By Jon Hansen | November 2025 | Procurement Insights
This article is the third in a trilogy exploring the structural causes of transformation failure. In the Cassandra/Gleicher piece, the focus was system-wide patterns; this time, the lens is leadership accountability.
The 27-Year Pattern
The decision-makers are insulated from the consequences of their decisions. They get credit for “driving digital transformation.” The practitioners get blamed when the transformation fails.
- Decision Authority: CEOs, C-Suite, and boardrooms make 70% of the technology selection decisions (Source: Procurement Insights archive, 180+ transformation cases, 1998-2025)
- Implementation Burden: The procurement department — which had minimal input on selection — bears the majority of responsibility for making it work
- Blame Assignment: When it fails (80% of the time), the failure is attributed to the practitioners, not the decision-makers
The Motivation Framework That Misses the Point
A recent viral infographic on team motivation — shared across LinkedIn by founders and CEOs — presents a compelling framework:
- Amotivation: When effort feels pointless
- Extrinsic Motivation: Driven by reward or fear
- Intrinsic Motivation: Driven by autonomy, mastery, and purpose
The statistics are impressive: Autonomy increases engagement by 2.3×. Visible progress by 3.1×. Clear purpose by 4.6×.
The framework is solid psychology — based on Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory. It’s real research, not fluff.
But it operates at the wrong layer.
The infographic tells leaders what drives motivation. It doesn’t tell them whether their organization is ready to deliver autonomy, visible progress, and clear purpose.
The assumption underneath: Leaders can simply “develop intrinsic motivation” and “eliminate amotivation.” The organization has the maturity to execute these recommendations.
Sound familiar?
It’s the same pattern everywhere:
- GEP’s orchestration framework assumes the organization can absorb it
- Arjen Van Berkum’s silo framework assumes the organization can enforce it
- This motivation framework assumes the organization can implement it
Nobody asks: What’s your readiness score?
When “Amotivation” Is a Rational Response
The infographic’s “Amotivation” box is particularly revealing:
“No Clarity → No Progress → No Meaning → Withdrawal”
This is exactly what happens in failed transformations:
- No clarity on readiness before deployment
- No progress because the foundation wasn’t there
- No meaning because the initiative collapses under its own weight
- Withdrawal — practitioners disengage, and the 80% failure rate continues
Here’s the uncomfortable truth most leadership frameworks won’t acknowledge:
In failed transformations, “amotivation” is not a character flaw — it’s a rational response to repeated, unacknowledged organizational failure.
The practitioners experiencing withdrawal aren’t lazy or disengaged by nature. They’ve learned that raising concerns gets them labeled “resistant.” They’ve watched initiatives fail. They’ve been blamed for crashes they predicted. And they’ve concluded — rationally — that engagement is futile.
This isn’t a motivation problem. It’s a governance problem.
The Structural Absurdity
Imagine this scenario in any other context:
- The board selects a race car
- They hand the keys to someone who wasn’t consulted on the purchase
- That person is told to win the race
- When they crash, they’re blamed for poor driving
- Nobody asks whether the car was appropriate for the track, the driver’s skill level, or the race conditions
The board doesn’t even ride in the car. They watch from the VIP lounge, champagne in hand, and fire the driver when the engine seizes.
That’s procurement technology selection in most enterprises.
NOTE: The C-Suite reference includes the boardroom
The decision-makers are insulated from consequences. The practitioners are exposed to all of them.
The Cassandra Problem at the Leadership Level
In yesterday’s article on Cassandra’s Curse and Gleicher’s Formula, I explored why organizations ignore what they need to hear until it’s too late.
But there’s a layer above the organizational Cassandra problem: the leadership Cassandra problem.
