Field Note #4: When organisations compensate

A few weeks ago, I asked a question I've asked many times before.

"Has the feedback been shared with the individual?"

The knowing glances around the room told me the answer before anyone spoke.

On the surface, it was another discussion about executive coaching. A briefing about a plan to support a senior leader through a significant development opportunity: it was a very well-intentioned, familiar conversation.

There were concerns about one leader's behaviour. It had been noticed and commented on by more than one senior member of the team. People & Culture had become involved. Different options were being considered. They'd landed on a group coaching approach.

As always, I was listening to understand what problem we were actually trying to solve.

Was this an example of people avoiding a difficult conversation?

Perhaps. But the more I reflected on this conversation, the less interested I became in why the conversation hadn't happened. I kept coming back to something else.

The organisation didn't stop.

It compensated.

More people became involved. More time was invested. Different options were explored. A coaching intervention was designed. The work that could have been carried by one leadership conversation was now being carried by the organisation. The system adapted and kept moving.

It struck me that complex systems tend to respond that way. They compensate. Other parts take on additional work to keep the whole system operating.

Organisations seem to do the same thing.

When the simplest leadership act doesn't occur, the one that, in retrospect, would probably have required the smallest unit of effort, organisations rarely stand still. They adapt. They introduce process. They involve more people. They spread responsibility. They create new mechanisms to keep moving.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that. In many situations it's exactly what the organisation should do.

But it raises a different question.

How much additional organisational effort is created because the smallest effective leadership intervention never happened?

I'm not suggesting every difficult conversation would have solved this situation. The reality is that sometimes that option disappears. Nor am I suggesting organisations shouldn't adapt. Good organisations have to.

What I'm questioning is whether we notice when adaptation becomes compensation.

Because compensation has a cost.

Not just in money, but in leadership attention, decision-making capacity, organisational energy and execution. Costs that are rarely obvious because they accumulate gradually, spread across teams and become accepted as the way things are done.

The reason I keep coming back to this conversation is that it doesn't feel unique.

I'm beginning to wonder whether capable organisations sometimes become so good at compensating that they lose sight of the smallest leadership action that might have made the compensation unnecessary.

That feels like a hypothesis worth testing.