Skip to content

What Risks Are Associated with Implementing Decent? Are They Worth It?

Yes.

Every structural change carries risk. Decent is no exception.
The difference is that Decent surfaces risks that are already present but hidden—diffuse ownership, wasted capital, unclear accountability.
Still, implementing Decent has its own set of challenges that leaders should weigh carefully.

Key Risks of Implementing Decent

1. Cultural Resistance

  • What happens: Leaders accustomed to shared or diffused responsibility may push back. Accountability feels uncomfortable when it can’t be offloaded to a committee.
  • Why it matters: Without sponsorship from the board and executive team, adoption may stall or fracture.

2. Structural Disruption

  • What happens: Redefining scopes and assigning singular ownership often means reshuffling org charts and changing reporting lines.
  • Why it matters: This can create short-term disruption, uncertainty, and political friction—especially in organizations where power is already contested.

3. Implementation Cost

  • What happens: Building scope maps, value chains, and charters requires investment of time, energy, and leadership bandwidth.
  • Why it matters: While not a technology-heavy initiative, the lift is non-trivial, particularly in large, global organizations.

4. Early Missteps

  • What happens: Poorly defined scopes, weakly empowered officers, or half-committed pilots can undermine credibility.
  • Why it matters: A failed or sloppy rollout risks being dismissed as “just another transformation trend,” making future attempts harder.

5. External Perception Risk

  • What happens: If Decent is positioned poorly, employees may view it as another top-down control mechanism rather than a framework for empowerment.
  • Why it matters: Miscommunication can damage trust and slow adoption.

Are They Worth It?

When weighed against the upside, the risks are both manageable and proportionate:

  • Short-Term Pain vs. Long-Term Leverage
    Disruption and resistance are real, but they are temporary. The long-term structural clarity Decent delivers compounds into efficiency, accountability, and capital discipline that outweigh initial discomfort.

  • Risks Are Predictable and Addressable
    Each major risk has a mitigation path:

  • Cultural resistance → Board-level sponsorship and clear communication.
  • Structural disruption → Phased rollout starting with pilots.

  • Implementation cost → Begin with high-impact scopes, scale gradually.

  • The Greater Risk Is Inaction
    Without Decent, the hidden risks—wasted investment, unclear ownership, fragile alignment—persist indefinitely. These risks quietly erode enterprise value year after year.

Bottom Line

Yes, Decent carries risks: resistance, disruption, and the cost of doing hard structural work.
But these are one-time implementation risks, not systemic failures.

By contrast, the risks of not implementing—capital inefficiency, diffused accountability, stalled innovation—are chronic.
That’s the real tradeoff: short-term discomfort vs. long-term erosion.

For leaders and boards with a long horizon, the risks of adopting Decent are worth it.