If We Say We Want Performance… Why Do We Keep Designing for Control?
#2 The Spark
The System We Inherited
We’ve been trained to think structure means safety.
That if we follow the steps, we’ll get the outcome.
That more control equals better performance.
So we built systems.
Layers of approvals.
Clear roles.
Meetings to align about meetings.
And we called it culture.
But here's the truth:
Most of that isn’t about results.
It’s about control — making people predictable.
Not because anyone meant harm.
But because that’s the system we inherited.
It’s the one we built.
We reward compliance, not thinking.
We confuse smooth coordination with real capability.
And then we wonder why performance feels hit and miss.
You Know This Moment
You’re in the meeting.
Everyone knows the right call.
But it’s not part of the game plan.
So someone says, “Let’s check with X, Y, and Z.”
Another suggests another new committee.
By the time the decision’s ready to be approved,
the moment would be gone.
So instead we just move on.
That’s not laziness.
It’s not resistance.
It’s the system working exactly as it was designed to —
To slow down risk, not speed up sense-making.
This is called decision friction.
It happens when systems add so many layers that it becomes harder to think than to comply.
Every decision we make draws on limited mental energy.
When we burn it on low-value approvals, we lose capacity for real decisions later.
And when the brain hits overload?
It stops exploring.
It plays it safe.
It waits.
So we say we want people to think.
But we’ve built systems that make thinking feel unsafe.
And when thinking becomes optional, performance becomes accidental.
When Simplicity Shrinks the System
This is where it starts to unravel.
Quarterly planning.
One exec says, “People are overwhelmed. Let’s give them fewer decisions.”
Everyone nods.
But something feels off.
Because it doesn’t feel like relief.
It feels like shrinkage.
Like the system just got smaller.
We treat mental clarity like a nice-to-have.
So we reduce choices, thinking it helps.
But, while reducing overload can help learning —
too little complexity makes people disengage.
So, some mental load is necessary to maintain and build capability.
We don’t need fewer choices.
We need systems that help people handle the ones that matter.
Because clarity doesn’t mean simple.
It means usable under pressure.
It means legible. Aligned. Capable.
When We Stop Trusting Minds
Let’s push further.
If a system makes the decisions,
And people just deliver them —
Is that still a job?
Or is it just a placeholder until automation catches up?
Because when you strip thinking out of work,
You don’t just protect people.
You shrink the role.
You remove stretch.
You lower the ceiling.
And that ceiling gets low real fast.
Agency isn’t just a nice-to-have.
It’s part of human performance.
When people feel they don’t have control, they defer to automated systems — even when they know those systems are wrong.
So we’ve been solving uncertainty by removing choice.
And removing choice removes agency.
But we’re not doing it because we don’t trust people —
It’s the systems that we don’t trust to hold them when things get unpredictable.
Because the science is clear:
Behavioural economics tells us stress leads to worse decisions.
Cognitive psychology shows that ambiguity drains mental energy.
Neuroscience proves our brains avoid deep thinking under pressure.
So we simplify.
We over-script.
We systemise everything.
And yes — it feels safe.
But what if that’s the real problem?
What if we’ve been building shallow systems —
Not because people can’t think —
But because we’ve never designed environments that expect them to?
And that means we’re missing the best parts that make performance predictable.
The Better Question
This isn’t a teardown.
It’s an upgrade.
The world moves faster now.
Signals come sooner.
Strategy can’t wait for sign-off.
We’ve inherited systems built for stability.
But performance today needs speed, clarity, and cognitive agility.
So maybe the question isn’t “how do we get people to think more?”
Maybe it’s this:
What do our systems believe about the people inside them?
If we believe people are fragile —
We build guardrails.
If we believe people are capable —
We build stretch.
The future of work isn’t softer.
It’s smarter.
Not looser — but clearer.
Not flatter — but faster.
So, What Now?
We’ve built systems to manage work.
But what if the next edge is systems that think?
What happens when we stop sanding down complexity…
And start increasing the capacity to meet it?
What if performance isn’t the problem —
But how we think about it is?What if the system of the future isn’t just efficient…
It’s cognitively capable?
That’s where we’re going next.
You coming?
🔁 Enjoyed this spark?
Join the bold thinkers upgrading how they think each week — through science, sound, and smarter systems.
👉 Subscribe now to get the next upgrade loop.