What Happens When Content Has No Owner
Most organizations don’t choose to have ownerless content, but it happens similarly to how clutter grows in your garage: one “quick” publish here, one “we’ll clean it up later” there, and a handful of pages that live forever because nobody wants to delete them.
Eventually, there’s a hard realization that employees stop trusting the system because the content they find is unreliable and/or outdated.
And reliability is an ownership problem.
Ownerless content quietly degrades trust
This problem involves a lot of drifting.
Policies change, tools are renamed, links break, and exceptions multiply. Old pages remain searchable alongside newer ones, creating competing answers to the same question that all show up in AI search.
Employees respond predictably:
They ask instead of searching
They save local copies
They rely on tribal knowledge
The employee isn’t to blame here. Their reaction is experience feedback.
The productivity cost adds up fast
Research consistently shows how expensive this becomes. Knowledge workers spend nearly 20% of their time searching for information they need to do their jobs - time that compounds quickly at scale.
The organization pays twice:
Once to create and publish content
Again when employees must re-check, re-interpret, or re-ask
Ownerless content turns self-service into self-doubt.
Accuracy isn’t enough
Leaders often focus on whether content is correct. Employees care whether it’s trustworthy enough to act on.
If content is hard to find, inconsistent with other sources, or unclear about applicability, employees verify with a person - even when the page is technically accurate. That shift from acting to asking is where confidence breaks down.
Nielsen Norman Group has long emphasized that intranets require explicit ownership and publishing models. Without them, content reliability deteriorates over time.
Search amplifies ownership problems
As eluded to earlier, when multiple content versions exist, search makes the problem visible…and worse.
Employees encounter two official-looking answers and don’t know which to trust. So they triangulate, cross-check, and ask “just to be safe.”
Research on knowledge management (KM) failures show that outdated and overloaded content is a recurring cause of KM breakdown, especially when automation and AI are layered on top.
Automation doesn’t fix inconsistent inputs. It scales them.
Ownership is infrastructure, not overhead
Gartner defines knowledge content owners as individuals accountable for defining, maintaining, and stewarding knowledge tied to business processes. That framing matters because ownership is part of how work functions, not a side task.
Real ownership includes:
Accuracy and currency
Clear applicability and next steps
Findability through search and navigation
Lifecycle decisions (consolidate, retire, archive)
Content without lifecycle ownership doesn’t age - it accumulates.
The question that reveals the truth
Forget page views and article counts.
Ask this instead:
Do employees trust this content enough to act without asking someone else?
If the answer is no, content debt already exists regardless of how much content is published.
The bottom line
Content doesn’t fail because employees aren’t trying.
It fails when ownership - the invisible infrastructure that keeps content reliable - doesn’t exist.
When content has no owner, employees adapt. They work around systems. They stop trusting what they find.
And the knowledge base becomes a liability.
——
If our perspective resonates with you, The Employee Content Experience Playbook goes deeper into how employees actually experience content and why most organizations misdiagnose the problem.
It’s designed to reframe thinking, not prescribe solutions.
