes before you have spoken, and the audience moves on. Your reply sounds like an excuse, and the questions that follow are about your team's ownership culture.
How to defend yourself
Wherever you might later be measured against an outcome, an unassigned piece of work is a real risk, and a charter that says nothing protects nobody.
- Keep written charters, kickoff memos, and responsibility charts for every cross-team effort, with copies you can reach quickly.
- When you see an output nobody owns, flag it in writing to everyone involved, including whoever might later claim it was yours.
- When the claim comes, answer with the record and keep it short: "The charter assigns displays to no one. I flagged the gap on February 12, and here is the email."
- Ask the program office, or anyone who was present at the original assignment discussion, to confirm the scope.
How a leader shuts it down
Maintain a program office that keeps charters and responsibility charts and can settle ownership questions from the record. In post-mortems, ask for the assignment document before accepting any claim about who owned what. Make flagging unowned work a normal, rewarded part of launch planning.