The pattern:
- Practitioners see the readiness gaps
- They flag concerns
- They get labeled “difficult” or “resistant to change”
- Leadership proceeds anyway
- The initiative fails
- Practitioners get blamed
- The cycle repeats
Gleicher’s Formula for change — D × V × F > R — requires leadership alignment:
- D (Dissatisfaction): Leadership must feel it, not just acknowledge it
- V (Vision): Leadership must own it, not just approve it
- F (First Steps): Leadership must resource it, not just mandate it
When leadership makes the technology decision but delegates the implementation burden, they’ve separated authority from accountability.
That’s not a practitioner failure. That’s a governance failure.
The Readiness Gap at the Top
The Hansen Fit Score measures organizational readiness. But here’s what 27 years of data reveals:
The organization can’t be ready if leadership isn’t ready.
And leadership readiness means:
- Understanding that technology selection without readiness assessment is reckless
- Accepting that the 80% failure rate is a leadership outcome, not a practitioner outcome
- Recognizing that Phase 0 isn’t optional — it’s the CEO’s responsibility to demand it before approving budget
If leadership hasn’t done Phase 0, then by definition the “F” in Gleicher’s formula is missing — there are no concrete first steps, just a tool selection and hope.
Most organizations don’t measure leadership readiness. They assume it.
And then they wonder why practitioners are “amotivated.”
The 70/100 Problem
Here’s the math that nobody wants to discuss:
- 70% of technology selection decisions are made by C-Suite and boards
- 100% of implementation burden falls on practitioners
- 80% of transformations fail
- 0% of accountability lands on the decision-makers
This isn’t a motivation problem that can be solved with autonomy, mastery, and purpose frameworks.
This is a structural accountability gap that produces predictable failure — and then blames the victims for the crash.
A Note on How This Article Came to Be
This article emerged from a collaboration between human insight and AI analysis — specifically, a dialogue using the RAM 2025 6-Model/5-Level Assessment architecture.
The pattern recognition worked like this:
- A viral motivation infographic prompted the question: What’s missing from this framework?
- The AI analysis identified the assumption gap: It tells leaders what drives motivation, but not whether their organization can deliver those conditions.
- Cross-referencing with previous Procurement Insights articles surfaced the 70% decision authority statistic
- The connection crystallized: The motivation problem is actually a leadership accountability problem
This Human-AI collaboration model demonstrates something important:
The same principle that makes AI collaboration effective — clear roles, transparent reasoning, mutual accountability — is exactly what’s missing in most organizational transformations.
When the human brings domain expertise and the AI brings pattern recognition, and both operate with clear boundaries and shared objectives, insight compounds.
When leadership brings decision authority and practitioners bring implementation responsibility, but accountability remains severed, failure compounds.
The collaboration model matters — whether it’s Human-AI or Human-Human.
The Solution: Phase 0 as a Leadership Requirement
The way out isn’t complicated. It’s just uncomfortable for those who benefit from the current structure.
Phase 0 must become a CEO-mandated requirement, not a practitioner request that gets overruled.
Before any transformation budget is approved:
- Measure organizational readiness — including leadership alignment
- Establish accountability symmetry — decision-makers share implementation accountability
- Define success by outcomes — not milestones, not go-live dates, but measurable operational results
The Hansen Fit Score exists to make this concrete:
- Below 72/100: Do not proceed without remediation
- 72-85/100: Proceed with targeted interventions
- Above 85/100: Green light — the organization can absorb the transformation
When leadership is required to see the score before approving the budget, the conversation changes.
When leaders know they’ll be measured on outcomes — not announcements — behavior changes.
When accountability matches authority, the 80% failure rate can finally move.
A Note for Practitioners
If you’re reading this from the implementation side — the side that bears the burden and the blame — here’s what you can do:
- Document your readiness warnings. When you flag concerns, put them in writing. Date them. Keep copies. When the initiative fails, the record exists.
- Request Phase 0 formally. Ask — in writing — for a readiness assessment before implementation begins. If leadership declines, that decision is now documented.
- Name the accountability asymmetry. Use the language: “Who decides, who implements, who gets blamed.” Make the pattern visible.
