
Ask HN: Is “Ownership Vacuum” a Thing? - Kinrany
Sometimes an organization has a part of the process that no one is responsible for.<p>More accurately, there&#x27;s no one person that is both held responsible and empowered to make sure that part of the process works.<p>By analogy to &quot;power vacuum&quot;, it&#x27;s tempting to call this pattern an &quot;ownership vacuum&quot;.<p>Is there a more common term?
======
jimmySixDOF
This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and
Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it.
Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but
Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody
wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could
have done.

~~~
kohtatsu
Thanks, Nobody.

------
s1t5
> By analogy to "power vacuum", it's tempting to call this pattern an
> "ownership vacuum".

It doesn't work that well. Power vacuum is called that way because there's a
tendency for the vacuum to be filled by anyone as soon as possible. On the
other hand, lack of ownership in a company can persist for much longer if left
alone.

~~~
andyfleming
Ownership gap might be a better term than ownership vacuum. The attraction to
take ownership varies wildly.

------
aspenmayer
It seems like it could be explored, but it seems that it’s more of an
inability to successfully petition for the time, money, expertise necessary,
as well a possible lack in initiative, leadership, and responsibility to take
on these tasks and projects.

Seek responsibility, not power.

------
duxup
The events are sure common.

After a contractor failed to complete a program to update and combine numerous
IT resources for numerous departments the state of Minnesota brought a program
called MNLARS in house.

Among the failures that ended up being super costly, there was nobody really
in charge of the whole program, and many people who were decision makers
didn't even know work was waiting on them making decisions / they didn't even
know they had the power to make those decisions. In short nobody was at the
wheel...

I don't know if there is a very clear term for that, but I really like your
"ownership vacuum".

------
rdtwo
This is super common when there are important tasks that get little visibility
unless failed. From an individual perspective it’s almost always better to let
the failure occur blame someone else for the failure and sweep in to save the
day than to do minimal prevention to keep failure from occurring.

This is almost always a result of an institution failing to reward folks for
doing routine maintenance tasks and only providing incentives for new stuff.

------
codingdave
"Bad management"?

Seriously, somebody must be over that process, even the CEO if nobody else
will claim it. They either need to handle it, or delegate it to someone to
handle. If there is a vacuum, accountability rolls up to the leader.

~~~
Kinrany
Well, it's a specific consequence of bad management. Identifying patterns like
this is valuable, I think.

I agree that there's always someone responsible for this, even if it's the CEO
who fails to empower subordinates to do this at their level.

It could be that many other problems boil down to parts of process not being
owned by anyone. That is, that all management problems are ownership gaps in
disguise. I'm not sure.

------
impendia
For two summers between college years, I waited tables at a Pizza Hut. The
restaurant did a thriving dine-in, delivery, and take-out business.

With only rare exceptions, it was nobody's job to answer the phone. During
busy periods, it would ring and ring and ring.

------
tmaly
I am not sure if it is called that, but I see the concept everyday.

I think it does come down to communication and management.

