The UK government has just announced new rules and procedures for water authorities.
On the surface, this looks like action.
In reality, it risks reinforcing the very problem that got us here.
When failure occurs, our instinct is often to add more process:
• more regulation
• more reporting
• more oversight frameworks
But process does not create responsibility.
It often dilutes it.
Rules give organisations somewhere to hide.
They create distance between decision-makers and consequences.
They allow accountability to become abstract, shared, and ultimately avoidable.
CEOs don’t become more responsible because procedures multiply.
They become more responsible when judgement is required — and owned.
This is the deeper issue we rarely name:
“Systems that replace judgement with process don’t prevent abuse of power — they delay challenge until it’s too late.”
Over-reliance on process trains people to ask:
“What am I allowed to do?”
instead of:
“What is the right thing to do?”
It discourages early challenge.
It normalises compliance over courage.
And it enables damaging behaviour to persist — not through bad intent, but through abdicated responsibility.
By the time harm is undeniable, everyone can say:
“We followed the rules.”
That is not leadership.
That is governance without humanity.
If we want better outcomes — in utilities, public services, or any large system — we need fewer places to hide behind process, and more clearly owned decision rights.
Because responsibility cannot be automated.
And judgement cannot be outsourced.
Leave a Reply