SEPs and Avoiding the Body Brothers

Somebody Else’s Problem: The Invisible Threat to Programme Success

Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy introduces the wonderfully absurd concept of the Somebody Else’s Problem (S.E.P.) field[1]—a device that renders objects effectively invisible by exploiting the human tendency to ignore anything too inconvenient to accept. As Adams puts it, an S.E.P. works because “any problems one may have understanding it… become Somebody Else’s Problem” . A starship disguised as a giant pink elephant at a cricket match becomes unnoticeable not because it cannot be seen, but because the mind refuses to acknowledge something so implausible.

While Adams’ example is comic fiction, the behavioural principle behind it is very real. In academia, the psychological phenomenon known as diffusion of responsibility[3] describes how individuals are less likely to take action when others are present and theoretically able to do so. This tendency to ignore issues deemed “out of scope” can become “a pervasive, covert and extremely dangerous habit” within programme & project teams.

And this is where the infamous “body brothers”—Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody—begin to infiltrate project teams.

 

The Rise of the Body Brothers

Project meetings often feature familiar refrains:

 “I thought EveryBody knew about it.”

 “SomeBody must have reported it.”

 “NoBody sorted it out.”

 “AnyBody could have added it to the risk log.”

 “They should have done something.”

 “It was up to Them.”

 

These anonymous figures provide convenient cover for inaction and plausible deniability. This can lead to fundamental group-think where even those aware of the issue are “genuinely shocked at the resultant mess” when consequences finally materialise .

Worse still, when failure becomes visible, the body brothers vanish. In their place emerges a hunt for the individual who “should have known”, “could have known”, or “must have known”—often the programme manager, who mysteriously shifts from Responsible to Accountable on every line of the RACI before being summarily fired.

 

Don't let it be you!!!

Seven Steps for Eliminating SEPs in Programme Delivery

To counteract SEPs, programme & project leaders must actively dismantle the linguistic and structural conditions that allow them to flourish. 

 1.       Assign Work to Individuals, Not Teams

When tasks are allocated to a group, rather than a named individual  e.g. "The QA team is responsible for testing”.  One of the brothers is automatically added to the team i.e  “Some Body in the QA department”. Assigning each test to a person removes ambiguity and prevents tasks from disappearing into the void where “somebody” becomes “nobody” by the end of the cycle .

 

2.       Assume Accountability as Programme or Project Manager

Although sponsors and SROs may be listed as accountable in the RACI[2], their distance from day‑to‑day delivery introduces the unhelpful “they”. By consciously assuming operational accountability, Programme & Project managers reduce the temptation to defer responsibility upwards and model the behaviour expected from the team.

 

3.       Delegate Accountability Downwards

Programmes break down into projects, work packages, tasks, epics, stories and features. This natural hierarchy allows accountability to be distributed to the smallest meaningful unit. Individuals who are accountable for their own work are far more likely to surface risks—even those outside their direct control.

 

4.       Hold People Accountable - also Yourself

Accountability is meaningless without visible consequences. Too often, milestones, delivery dates and budgets drift past without challenge. While no one is advocating public humiliation or installing a set of stocks in reception, but there must be clear and proportionate repercussions when targets are missed—and these must be visible. Equally, success should be recognised and celebrated in a way that is personal rather than anonymous. Both outcomes, positive or negative, should have a name attached, reinforcing that accountability is real and shared across the programme.

Success AND failure are habit forming – encourage people to form the right habits.

 

5.       Replace “They” and “Them” with “We”, “Us”, “You” and “I”

A subtle but powerful linguistic shift. Reducing references to externalised responsibility fosters ownership and empowerment. Teams that feel empowered are significantly less prone to SEP‑driven behaviour.

 

6.       Build Cross‑Functional Teams—In Culture, If Not Structure

Project teams often comprise individuals seconded from permanent roles. Many know they have a job to return to regardless of project outcomes, and may prioritise their long‑term line manager over the temporary project hierarchy. This seriously undermines the sense of collective ownership and increases the likelihood of silos and SEPs forming .

 

Creating a cross‑functional team culture—where members work for the project and are happy to take direction from the project lead—strengthens cohesion and reduces the risk of issues being ignored.

 

7.       Don’t forget to be Human

Distance and absence are the quickest ways to invite the “body brothers” into a programme. As a leader, you are part of the team, not above it. Teams require attention, support and—most importantly—time. Operating from an ivory tower, relying on positional authority and issuing edicts from afar is the fastest route to creating a culture of enforced compliance, quiet resignation and mere presenteeism. These are precisely the conditions in which “They” and “Them” thrive. A visible, engaged, accessible and most of all, humble leader, by contrast, helps close the door on SEPs before they take root.

Conclusion

SEPs may be humorous in fiction, but in real‑world programme delivery they represent a serious threat. They exploit natural human tendencies and thrive in environments where responsibility is ambiguous, accountability is unclear, and language reinforces detachment.

The more leaders foster ownership, clarity and empowerment, the less room there is for SEPs to take hold—and the greater the likelihood of successful outcomes

---

[1] Adams, Douglas (1979). The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-46149-4.

[2] Best practice states that only one person should be listed as [A]ccountable for any task.

[3] Beyer, F., Sidarus, N., Bonicalzi, S., & Haggard, P. (2017). Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 12(1), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw160