---
id: "contrarian-raci-confusion"
type: "contrarian-insight"
source_timestamps: ["¶5"]
tags: ["frameworks", "consulting", "contrarian-insight"]
related: ["claim-raci-misunderstood", "entity-raci"]
speakers: ["Lindy Greer", "Maxim Sytch", "Jennifer Jordan"]
challenges: "The assumption that standard corporate frameworks are universally understood by the experts who use and deploy them."
sources: ["tail1"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-tail1"
originDay: 1
articleStem: "hbr-tail-106-decision-frameworks-fail"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/06/gg-why-decision-making-frameworks-fail"
sourceTitle: "Why Decision-Making Frameworks Fail"
---
# Contrarian — Veterans of RACI Don't Know What It Means

**Contrarian insight.** It is generally assumed that experienced management consultants understand basic frameworks cold. Yet polling **30 partners at a global consultancy that had used [[entity-raci-d1]] for years** revealed a **50/50 split** on whether the *Accountable* or the *Responsible* person has the final say in a decision.

**What it challenges:** the assumption that standard corporate frameworks are universally understood by the very experts who use and deploy them. If seasoned partners can't agree on the single most consequential role definition, no downstream team should be assumed to share a common understanding.

This is the evidentiary spine of [[claim-raci-misunderstood]] and one of the four failure modes in [[framework-decision-rights-mistakes]].

> **Enrichment note:** The broader point — that RACI role definitions are often unclear — is strongly supported (McKinsey explicitly warns organizations misuse RACI and even proposes [[entity-dare-d1]] as a clarifying alternative). However, the *specific* poll of 30 partners and the exact 50/50 split were **not independently verified** by the supplied sources; treat the anecdote as plausible-but-unconfirmed while the pattern it illustrates is well-supported.