- Share this article. When leadership says “just make it work,” you now have a framework that explains why that approach fails 80% of the time.
You may not be able to change the governance structure alone. But you can stop accepting blame for failures you predicted and weren’t empowered to prevent.
The Uncomfortable Truth
The 80% failure rate isn’t a technology problem.
It isn’t a practitioner problem.
It isn’t even an organizational readiness problem in the abstract.
It’s a leadership accountability problem.
The people making the decisions aren’t the people living with the consequences. Until that changes — until CEOs and boards are held accountable for transformation outcomes, not just transformation announcements — the Doom Loop continues.
Motivation frameworks are beautiful.
Readiness measurement is essential.
But neither matters if the people at the top are insulated from the failures they set in motion.
When motivation dies, don’t blame the practitioners. Ask who made the decisions — and who bore the consequences.
That asymmetry is the disease.
Phase 0 is the diagnostic.
Leadership accountability is the cure.
This article is the third in a trilogy exploring the structural causes of transformation failure:
- How The Industry Keeps Repeating Collins’ Doom Loop — And Why
- When Cassandra’s Curse Collides With Gleicher’s Formula
- When Motivation Dies, It’s Not a People Problem — It’s a Leadership Problem (this article)
30
Jon Hansen is the CEO of Hansen Models and creator of the Hansen Fit Score methodology. His work in AI-driven procurement assessment began in 1998 with SR&ED-funded research for Canada’s Department of National Defence and has maintained accuracy rates between 85% and 97.3% across 27 years of successive refinement.
#LeadershipAccountability #ReadinessFirst #HansenFitScore #TransformationPhysics #PhaseZero #DoomLoop #70100Problem
Procurement Insights
When Motivation Dies, It’s Not a People Problem — It’s a Leadership Problem
Posted on November 29, 2025
0
By Jon Hansen | November 2025 | Procurement Insights
This article is the third in a trilogy exploring the structural causes of transformation failure. In the Cassandra/Gleicher piece, the focus was system-wide patterns; this time, the lens is leadership accountability.
The 27-Year Pattern
The decision-makers are insulated from the consequences of their decisions. They get credit for “driving digital transformation.” The practitioners get blamed when the transformation fails.
The Motivation Framework That Misses the Point
A recent viral infographic on team motivation — shared across LinkedIn by founders and CEOs — presents a compelling framework:
The statistics are impressive: Autonomy increases engagement by 2.3×. Visible progress by 3.1×. Clear purpose by 4.6×.
The framework is solid psychology — based on Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory. It’s real research, not fluff.
But it operates at the wrong layer.
The infographic tells leaders what drives motivation. It doesn’t tell them whether their organization is ready to deliver autonomy, visible progress, and clear purpose.
The assumption underneath: Leaders can simply “develop intrinsic motivation” and “eliminate amotivation.” The organization has the maturity to execute these recommendations.
Sound familiar?
It’s the same pattern everywhere:
Nobody asks: What’s your readiness score?
When “Amotivation” Is a Rational Response
The infographic’s “Amotivation” box is particularly revealing:
This is exactly what happens in failed transformations:
Here’s the uncomfortable truth most leadership frameworks won’t acknowledge:
In failed transformations, “amotivation” is not a character flaw — it’s a rational response to repeated, unacknowledged organizational failure.
The practitioners experiencing withdrawal aren’t lazy or disengaged by nature. They’ve learned that raising concerns gets them labeled “resistant.” They’ve watched initiatives fail. They’ve been blamed for crashes they predicted. And they’ve concluded — rationally — that engagement is futile.
This isn’t a motivation problem. It’s a governance problem.
The Structural Absurdity
Imagine this scenario in any other context:
The board doesn’t even ride in the car. They watch from the VIP lounge, champagne in hand, and fire the driver when the engine seizes.
That’s procurement technology selection in most enterprises.
NOTE: The C-Suite reference includes the boardroom
The decision-makers are insulated from consequences. The practitioners are exposed to all of them.
