Approval is not the same as ownership.

Approval can create an illusion of completion

A proposal is presented.

A manager reviews it.

Approval is given and implementation begins.

The organisation now has a documented decision, an authorised action and a record of who agreed to proceed.

Yet one important matter may remain unresolved.

Who owns the consequences?

Approval establishes permission to act. It does not necessarily establish who is responsible for the outcome, who can intervene when circumstances change or who must decide when the original assumptions no longer hold.

These distinctions matter because decisions rarely end when they are approved.

Responsibility and authority can separate

An individual may be instructed to implement a decision without having proposed it or agreed with its underlying assumptions.

Another person may approve the decision without remaining involved in its execution.

When difficulties emerge, responsibility can migrate towards whoever is closest to the problem.

The person carrying out the work becomes responsible for explaining the outcome, even when they lack the authority to change the original decision.

This is a structural weakness.

Accountability is difficult to sustain when responsibility, authority and control sit with different people.

A decision process may therefore appear governed while leaving the practical ownership of failure unresolved.

Every material decision needs a continuation path

An effective decision should establish more than whether an action is permitted.

It should identify the intended outcome, the assumptions supporting it, the person responsible for implementation and the authority available when circumstances change.

It should also establish what happens if the decision stops producing the expected result.

Can implementation be paused?

Who can reverse the decision?

Which consequences require escalation?

What evidence would justify changing course?

These are not administrative additions. They determine whether the organisation can respond without reconstructing the original decision process under pressure.

A decision that cannot be revised without confusion may be formally authorised but operationally fragile.

The wider principle

Approval is necessary in many organisations. It preserves control, establishes boundaries and prevents individuals from committing resources without appropriate authority.

But approval should not become a substitute for ownership.

A signature does not maintain a system. A recorded instruction does not resolve an unexpected consequence. A committee decision does not automatically identify who must act when the conditions supporting it change.

That responsibility must be established separately.

A decision is not complete because someone approved it. It is complete when ownership, authority and the conditions for continuation or reversal are understood.