Well, while this is largely true and tends to validate your feeling that you can’t reasonably get things done by operating too far into the continuum between overreach of authority and absolute usurpation of it, there are alternatives which allow shared responsibility for errors in decision-making.
ISTM that the question of blame/responsibility is being framed as though all of the problem solving and decision making were being done in some vacuum invisible to “the guys in charge” and impenetrable to their decision making until after the fact. But that’s rarely how things actually happen, right?
You meet with individuals and groups, you document the problems and especially the problem solving, you create and assure informational accessibility to higher ups (including executive summaries and/or full damned reports of action plans and the follow-throughs) and you march on until and unless the plans are modified or kiboshed by the big dogs.
So the most reasonable solution to “how can I really take responsibility for the failed implementation of a group decision” is to take formal ownership via whatever project management structure (or analog) exists in your company. Without going into details on this, such structures typically preempt any post hoc responsibility seeking because before you even begin, you have an authorized sponsor, a responsible manager and a list of stakeholders and team members blessed in writing sometime during the process by your sponsor.
Failing a formalized project assignment process, you can still perform all the actions we’ve discussed that inform and advise the relevant senior executives at each appropriate step along your path. As the clear coordinator for the effort, this indeed allows you to be the “owner” and the ultimate wearer of the halo or horns.
So “I’ll take responsibility” need not ever be a meaningless commitment.