The Cassandra Problem at the Leadership Level
In yesterday’s article on Cassandra’s Curse and Gleicher’s Formula, I explored why organizations ignore what they need to hear until it’s too late.
But there’s a layer above the organizational Cassandra problem: the leadership Cassandra problem.
The pattern:
Gleicher’s Formula for change — D × V × F > R — requires leadership alignment:
When leadership makes the technology decision but delegates the implementation burden, they’ve separated authority from accountability.
That’s not a practitioner failure. That’s a governance failure.
The Readiness Gap at the Top
The Hansen Fit Score measures organizational readiness. But here’s what 27 years of data reveals:
The organization can’t be ready if leadership isn’t ready.
And leadership readiness means:
If leadership hasn’t done Phase 0, then by definition the “F” in Gleicher’s formula is missing — there are no concrete first steps, just a tool selection and hope.
Most organizations don’t measure leadership readiness. They assume it.
And then they wonder why practitioners are “amotivated.”
The 70/100 Problem
Here’s the math that nobody wants to discuss:
This isn’t a motivation problem that can be solved with autonomy, mastery, and purpose frameworks.
This is a structural accountability gap that produces predictable failure — and then blames the victims for the crash.
A Note on How This Article Came to Be
This article emerged from a collaboration between human insight and AI analysis — specifically, a dialogue using the RAM 2025 6-Model/5-Level Assessment architecture.
The pattern recognition worked like this:
This Human-AI collaboration model demonstrates something important:
The same principle that makes AI collaboration effective — clear roles, transparent reasoning, mutual accountability — is exactly what’s missing in most organizational transformations.
When the human brings domain expertise and the AI brings pattern recognition, and both operate with clear boundaries and shared objectives, insight compounds.
When leadership brings decision authority and practitioners bring implementation responsibility, but accountability remains severed, failure compounds.
The collaboration model matters — whether it’s Human-AI or Human-Human.
The Solution: Phase 0 as a Leadership Requirement
The way out isn’t complicated. It’s just uncomfortable for those who benefit from the current structure.
Phase 0 must become a CEO-mandated requirement, not a practitioner request that gets overruled.
Before any transformation budget is approved:
The Hansen Fit Score exists to make this concrete:
When leadership is required to see the score before approving the budget, the conversation changes.
When leaders know they’ll be measured on outcomes — not announcements — behavior changes.
When accountability matches authority, the 80% failure rate can finally move.
A Note for Practitioners
If you’re reading this from the implementation side — the side that bears the burden and the blame — here’s what you can do:
You may not be able to change the governance structure alone. But you can stop accepting blame for failures you predicted and weren’t empowered to prevent.
The Uncomfortable Truth
The 80% failure rate isn’t a technology problem.
It isn’t a practitioner problem.
It isn’t even an organizational readiness problem in the abstract.
It’s a leadership accountability problem.
The people making the decisions aren’t the people living with the consequences. Until that changes — until CEOs and boards are held accountable for transformation outcomes, not just transformation announcements — the Doom Loop continues.
Motivation frameworks are beautiful.
Readiness measurement is essential.
But neither matters if the people at the top are insulated from the failures they set in motion.
When motivation dies, don’t blame the practitioners. Ask who made the decisions — and who bore the consequences.
That asymmetry is the disease.
Phase 0 is the diagnostic.
Leadership accountability is the cure.
This article is the third in a trilogy exploring the structural causes of transformation failure:
30
Jon Hansen is the CEO of Hansen Models and creator of the Hansen Fit Score methodology. His work in AI-driven procurement assessment began in 1998 with SR&ED-funded research for Canada’s Department of National Defence and has maintained accuracy rates between 85% and 97.3% across 27 years of successive refinement.
#LeadershipAccountability #ReadinessFirst #HansenFitScore #TransformationPhysics #PhaseZero #DoomLoop #70100Problem
Share this:
Related