There are people who manage to place responsibility entirely outside of themselves. They speak in stories that sound logical, but in which no one is still the owner. Decisions become processes, choices become circumstances, and actions seem to be the result of something inevitable. What stands out is not so much their persuasive power, but the silence that follows.
That others go along with this is rarely a sign of agreement. More often, it is a sign of avoidance in environments where ownership is not named and where contradicting is experienced as difficult or time-consuming. Going along feels safer than taking responsibility. Thus, absurdity is given space - not because it is right, but because no one corrects it.
Recognisable examples from practice
An organisation announces a major restructuring. The decision is explained as“necessary due to the context”and“inevitable given the market pressure”. Questions about alternatives or impact on people remain unanswered.
Leaders repeat the story, HR implements it, employees feel the consequences. No one seems to have truly made the decision - and precisely for that reason, no one feels responsible for what it brings about.
What is missing here is not strategy or analysis, but leadership. No one says:this is the choice we are making, this is why, andthis is what we are asking of people. The result is distance, cynicism, and a loss of trust. Work changes, and people disengage.
We see the same phenomenon at an individual level. Imagine an employee who misses an important deadline because he did not put in enough effort. He explains that it was not his fault: the systems were unclear, colleagues responded slowly, the process was chaotic. He adds that he tried everything - and that he "could not have done better".
Surprisingly, he is often believed. Colleagues nod, managers accept the explanation, and the incident is dismissed as an unfortunate coincidence. Responsibility disappears, while the behaviour and its consequences remain visible. Absurd behaviour normalises simply because someone dares to sell it as inevitable.
What Value-based leadership does differently here
Value-based leadership breaks this pattern. It restores the connection between choice, responsibility, and human consequence. It names who decides, dares to show doubt, and creates space for dialogue where tension is palpable.
This does not require a perfect answer, but courageous presence. Leaders who take responsibility, even when it is uncomfortable. Who do not hide behind systems or processes, but recognise that every decision affects people - and that is precisely where their role lies.
At an individual level, a Value-based leader asks questions such as:
• What could you have done?
• What or who did you need to do this differently?
• What responsibility are you now taking to put this right?
The goal is not punishment, but restoring ownership. This allows employees to learn, and it also influences the behaviour of the team. Work becomes human again - not by making everything softer, but by making it fairer and more meaningful.
Concluding reflection
The question is not whether your organisation is changing. The question is whether someone is visibly taking responsibility for how that change happens - and what it asks of people. Where leaders fail to do this, stories fill the gap. Where leaders take this on, trust is created.
Are you as a leader or organisation reflecting on how responsibility is being taken today?
With our Value-based leadership scan you can briefly reflect on how clear ownership is within your organisation.
I am doing the Value-based leadership scan