Where Work Breaks Down: Ownership

Welcome to The Logical Box!

For leaders who want AI to help, not add more work.

Hey,

If this is your first time here, welcome! The Logical Box is a weekly newsletter for owners and leaders who want AI to reduce real work, not add new work. Each issue focuses on one idea: see where work breaks down, fix the clarity first, then add AI where it actually helps.

If your business only works because you are in the middle of everything, this newsletter helps you build systems so it does not have to.

Now, on to this week.

A proposal sits in limbo for nine days.

Three people reviewed it. Two made comments. Nobody approved it.

When the client follows up, everyone assumes someone else sent the final version. The project manager thought the account lead had it. The account lead thought the project manager was waiting on revisions. Both were partly right. Neither owned the decision.

The proposal was not missing feedback. It was not missing polish. It was missing a name. One person who could say, "This is ready. Send it."

This is not a communication problem. It is an ownership problem. And it explains why so many teams struggle to get value from AI.

What ownership actually means

Ownership does not mean doing all the work yourself.

It means one person is responsible for the outcome. They know what "done" looks like. They can make the call without convening a meeting.

When ownership is unclear, work stalls. Decisions loop back. People wait for permission that nobody knows how to give. Questions that should take five minutes turn into email chains. Email chains turn into meetings. Meetings produce more questions.

You have seen this pattern. You have probably lived it this week.

This is expensive on its own. But it becomes even more expensive when you add AI into the mix.

The accountability gap

A 2025 PwC survey on AI governance found a pattern that shows up in almost every industry: business leaders set the strategy, technical teams build the tools, and when something goes wrong, nobody can explain who made the decision.

The business side says they trusted the technical team's validation. The technical team says they built what the business asked for.

Everyone has oversight. Nobody has accountability.

This shows up in the language people use. "The system recommended it." "Automation handled it." "We followed the process." These phrases sound reasonable. But they all dodge the same question: who was responsible for the outcome?

This pattern does not just show up in AI projects. It shows up wherever work crosses between people without a clear handoff. The proposal that stalled for nine days had the same problem. It was not missing a tool. It was missing an owner.

Why this matters more now

A March 2025 report from S&P Global found that 42% of companies abandoned most of their AI initiatives this year, up from 17% the year before. The average organization scrapped nearly half of its AI projects before they reached production.

These failures are rarely about the model. They are about the work around the model.

When researchers and analysts look at why AI projects collapse, unclear ownership keeps coming up. Teams build in silos. Business and technical groups do not share a definition of success. Nobody is named as the person who will answer for the outcome.

The technology works fine in a sandbox. But when it hits real operations, the gaps in workflow show up fast. Integration stalls. Compliance questions go unanswered. Training gets delayed because nobody owns the rollout.

AI does not fix this. It amplifies it.

If you point AI at a workflow where ownership is fuzzy, you get faster confusion. The tool might generate a draft in seconds, but if nobody knows who approves it, who edits it, or who sends it, the draft just joins the pile.

Speed without clarity is just more noise.

The cost you are already paying

Research on workplace productivity has found that unclear roles and responsibilities can cut employee productivity by 50%.

That is not a typo. Half.

Think about what that means for your team. If three people each spend an hour circling a decision because nobody owns it, you have burned three hours of salary on something that should have taken ten minutes.

Now multiply that across every unclear handoff in your week. Every report that waits for approval from someone who did not know they were supposed to approve it. Every task that gets done twice because the first version did not have clear requirements. Every meeting called to figure out what should have been decided already.

This is the drag that AI cannot solve. Not because AI is weak, but because AI needs clarity to function. It needs to know what you want, who it is helping, and what the output should look like.

If the humans are not clear on those things, the AI cannot be either.

You can have the most advanced tools on the market. If the ownership question is not answered, those tools will just help you produce more unfinished work, faster.

One question to carry this week

Before you add any tool to a workflow, ask this:

Who owns the decision at the end of this task?

Not who contributes. Not who reviews. Who owns it.

If you cannot answer that question, you have found the real bottleneck. It is not speed. It is not capability. It is clarity about who is responsible.

Fix that first. Then the tools become useful.

The move

Pick one task that has been stalling or looping in your work.

Write down who owns the outcome. If no one does, assign someone. If it is you, own it out loud.

One sentence is enough: "I own the final call on this."

That sentence changes the dynamic. It stops the waiting. It removes the ambiguity. It gives everyone else permission to move on to other things because they know who is carrying this one forward.

That sentence will do more for your productivity than any prompt ever could.

Build your skills here!

I launched AI Clarity Hub, a private space for owners and leaders who want AI to reduce real work, not add new work.

Inside the hub, we work through exactly what I described today: finding the clarity gaps, building simple systems, and only then adding AI where it actually helps. Members get access to live training sessions, ready to use templates, and a library of AI assistants built for real business workflows.

Thanks for reading,

Andrew Keener
Founder of Keen Alliance & Your Guide at The Logical Box