There was an old saying:
“Give a busy man the job.”
It sounds logical.
The busy leader focuses quickly.
Cuts through noise.
Delivers to standard.
Deadlines are met. Pressure reduces. The organisation moves.
But what if task efficiency is coming at the cost of systemic effectiveness?
In healthy systems, anticipation, design and implementation are not concentrated — they are distributed.
In other systems, participation narrows.
When deadlines tighten and stakes rise, organisations instinctively reduce risk:
“Let’s not overcomplicate this.”
“He’s already across it.”
“She’ll sort it.”
“We don’t have time to canvas opinion.”
The same few people anticipate.
The same few design.
The same few implement.
It feels responsible.
It is efficient.
And it quietly concentrates accountability.
The strongest leaders rarely begin as firefighters.
They are often excellent anticipators.
Strong designers.
Decisive implementers.
But over time, something shifts.
Instead of embedding anticipation into the system, they personally carry it.
Instead of developing design capability in others, they redesign themselves.
Instead of insisting on distributed implementation accountability, they rescue.
Not to control.
Not to dominate.
But to protect standards and momentum.
They become expert firefighters — highly effective in crisis —
but increasingly pulled away from strategic altitude.
The organisation praises their reliability.
The system becomes dependent on it.
Pressure does not create culture.
It exposes it.
Under pressure, you see:
Where accountability truly sits.
Whether anticipation widens or narrows.
Whether ambiguity is carried — or reclaimed.
Whether design authority is shared — or centralised.
Anticipation, at its best, broadens reference points.
It invites new views.
It challenges certainty.
But when anticipation concentrates in too few hands, risks emerge.
· Certainty replaces exploration “We already know the answer.”
· Speed replaces perspective. “We don’t have time to debate this.”
The aperture narrows.
Reference points shrink.
And the very leaders who once protected the system begin to limit its adaptability — not because they lack capability, but because capability is concentrated.
Nadya Zhexembayeva’s work at the Reinvention Academy highlights a consistent organisational pattern: under pressure, companies tend to double down on their existing strengths rather than deliberately expanding new capabilities.
Execution excellence, optimisation and speed are reinforced — because they are visible and measurable. Meanwhile, anticipation, redesign and distributed accountability require intentional effort and cultural permission.
This pattern is echoed in empirical research. A large-scale study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (Benson, Li & Shue, 2019) found that firms systematically promote their strongest current-role performers — even when those individuals later perform worse in management roles.
In other words, execution strength is often mistaken for strategic readiness.
The issue is not incompetence.
It is structural bias toward what is immediately visible and rewarded.
Efficiency solves the task.
Effectiveness strengthens the system.
Efficiency asks:
Who can get this done fastest?
Effectiveness asks:
Where should accountability sit if we want capability to deepen?
If solving today’s problem increases tomorrow’s dependency, efficiency has become expensive.
This is how plateaus form.
Not from lack of effort —
but from concentration of anticipation, design and implementation in too few hands.
The answer is not abdication.
And it is not micro-management.
It is structured openness.
Clear destination.
Clear boundaries.
Clear accountability.
Clear review rhythm.
Within those guardrails, leaders resist the urge to rescue.
They allow capable individuals or groups to carry accountability through ambiguity — and hold them to it.
In practice, momentum often builds quickly when accountability is clearly defined and appropriately distributed. More people think. More people decide. More people act.
Anticipation widens.
Design capability spreads.
Implementation accountability deepens.
Scale and capacity develop together.
If the small group who currently carries anticipation, design and implementation stepped away tomorrow, what happens?
Does the system continue — or stall?
That answer reveals whether you have depth… or concentration.
These patterns rarely correct themselves.
They require deliberate redesign of how accountability, authority and ambiguity are distributed inside the culture — especially under pressure.
At Aruka, we work with founders and leadership teams to restore strategic altitude while embedding capability more broadly — so performance does not rely on heroic efficiency.
If this tension feels familiar in your organisation, it’s worth addressing before fatigue or plateau forces the issue.
#Leadership #OrganizationalCulture #Strategy #LeadershipDevelopment #BusinessGrowth
📷 StockCake
