The Symptom
A specific pattern tends to appear in leadership teams before a period of visible operational strain becomes undeniable: the team is spending an increasing share of its time on matters that, on paper, sit well below its level — individual operational exceptions, specific customer or supplier issues, decisions that a layer of management below them would ordinarily own.
What Leaders Usually Conclude
This is often read, by the leadership team itself, as a sign of hands-on diligence — staying close to the operational reality rather than becoming disconnected from it. Within limits, that reading is reasonable. Beyond a certain point, sustained, it is usually something else.
Why It Happens
Nelson Repenning and John Sterman’s research on the capability trap, conducted at MIT Sloan School of Management, offers a structural explanation for why this pattern specifically tends to concentrate at the leadership level as operational pressure builds. Their finding was that organisations under sustained pressure default to visible, immediate, effort-based responses over the less visible, structural work of addressing why the pressure is recurring — and a leadership team’s direct involvement in resolving individual operational exceptions is precisely this kind of visible, immediate, effort-based response. It produces a fast, tangible result: the specific issue gets resolved, often faster than it would have been resolved further down the organisation. What it does not do is address why that particular kind of exception keeps generating enough urgency to reach leadership’s attention in the first place — and because addressing that underlying pattern is slower and less immediately visible than resolving the next individual exception, it consistently loses out under pressure, which is exactly the capability-trap dynamic.
Over time, this produces a specific, recognisable overload signature. The leadership team’s calendar fills increasingly with individual operational matters. Genuinely strategic, structural work — the kind that would reduce the rate at which exceptions reach leadership in the first place — gets deferred, because there is never a moment that feels safe to step back from the immediate queue of visible issues. The team is working hard, is visibly engaged, and is, by the logic of the capability trap, making the underlying pattern that produces the overload somewhat more durable each time it resolves the latest instance of it rather than the pattern generating it.
What It Looks Like in Practice
A growing share of leadership team time is spent on individual operational matters that formally belong at a lower level of the organisation.
Genuinely strategic or structural work is consistently the first thing deferred when operational pressure rises, and rarely regains priority once the immediate pressure passes.
The team can point to a high volume of resolved issues, but struggles to point to a reduction in how often similar issues recur.
Individual leadership team members report feeling that stepping back from operational involvement, even briefly, would let something important fail — a belief that is rarely tested directly.
There is a further consequence worth naming: this pattern is often self-concealing at the leadership level specifically, in a way it is not further down the organisation. A team member several layers below leadership who is consistently pulled into work below their formal level has visible peers and managers who can name the pattern. A leadership team experiencing the same dynamic often has no equivalent external vantage point — there is no layer above it, in most organisational structures, positioned to observe and name the pattern from outside. This makes leadership-level operational overload one of the more persistent and hardest-to-interrupt instances of the capability trap, precisely because the people best positioned to notice it are the people experiencing it.
This tends to intensify around specific organisational moments rather than building smoothly over time. Periods of rapid growth, a significant customer or contract transition, or the departure of an experienced operational manager can all sharply increase the flow of exceptions reaching leadership in a short window — and because each individual exception, in isolation, looks like a reasonable, temporary response to an unusual moment, the resulting shift in how leadership spends its time can become entrenched well after the originating moment has passed, without anyone having decided it should remain the new normal.
The same pattern appears across many kinds of organisation; see Other Sectors for how it is read elsewhere.
Questions worth considering
- What share of the leadership team’s time, over the last month, was spent on matters that formally belong at a level below them?
- When did the team last make meaningful progress on strategic or structural work, as opposed to resolving the latest operational exception?
- If the team deliberately stepped back from a specific category of operational involvement for a defined period, what would actually happen — and has that been tested, or only assumed?
More on this topic: Operations.
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.