ACT II: THE MACHINE — How the system works (or doesn't)
On several occasions I've found myself caught in uncomfortable situations caused by a lack of clear rules. The workplace—and I'd venture to say most of an individual's life—requires clear and precise definitions.
Companies have an endless array of "technical" mechanisms at their disposal to avoid any discomfort or misunderstanding. For example: org charts, job descriptions, profiles, manuals, procedures, work instructions—to name a few.
All of them share the same fundamental objective: telling people what's expected of them.
Despite the fact that many middle and upper managers have studied these principles from an academic perspective, they opt—for whatever reason—to skip those chapters. Honestly, I think I know several of those reasons, but I consider none of them justifiable.
Work is an extremely complex swarm of situations, interactions, processes, and people that need some kind of "regulatory framework." When this framework is weak or nonexistent, unwanted situations and conflicts frequently emerge—both operationally and personally.
Those who pay the price for this lack of definition are usually clients... regularly workers... and rarely middle/upper management. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons why the situation never changes: those in power simply aren't exposed to such difficulties.
In your job or company, are these questions clear?
- Who is my/the superior?
- Who's the one calling the shots?
- Who's in charge of doing this?
- What needs to be done in these cases?
- Does the client know I'm part of this and what my function is?
- What is my function?
- What's expected of me?
- How is the result of my work measured?
- Am I responsible for what this or that person does or fails to do?
- Do I have authority over that person?
- Is it my job to make sure so-and-so knows what they have to do?
The Taleb Connection
The article doesn't argue that the company is failing to define things. It argues that the lack of definitions is the design. Without clear ownership, errors don't trace back. Without clear scope, accountability floats. Without clear authority, the credit and the blame can be allocated on demand by whoever is closer to the chairman.
"Bureaucracy is a construction by which a person is conveniently separated from the consequences of his or her actions." — Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game (2018), Prologue
Read against the eleven questions in the article, the construction reveals itself: most workers can't say who decides, who's responsible, who's owed the result. That ambiguity is precisely what keeps consequences from flowing back to the people whose decisions caused them. The cost lands on clients, sometimes on workers, almost never on the people whose job it was to write the structure down.
"If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." — Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes (2010)
The moral version. The undefined system depends on everyone agreeing not to name it. The cost of ambiguity is paid quietly because pointing at it is socially expensive. The article's eleven questions are the act of pointing.
This article was translated from the 2012 Spanish original and revised in 2026 through human-AI collaboration—clarifying transitions and adding connections to Nassim Taleb's framework.