A. Decision-making slows and becomes indirect

• Decisions migrate from accountable leaders to committees, gatekeepers, and “review culture.”
• People optimize approval rather than outcome.
• The org develops a “permission economy”: progress requires many signatures, and no single person owns the result.

Symptoms

• Projects stall in “alignment” and “stakeholder review.”
• Meetings replace execution.
• “Waiting on…” becomes the default status update.

B. Process becomes the product

When entrenchment spreads, process adherence turns into a proxy for competence:

• Being “procedurally correct” matters more than being right.
• Teams protect themselves by following procedures, even if those procedures are pointless.
• Innovation appears to be a threat because it introduces variability.

Symptoms

• Box-checking and compliance theater.
• Excess documentation with thin insight.
• Endless handoffs and “requirements” that no one can justify.

C. Risk aversion becomes cultural, not tactical

Instead of managing risk intelligently, the organization tries to eliminate blame:

• People avoid decisions that could be criticized.
• “Don’t get in trouble” replaces “deliver value.”

Symptoms

• Over-control of low-risk activities.
• Under-investment in experiments.
• Fewer accountable commitments; more hedged language.

D. Informal power networks overtake formal authority

Entrenched organizations often develop shadow hierarchies:

• Long-tenured gatekeepers, policy owners, and system administrators become the real blockers/approvers.
• New leaders can issue directives, but execution requires “buy-in” from unofficial power centers.

Symptoms

• “Talk to Pat first” (Pat is not the Manager).
• Leaders “announce” changes that never happen.
• The org chart and reality diverge.

E. Talent adapts in unhealthy ways

High performers either leave or learn to survive:

• The best people get frustrated by delays and ambiguity of ownership.
• Others become skilled at politics, policy-citing, and deflection.

Symptoms

• Attrition of builders and doers.
• Promotions skew toward “navigators” rather than “producers.”
• Increased cynicism: “This will blow over.”

F. The organization loses signal-to-noise

As layers grow, the truth gets filtered:

• Front-line reality is diluted before it reaches leadership.
• Leaders operate on polished narratives rather than operational facts.

Symptoms

• Surprises: “We didn’t know it was that bad.”
• Metrics that look good while customers suffer.
• A widening gap between stated priorities and actual behavior.

2) How Entrenchment Undermines a Process-Driven → Results-Driven Transition

A results-driven organization requires three things:

·         Clear outcomes (what matters)

·         Fast, empowered decisions (who decides)

·         Real accountability (who owns results)

Bureaucratic entrenchment attacks all three.

A. It converts “results” into secondary goals

When the Process is entrenched, outcomes become aspirational slogans:

• People treat results as leadership rhetoric while Process remains career reality.
• Incentives reward avoiding mistakes rather than delivering value.

Practical effect: You’ll get beautifully governed projects that arrive late, over budget, and under-impactful—but “followed the process.”

B. It prevents ownership by multiplying veto points

Results-oriented work requires single-threaded ownership (one accountable owner).  Entrenchment creates:

• Many approvers, few owners.
• Many reviewers, no decider.

Practical effect: Teams can’t commit credibly because anyone can block.

C. It punishes autonomy (which results in)

Results-driven systems rely on empowered teams making decisions close to the work.  Entrenchment:

• centralizes control,
• adds steps,
• and treats deviation as disobedience.

Practical effect: Teams stop innovating and start “managing optics.”

D. It creates metric illusions

Process-driven orgs often measure:

• volume of activity,
• compliance with steps,
• timeliness of paperwork.

Results-driven orgs must measure:

• cycle time,
• quality,
• customer outcomes,
• cost-to-serve,
• rework/defects,
• throughput.

Entrenchment fights this shift by clinging to “safe” internal metrics.

Practical effect: Leadership thinks the transformation is working because dashboards look tidy, while value delivery stays stagnant.

E. It causes “change fatigue” and passive resistance

If past transformations were announced but not sustained, employees assume:

• “This is another initiative.”
• “Wait it out.”
• “Do minimal compliance.”

Practical effect: You get compliance theater, not behavioral change.

3) How Leadership Should Dismantle Entrenchment (Without Creating Chaos)

Dismantling entrenchment is not a motivational speech.  It is structural work: decision rights, incentives, measurement, and governance design.

Think of it as removing veto points and rebuilding accountability pathways.

