Building Beaurocracy vs Personal Responsibility

When something goes wrong there are three ways to address the problem. Well lots I guess, but there are three main themes that I see organizations (and people to some extent) follow. Below I list the three extremes.

1. The problem is ignored. An issue comes up and it is dealt with in the moment to some extent, but no action or thought is put into trying to avoid the issue in the future. This is bad because you can run into the same issue over and over and nothing improves.
2. The problem is blamed on a person. One individual is blamed (rightly or not) and all the of the responsibility for change is put on them (or they are simply removed). This isn't much different than ignoring the problem though. Because while the one person's performance may change so the problem doesn't resurface with them it easily could come up again with someone else.
3. The problem is blamed on the system. The processes or system is blamed and the people connected to the issue are more or less ignored. There are a lot of poor systems and this does address the problem in a more across the board manner. However, over time this leads to stifling bureaucracy. If a new rule is made every time someone somewhere messes up something you end up with overbearing stupid rules that over control every aspect of a process and stifle the life of the organization.

The best solution is a judicious use of options 2 and 3 combined. Sometimes problems arise that are systemic and require wide spread policy change. However, it needs to be demonstrated that it is in fact widespread. At the same time though it is important to balance that with an expectation of personal responsibility. Individuals make mistakes and do dumb things.

So by trying to keep localized problems local, and sparingly making across the board policies you can keep an organization from getting calcified in procedure. It does require a certain tolerance for failure and mistakes, but in the end it is better for everyone.