The conversation started the way hard conversations sometimes do — sideways, in the middle of something else.
My daughter was telling me about a colleague. There had been an accident at work involving a propane tank. The details were serious, and we stayed with them for a while — what had happened, who was there, what she had done in the moment.
She knew the person who was injured well.
That made it different from hearing about a workplace accident somewhere else.
What stayed with me, though, was what she described about the environment around the accident.
The team had gotten smaller.
The work hadn't gotten smaller with it.
Over time, tasks that had belonged to several people had been absorbed by fewer people. New responsibilities had been added. The people doing the work were expected to adjust.
There hadn't been one dramatic decision that created the situation.
Just a series of reasonable-sounding adjustments.
One person left.
Someone else picked up the work.
A new task became part of someone's job.
People figured it out.
And because they figured it out, the new arrangement became normal.
That part stayed with me.
Because there is a big difference between what has been decided and what has simply settled into place.
The org chart can change in an afternoon.
The work doesn't.
The work has its own reality: the sequence of things people actually do, the knowledge they carry, the judgment calls they make, the interruptions, the competing priorities, the things that have to happen before something else can happen.
You can redistribute responsibility on paper.
Someone still has to carry it in real life.
And capable people are very good at carrying things.
They adjust.
They compensate.
They make it work.
From a distance, that can look like everything is fine.
Which is part of the problem.
Because coping can hide a structural problem for a very long time.
A day or so later, I was sitting in the yurt she built for me before anyone at her home was awake.
I was doing some administrative work — the ordinary kind — when my eyes found Day Four of the Ultimate Leadership Jumpstart.
I've written every line of that material.
But I hadn't looked at it recently.
And reading it that morning, after all those conversations with my daughter, I saw it in a profound way.
Day Four is about something that doesn't always become visible until something breaks:
the responsibility to notice what has changed.
To understand what people are actually being asked to carry.
To make sure that increased responsibility is accompanied by what increased responsibility requires: training, clarity, resources, conversation, priorities.
I built that exercise because I kept seeing the same pattern.
A new leader would inherit a team.
Something would change.
Someone would leave.
Responsibilities would get redistributed.
And everyone would move on to the next thing without stopping to ask a ridiculously simple question:
What did we just change?
Not just on the organizational chart.
In the actual work.
What is different now?
What does that require?
What do people need to know?
What needs to stop?
What needs to continue?
What are we assuming people will simply figure out?
I got tired of watching people discover those questions one painful lesson at a time.
And sitting there in the yurt, it made so much sense why I had written that exercise in the first place.
But this isn't only a leadership problem.
I see versions of it in relationships all the time.
One person gradually becomes the one who remembers the important dates.
The one who initiates the difficult conversations.
The one who notices when something feels off.
The one who makes the plans.
The one who keeps track of what needs to happen next.
Nobody necessarily decided that this would be their job.
It just happened.
And because they're capable, they do it.
Because they love the other person, they do it.
Because it's easier than having the conversation about why they're doing it, they do it.
Until one day, they're resentful.
Or exhausted.
Or both.
And the other person is genuinely confused.
"I didn't ask you to do all of that."
Maybe they didn't.
But that's not the point.
The more interesting question is:
What became true between you without either of you ever actually agreeing to it?
That's the question I keep coming back to.
Because the rupture rarely begins where it becomes visible.
The argument isn't necessarily where the problem started.
The resignation isn't necessarily where the problem started.
The burnout isn't necessarily where the problem started.
The accident isn't necessarily where the problem started.
Something was changing long before that.
Something became normal.
And nobody stopped to look closely enough to name it.
There is a question I think is worth asking in almost any relationship where people share responsibility:
What am I currently benefiting from that someone else is absorbing?
That's an uncomfortable question.
Which is probably why it's useful.
At work, maybe someone is absorbing the consequences of a staffing decision.
At home, maybe someone is absorbing the planning.
In a friendship, maybe someone is carrying the emotional continuity of the relationship.
In a partnership, maybe one person has become — without announcement, without agreement — the one responsible for noticing everything.
And because that person is capable, the system keeps working.
Until it doesn't.
Naming this isn't about assigning blame.
In fact, I think blame is often the least interesting part of the conversation.
The more useful question is upstream:
What became true here before anyone noticed the cost?
I've described a leader's job in three plain parts:
Manage the work.
Lead the people.
Don't get sued.
That last one always gets a reaction. I stand by it.
It isn't really about lawsuits.
It's shorthand for something most leaders would rather not think about: part of your job is preventing the predictable problem.
Not every problem is predictable.
But some are.
If someone's responsibilities have expanded dramatically, that's worth noticing.
If a person is doing work they've never been trained to do, that's worth noticing.
If people are routinely compensating for an understaffed system by working faster, multitasking more, or cutting corners no one can see from the outside, that's worth noticing.
If everyone says, "We're making it work," that's worth noticing, too.
Because making it work can mean something very different from this is working.
Managing the work means knowing what the work actually requires.
Leading people means knowing what people are actually carrying.
And sometimes leadership means noticing what has subtly become true before it becomes a problem you can no longer ignore.
The same principle applies in relationships.
Pay attention to what the relationship actually requires now — not what it required six months ago, not what you assumed it required, and not what you've both simply gotten used to.
Pay attention to what the other person is carrying.
Pay attention to what you've started carrying without ever agreeing to it.
Pay attention to what has become normal.
I found Day Four that morning because I was looking for something else.
And then I found myself saying something to my daughter that I'd been preaching to clients for years.
The things that cause the most trouble aren't always the things we can see.
Sometimes they're the things we've gotten so used to carrying that we don't even recognize them as a change anymore.
And maybe that's the work:
To notice sooner.
To ask the question before the crisis requires it.
To look at what has casually become true — in the work, in the relationship, in yourself — and decide whether it is something you actually want to keep carrying.
If you're a leader and you recognize yourself somewhere in this, the Ultimate Leadership Jumpstart starts Tuesday.
It's a short, practical way to slow down long enough to notice what may already be happening in your leadership before it becomes harder to address.
You can join me here if you'd like to work through it with me.
0 comments