The Leadership Playbook (Practical and Sequenced)

Phase 1 (Weeks 1–4): Diagnose where entrenchment lives

Goal: Identify the specific mechanisms creating drag.

Do three fast audits

·         Decision audit

o   Pick 5 critical decisions made recently.

o   Map: who proposed, who reviewed, who decided, how long it took, and how many handoffs occurred.

·         Approval audit

o   For a typical initiative, count approvals and mandatory reviewers.

o   Highlight any approval that doesn’t materially reduce risk.

·         Policy audit (“Zombie rules”)

o   List policies/procedures that are outdated, duplicated, or impossible to follow consistently.

o   If a rule is routinely bypassed, it’s not a rule—it’s a liability.

Deliverable: A short list of the top 10 friction points and their owners.

Phase 2 (Weeks 5–12): Redesign decision rights and remove passive veto.

Goal: Replace committee culture with accountable ownership, empowering leaders to feel confident in their ability to drive change.

A. Install “single accountable owner” for outcomes

For every major initiative:

• 1 owner accountable for results,
• a small set of advisors who can recommend,
• limited approvers only where actual risk exists.

A simple rule:

Many can advise.  Few can approve.  One owns the outcome.

B. Cap approvals and time-box reviews

• Default review windows (e.g., 48–72 hours).
• “Silence equals consent” for low-risk decisions.
• Escalation path when a reviewer blocks.

C. Convert approvals into guardrails

Instead of “permission,” use:

• thresholds (dollars/risk levels),
• standard templates,
• auditability,
• post-facto sampling.

This preserves compliance while restoring velocity.

Phase 3 (Month 3–6): Align incentives with results (or the bureaucracy will return).  Goal: Make it professionally rational to deliver outcomes by providing clear metrics that demonstrate progress.

Goal: Make it professionally rational to deliver outcomes.

A. Change what gets rewarded

Promotions and ratings must reflect:

• measurable outcomes delivered,
• cycle-time improvement,
• quality/rework reduction,
• customer Impact,
• cross-functional cooperation.

B. Penalize “process obstruction.”

Not harshly—predictably.  Obstruction looks like:

• serial blocking without alternatives,
• endless “requirements” that don’t reduce risk,
• recurring non-decisions.

C. Protect intelligent risk-taking

A results-driven culture requires psychological safety around:

• experiments,
• learning,
• reversals when data changes.

Without this, people cling to bureaucracy as armor.

Phase 4 (Month 6–12): Reduce knowledge monopolies and rebuild capability

Goal: Prevent gatekeepers from becoming structural choke points again.

A. Break knowledge hoarding

• Cross-train.
• Document critical systems.
• Rotate roles in high-control areas.
• Build redundancy in key processes.

B. Simplify and standardize the “minimum viable governance.”

Results-driven does not mean undisciplined.  You still need:

• safety rules,
• legal compliance,
• financial controls,
• security protocols.

But you remove everything that exists solely to distribute blame.

The Non-Negotiable Leadership Behaviors

Even significant structural reform fails if leadership behaviors reinforce entrenchment.

Leaders must:

• decide faster and clearly (ambiguity breeds committees),
• hold owners accountable (not committees),
• Stop rewarding political navigation as competence,
• model escalation discipline (resolve blocks, don’t tolerate them),
• kill sacred cows (including legacy approvals that executives secretly rely on).

If leadership continues to use old approval paths, the organization will, too.

How You Know It’s Working (Leading Indicators)

Look for these measurable shifts:

• Decision cycle time drops (days/weeks → hours/days).
• Approvals per initiative decrease materially.
• Handoffs reduce; teams own work end-to-end.
• Rework rate decreases (quality improves as ownership clarifies).
• Customer outcomes improve (NPS, churn, SLA, complaints).
• Top-talent retention improves (builders stay).

If you only measure sentiment, you’ll miss whether the machine is changing.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

·         Announcing “results-driven” without changing incentives

·         Removing controls indiscriminately (creates chaos and compliance risk)

·         Letting committees persist “temporarily” (temporary becomes permanent)

·         Treating gatekeepers as villains (many are responding rationally to the system)

·         Trying to fix culture without redesigning structure

Culture follows what the system rewards.

Bottom Line

When bureaucratic entrenchment spreads, the organization becomes optimized for self-protection rather than value creation.  A process-driven organization trying to become results-driven must do more than encourage outcomes—it must re-architect decision rights, incentives, and governance so results become the safest, most rewarded path.