There’s a form of dysfunction that doesn’t show up on the radar. It’s not loud. It doesn’t break things in obvious ways. But it’s everywhere – and once you notice it, it’s hard to unsee.
I’m talking about self-defense. Not in the legal sense. Not even in the HR sense. I mean the quiet, structural kind. The way teams build internal systems that protect them from each other. The way orgs begin to optimize for not getting blamed, not being slowed down, not having to explain things twice.
It doesn’t happen all at once. It shows up slowly, through little decisions that feel practical in the moment:
- A process gets wrapped in three layers of documentation because someone once missed a step.
- A team adopts a new workflow not because it helps, but because it creates plausible deniability.
- A manager starts forwarding emails instead of responding because accountability has become a liability.
- A status report template gets longer every quarter, even though no one reads the last half.
Eventually, no one remembers what any of it was for. But it stays. And it spreads.
When Defense Becomes Design
At some point, the exceptions stop being exceptions. They turn into precedent. Then into policy. Then into infrastructure.
It’s easy to miss when this is happening, because the outcomes don’t immediately look worse. People are still delivering. The tools work. The meetings happen. But the energy changes. Everything starts to feel slightly heavier. The work still gets done, but it takes more explanation. More hedging. More sideways movement.
You’ll hear it in phrases like:
- “Just to be safe, I added a few extra steps.”
- “I wanted to clarify this in writing so it’s clear we said it.”
- “Let’s keep it vague for now so no one’s locked in.”
- “If it backfires, we can say it was exploratory.”
All of these are forms of internal self-defense. They sound reasonable. They often are. But over time, they create a secondary system—one that shadows the real work, slows down trust, and rewires how people think about movement inside the org.
You end up with an organization that’s technically aligned, structurally functional, and quietly terrified of itself.
You Can’t Build Velocity in a Defensive System
There’s a ceiling on how fast a team can move when everyone is hedging.
You can’t prototype freely if you’re worried the wrong person will see your unfinished idea.
You can’t simplify a process if each step protects someone from being blamed.
You can’t hand off work cleanly if every deliverable is shaped more by reputational risk than operational need.
You can’t build initiative if the cost of failure includes being quietly excluded from the next project.
People talk about innovation like it’s a matter of creativity. But more often, it’s a function of psychological architecture. Can people move? Can they try things without armor? Can they ask questions without pre-defending their intelligence?
A defensive system can still scale – but it scales noise. It scales process complexity. It scales ghost approvals and escalations and progress reporting designed to maintain surface calm rather than inner motion.
The longer this persists, the more effort is spent maintaining the performance of trust instead of doing the actual work.
Rituals That Protect Nothing
Some organizations collect rituals the way others collect browser tabs—open forever, unread, untended, vaguely stressful.
All-hands meetings where no one says anything real.
Retrospectives where the same themes reappear every sprint.
Planning cycles that look great in Airtable but never survive contact with reality.
OKRs that are padded, softened, recast halfway through the quarter.
You don’t fix this by tightening control. You fix it by asking: what is this ritual defending?
Is it avoiding a harder conversation? Is it shielding someone from contradiction? Is it preserving the illusion of progress because no one has the context or authority to call time?
Most teams know when something’s performative. What they often lack is permission to stop pretending. Or language to reframe what needs to happen instead.
Self-Defense Is Rational – But It’s Expensive
To be clear, people don’t armor themselves because they’re petty. They do it because they’ve learned to. Because the system taught them what happens when you say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Because someone got blamed last time. Because a risk was punished, a blocker ignored, a truth heard too late.
The response is rational. But over time, the cost is massive:
- Decision quality drops, because inputs are distorted.
- Coordination slows, because trust decays.
- Strategic intent gets diluted, because nobody wants to deliver bad news up the chain.
- The best thinkers stop engaging, because their honesty creates drag.
- Outcomes degrade invisibly, because the organization still functions – just at a lower resolution.
The tragedy isn’t that dysfunction happens. It’s that it becomes invisible. It gets normalized. It becomes part of the organizational grammar.
What You Can Do Instead
If you’re leading – or influencing – inside an organization that’s starting to show these symptoms, here’s where I’d start looking:
- Where do people hedge their language?
That’s often where trust has been breached, even subtly. - Which processes feel heavy relative to their outcomes?
That’s where defense has become the dominant logic. - Where do smart people under-communicate?
That’s often where truth has been punished or ignored. - Which decisions never seem to resolve?
That’s usually where ownership has been diffused to avoid accountability. - Which rituals feel necessary but never seem to drive change?
That’s where inertia is masquerading as culture.
You don’t need to “fix” all of this at once. In fact, you probably can’t. But you can start tracing the loops. You can start asking why the scaffolding exists. You can start removing layers that no longer serve any real function.
And – most importantly – you can start rewarding structural honesty. The kind that names what people are avoiding. The kind that makes good systems possible again.
What We Actually Do at Inlook
We don’t throw frameworks at problems and hope they stick. We don’t show up with ten principles and a logo-stamped playbook. That’s not how clarity works.
We listen. We sit with what feels off. We trace things until they make sense – or until we see why they don’t.
We notice the strange silence in the room when a broken process gets described like it’s normal. We ask the questions that make people pause – not to be clever, but because the answer should already be obvious, and somehow isn’t. We follow the tension to its root instead of patching over it.
We don’t sell clarity as a concept. We help teams reclaim it as a condition they can feel – where things click, roles align, trust flows, and the energy that was going into internal friction can finally go somewhere better.
Most of the work happens quietly. It looks like a rewrite of a role definition. A meeting that finally gets cancelled. A sentence that used to be vague becoming sharp enough to act on. A loop that used to hang open now closing cleanly, without three follow-ups and a side chat.
That’s what real change feels like. Not a new slide. Not a company-wide email. Just a team breathing easier because the system finally stopped fighting them.
If that’s what you’re trying to build – or trying to get back to – we should talk.
Leave a Reply