The Gatekeeper Doesn't Have to
Be the Expert

When an owner wants control over something, the instinct is almost always the same: route it all through one trusted person. Every request, every sign-off, every issue, funneled through the one set of hands they trust. It feels safe. Nothing happens without that person seeing it.

The problem is that the person you trust to guard the gate usually isn't the person who understands what's coming through it. So you haven't built a checkpoint. You've built a bottleneck who's guessing.

I ran straight into this designing a support feature for a piece of software I built. The customer wanted a single point of contact to me: one manager, and only that manager, allowed to send problems to the developer. Reasonable. They didn't want ten people emailing me directly.

The obvious way to build it was to let only that manager file issues. And it would have been wrong. The manager isn't the one who hits the bugs. The people using the software all day, deep in the actual accounting work, are. If I made the manager write up every issue, she'd be translating technical detail she doesn't have, turning a clear problem into a fuzzy secondhand description, and doing a job she was never the right person for. I'd get worse reports, and she'd get stuck being an expert she isn't.

So I split it. Anyone who hits a problem writes it up themselves, in their own words, with the real detail attached. The manager doesn't author anything. She just approves what goes out. She keeps the control the customer wanted. She just doesn't have to become an accountant to use it.

Once you see the pattern, it's everywhere, and it isn't new. Accounting has had a name for it forever: separate the preparer from the approver. The person who does the work and the person who signs off on it are supposed to be two different people, on purpose. One brings the knowledge. The other brings the authority. You keep them apart both because it's a control and because it's simply better work, since the person who actually knows the thing is the one who prepares it.

The mistake is collapsing those two roles onto one gatekeeper and expecting them to be both. When you do, one of two things happens. Either they rubber-stamp, because they can't really evaluate what they're approving, so the control is fake. Or they try to do it properly and become a bottleneck, slowly learning a job that was never theirs while everyone waits.

This is worth checking anywhere you've said the words "it all has to go through" someone. Ask what that person actually brings to the gate. If it's genuine knowledge, fine, let them do the work. But if what they bring is authority, the sign-off, the accountability, then don't also make them the doer. Let the people who have the knowledge prepare the work. Route the approval to the person with the authority. Two roles, two people.

Control was never about making one person do everything. It's about making sure the right person does each part. The one who knows the work does the work. The one who owns the decision makes the decision. Force those onto the same overloaded set of hands and you don't get more control. You get a slower version of guessing.

Give the knowledge job to the people with the knowledge. Give the sign-off to the person who's accountable for it. Stop asking anyone to be both.

← Back to all posts