Naming one accountable owner for each outcome, with the authority to act, makes a proposal read as a plan someone will answer for, and diffuse alternatives look like no one's job.
An example
Twice the executive committee of a hotel group had been asked to approve a mobile check-in program, and twice it had stalled. Both proposals listed a steering group of five departments, shared accountability, and a governance chart with arrows in every direction, and committee members kept asking who would answer if the rollout went badly. The head of guest technology rewrote the third proposal so that every outcome had one name next to it. She owned the app and the overall launch, the operations vice president owned front-desk readiness, and the head of loyalty owned the sign-up target, and each had the authority to make decisions in their area without convening a committee. One line set the earlier structure beside it: five departments, no single owner. The proposal was approved in a single meeting, with a monthly report from the head of guest technology to the committee.
Why it works
Decision-makers want to know who will answer for the result, and a single named owner with authority answers that before it is asked, which makes the proposal look better. It also makes the diffuse alternatives look worse: beside a plan with names, one owned by a committee of departments reads as no one's job. Clear ownership speeds decisions in execution, too, since the owner can act without convening a group. Owners need real authority and the willingness to be named, and the outcomes have to be separable enough to assign.
The thinking behind it
Marcia W. Blenko Who Has the D?: How Clear Decision Roles Enhance Organizational Performance (2006), by Rogers and Blenko, assigns each role in an important decision a letter, recommend, agree, perform, input, and decide, and makes the holder of the D the single point of accountability who commits the organization to action. They argue that explicit roles remove decision bottlenecks. A proposal with one name and real decision rights against each outcome answers the committee's question of who has the D.
When it fits
Proposals for cross-functional programs where earlier attempts stalled on unclear ownership, or where decision-makers have been burned by committees that answered for nothing, are where it helps. Owners willing to put their names to outcomes are the requirement, along with the authority, or the sponsor's backing, to give each one real decision rights.
How to use it well
Break the program into outcomes that can be owned separately.
- Put one name next to each outcome, along with the decisions that person can make alone and the ones that need others.
- Ask each owner before naming them, and agree on what they will report and when.
- Show the decision-makers the ownership on one page, beside the structure it replaces if that helps.
- Keep your own name on the overall result.
Name owners who have the authority to act. A name without authority is a scapegoat in waiting, and the people asked to serve will know it.
What it costs and where it backfires
Named owners carry the risk, and some people will refuse to be named or demand authority you cannot give. Single owners may optimize their own piece at the expense of the whole, and some outcomes cannot be separated, so forcing one owner on them creates friction. Each owner needs real authority over the outcome. Once a name is attached to an outcome without the means to deliver it, so that someone can be blamed later, it has become a setup.
When it is used on you
Losing to a rival proposal with clear ownership while yours relies on shared accountability, consider whether yours really needs to be shared. If it does, explain why and show how decisions will get made. Asked to be the named owner, agree only after the authority is written down.