If You See a Job, It's Yours

A scene everyone knows

Everyone saw it. Nobody fixed it.

The stairwell light has been out for two weeks. There is a typo on the website's front page that every visitor sees. A customer emailed four days ago, and everyone on the team was sure someone else had already answered her. Everyone saw it, and everyone said: someone should deal with that.

There is an old folk story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to do, and Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did. Somebody got angry, because it was Everybody's job. In the end Everybody blamed Somebody, when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

The experiment was run in New York in 1968. Students sat in separate rooms talking over an intercom, and suddenly one of them sounded as if he were having a seizure. Those who believed they were the only one listening went to help almost every time. Those who believed four others could hear went in about a third of cases, and took much longer. The researchers called it diffusion of responsibility.

The more eyes on a problem, the fewer hands on it.

Part one

Why we look for someone to blame

Not because people are bad or lazy. Three well-documented mechanisms push us to point instead of fix, and the ordinary structure of work reinforces all three.

1. Responsibility spreads thin

   When a problem belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. Each of us silently divides the responsibility by the number of people present, and arrives at almost zero.

2. When my part isn't counted, I put in less

   A review of 78 studies found that people put in less effort in a group than alone - especially when no one can see what each person contributed, and when the goal isn't really theirs.

3. It's in someone else's hands

   Psychologists distinguish people who feel that what happens to them depends on them from those who feel it depends on luck, fate or whoever is above them. The second feeling makes complaining the only sensible move.

Now think about an ordinary job. The problem officially belongs to the manager. Initiative beyond your job description grows the owner's profit, not yours. And whoever fixes things nobody asked them to sometimes gets a remark for it. In a structure like that, complaining isn't weakness - it's the rational move.

In 1970 the economist Albert Hirschman described two responses to an organisation in decline: exit - leave - or voice - criticise from within. Both assume someone else is holding the wheel.

Part three

In a rikma there is no one to blame - and that's the good news

A rikma is a partnership with no boss. No management, no "them", no department in charge of it. Every partner is an entrepreneur, and every partner can open a mission, a resource or a process the moment they see a need. If something isn't working, there is no one to complain to but ourselves - so there is no need to complain.

That is the big difference from an ordinary job. Research on the feeling of ownership in organisations found it is built from three things: control, intimate knowledge, and investing yourself. In a rikma it isn't only a feeling - whoever invests themselves in a fix really does get a larger share of the ownership. Personal responsibility and personal incentive point the same way.

Part four

But it isn't "do whatever you like"

Taking responsibility isn't taking over. Anything that lands work, money or an obligation on another partner waits for their consent - you propose, and they approve, talk it over or counter. Fixing what you saw isn't fixing other people.

Nor do you have to do everything yourself. Seeing a problem and opening a clear mission for it - one someone with the right skills can take - is already taking responsibility. The spirit we're after isn't "I'll do it all", it's "this won't fall through the cracks because of me".

And not every feeling that something's wrong is whining. That feeling is information, sometimes the most important information a rikma has. The only difference is what you do with it: instead of looking for the culprit, you write it up as a mission description.

If you believe it is possible to ruin, believe it is possible to repair.