Rewards are given to those who follow the rules and procedures, not to those who achieve results.

How boneheaded systems get built

Boneheaded bureaucracy is rarely the product of one bad decision. 

It’s the cumulative result of four incentives:

·       Risk avoidance over value creation

When the penalty for being wrong is personal and immediate—but the reward for being right is distant and shared—people default to cover-your-basis behavior.  This produces policies optimized for “defensibility” rather than effectiveness.

·       Metrics that measure activity, not outcomes

If you measure the number of reports produced, you’ll get more reports.  If you measure the number of scheduled inspections, you’ll obtain full calendars.  Outcomes—safety, affordability, solvency, quality—become secondary because they are more challenging to measure and attribute.

·       No feedback loop from the real world. 

 When systems incorporate meaningful evidence and correction, policymakers can trust their ability to improve outcomes and feel more confident in reform efforts.

·       Any system that cannot be corrected by evidence is a system guaranteed to compound errors.  When front-line reality conflicts with policy, policy wins—because policy has authority and reality only has consequences.

·       Diffused accountability.  Boneheaded outcomes thrive where responsibility is shared so widely that no one feels personally responsible.  When everyone owns it, no one owns it.

The predictable results

Once the system starts rewarding compliance instead of competence, a few outcomes become inevitable:

• Costs rise (as processes expand, exceptions multiply, and delays become the norm).
• Quality falls (because passing the process becomes more critical than doing excellent work).
• Innovation slows (because novelty is treated as a risk rather than as an improvement).
• Public trust erodes (because people experience the gap between stated goals and actual outcomes).

And perhaps most damaging: the system becomes self-justifying.  Any complaint is treated not as a signal of misalignment, but as evidence that more rules are needed.

The boneheaded trap: treating symptoms as causes

The classic bureaucratic response to failure is to add a layer.  But many failures aren’t caused by lack of rules—they’re caused by lack of clarity, competence, and accountability.

If a project fails because responsibilities are vague, adding paperwork does nothing.
If compliance is poor because the rules are incoherent, increasing enforcement worsens the confusion.
If outcomes deteriorate because incentives reward speed over quality, more checklists merely create the illusion of control.

This is how an organization becomes a factory of unintended consequences.  Everyone is busy.  Everyone is “doing their part.” Yet the core problem remains unresolved because it lies in the system’s design.

A practical antidote: three rules for non-boneheaded governance

If you want to build a system that solves problems instead of generating them, start here:

·       Tie every rule to an outcome.  When rules are linked to clear, measurable results-such as fewer injuries or lower costs-stakeholders can see tangible progress and feel motivated to support reforms.

·       Build a feedback loop with teeth.  Create a process that allows the front line to challenge policy with evidence—and forces policy owners to respond within a timeframe.  No response means the system is not serious about improvement.

·       Assign real accountability, not “the committee.” Not “the department.” Identify an owner, define success, and hold them accountable for results.  Accountability doesn’t require punishment; it needs clarity.

Conclusion: competence beats compliance

A competent system is not one where no one makes mistakes.  It’s one in which errors are identified early, corrected quickly, and used to improve the design.  Boneheaded bureaucracy does the opposite: it makes mistakes harder to admit, slower to fix, and easier to repeat—at scale.

If we want better outcomes, we have to stop confusing procedure with progress.  The goal is not a perfectly documented failure.  The goal is durable results—built by incentives that reward truth, clarity, and responsibility.