> The big question on managers' minds (either consciously or unconsciously) when approving a policy change is "if I do this and anything goes wrong, will I get

> The big question on managers' minds (either consciously or unconsciously) when approving a policy change is "if I do this and anything goes wrong, will I get blamed?". This should not be the basis of choice but in practice it sadly is. This is where things go wrong. The people who would most benefit from the change (and thus have the biggest incentive to get it fixed) do not get to make the call. Instead it goes to people who will see no personal benefit, only risk. This cones very close to hitting the nail on the head but not quite. The crux of the matter is: /Corporate risk aversion culture is only aware of the risk of change, and ignores the risk of stasis./