When did leadership become an exercise in proving you're working?
11 June | Read time 5 min
Executive leaders often respond to uncertainty by adding more governance. This article explores why that creates leadership friction and how organisations can build trust without slowing executionWe're treating our best people like risks to manage. And it's costing us.
I was speaking recently with a senior leader who was exhausted. Not because of the size of the challenge or a difficult team.
She was exhausted by reporting on the work.
Every week brought another steering committee. Another status update. Another dashboard review. Another risk log. And at some point in our conversation she laughed "I spend more time talking about progress than making progress."
I've been sitting with that sentence.
Because it points to something I'm seeing more and more; something that nobody intends but is happening regardless.
We are accidentally treating our best people as risks to manage rather than assets to amplify.
The intention is always reasonable.
Sh*t going sideways such a decision that lands badly. So we add another layer of oversight. A checkpoint or approval gate. Another meeting to discuss the thing before the thing gets done.
Each addition seems prudent on it’s own.
Until one day your strongest leaders are spending half their week proving they're working, instead of doing the work itself.
This is how it accumulates. Not through bad leadership or malicious intent, but through a slow, collective drift toward certainty; the belief that if we can see it, we can control it, and if we can control it, we can prevent the things that scared us last time.
In 2026, we have more tools for visibility than ever.
AI activity tracking. Productivity dashboards. Engagement scores. Performance metrics for almost every measurable behaviour. Risk registers. Compliance reviews. Governance reporting on top of governance reporting. The infrastructure of measurement is extraordinary.
And I wonder if we've crossed a line, albeit gradually, where measurement has become a substitute for leadership rather than a tool to support it.
Because there is a meaningful difference between knowing what is happening and helping people move forward. One is observation. The other is leadership. And they are not the same thing.
Here's what I think is actually driving this.
When organisations face uncertainty, they tend to reach for control. It's instinctive. If we can't predict what's coming, at least we can track what's happening.
But the more control we introduce during periods of uncertainty, the slower and more friction-laden everything becomes.
We add layers to manage risk. Those layers create drag. The drag becomes a risk in itself.
I've watched organisations add so much governance infrastructure during complex change that the change program itself becomes the primary source of their leaders' exhaustion, not the change. Not the complexity. The process around the change.
And the people most affected aren't the ones who were already disengaged. It's the high performers. The ones who care deeply, who want to move, who came to the role precisely because they believed they could make a difference.
Those are the people who feel this most acutely. And often, they're the least likely to say so.
What I’m seeing emerge in 2026 is this distinction:
Some organisations are optimising for compliance. Their primary question is: Can we prove people are doing the work?
Others are optimising for adaptability. Their primary question is: Can people move quickly enough to solve the problem?
The first measures activity. The second creates momentum.
The first provides visibility. The second generates progress.
And when conditions shift, which they seem to do with unsettling regularity right now, the second cohort responds faster, recovers more cleanly, and holds on to the capability they've built.
Because here's the thing about high performers: they are not waiting to be held accountable. They're not sitting at their desks wondering how little they can get away with. They're generally wondering how they're supposed to deliver everything that's sitting on their plate while also attending three status meetings this week, updating the risk register, and preparing the board summary that will be read by exactly two people (and that’s probably being generous).
That is a very different problem from accountability. And it deserves a very different leadership response.
The leaders I work with don't need another accountability framework. They need permission to make decisions, fewer competing priorities, not more. Faster access to the people who can clear an obstacle. The confidence that if they move quickly and get it mostly right, that will be valued over moving slowly and getting it perfectly documented. They need space to think. Not because they're struggling, but because thinking is the work, and it's the first thing that disappears when the calendar fills with proof-of-progress meetings.
As AI makes reporting, analysis and dashboards faster and cheaper than ever, the organisations that pull ahead won't be the ones measuring the most. They'll be the ones who use that efficiency gain to reduce the drag, to give their people back the time and attention that currently flows into visibility infrastructure.
The competitive advantage isn't simply better information. It's a shorter distance between a decision and an action.
Now I want to end on this; I'm not against governance or accountability. Both matter. And any leader who's watched a project unravel because nobody was watching will tell you exactly why. But there is a difference between governance that serves the work and bureaucracy. One enables better decisions. The other slows them down.
The organisations that figure out which is which and have the courage to strip back the latter will find themselves with something increasingly rare: leaders who have enough time and headspace to actually lead. That's the real competitive advantage in an uncertain world. Not more oversight. The right oversight. And enough trust to fill the gap where oversight can't reach.
What's the heaviest piece of overhead in your organisation right now, and does it actually make the work better?
Key Takeaways
Leadership friction is often created by excessive governance rather than change itself.
High-performing leaders are usually the first to feel organisational drag.
Reporting increases visibility but doesn't automatically improve accountability.
Organisations that optimise for adaptability outperform those focused solely on compliance.
AI should reduce administrative burden, not create more measurement.
The fastest organisations shorten the distance between a decision and action.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is leadership friction?
Leadership friction is the unnecessary organisational drag that slows leaders' ability to think, decide and execute. It often appears as excessive reporting, duplicated governance, unnecessary approvals and competing priorities that consume leadership capacity without improving outcomes.
When does governance become bureaucracy?
Governance becomes bureaucracy when its primary purpose shifts from enabling better decisions to creating visibility or control for its own sake. Good governance improves decision quality; bureaucracy delays it.
Why do high performers often burn out first?
High performers usually carry more responsibility, solve more problems and are trusted with the most complex work. As organisations add layers of reporting, meetings and approvals, these leaders absorb the greatest administrative burden, leaving less time for strategic thinking and execution.
How can organisations reduce leadership friction?
Reduce unnecessary reporting, simplify approval pathways, clarify decision rights, remove duplicated governance and use AI to automate administrative work. The goal is to free leaders to spend more time making decisions, solving problems and leading people.
Does more reporting improve accountability?
Not necessarily. Reporting increases visibility, but accountability comes from clear ownership, timely decisions and meaningful conversations. More reporting without better leadership often creates the illusion of control while slowing progress.
Related Resources
About Louise
Louise Zawada is an executive coach, change strategist and leadership mentor based in Perth, Western Australia.
She works with senior leaders and executive teams navigating complex organisational change, helping them close the gap between strategy and execution by strengthening executive judgement, reducing leadership friction and improving the quality of conversations that drive performance.
Her work spans mining and resources, government, infrastructure and corporate organisations, where she coaches leaders to make better decisions under pressure, build trust through uncertainty and lead change with greater confidence and clarity.
Louise is the creator of the Leadership Friction framework and writes regularly on executive judgement, organisational legibility and the behavioural evidence that determines whether strategy becomes action.
If you're leading significant change and need a trusted thinking partner, connect with Louise or book a conversation.