Every workplace has certain individuals who sit at the center of important work.
People whose expertise is widely respected, yet whose way of working can create quiet friction. People who hold deep knowledge that the entire system depends on, so the organization naturally adjusts itself around them. People whose contributions are essential, but whose interactions sometimes leave teams feeling strained in ways that aren’t easy to talk about.
What’s interesting is how consistently this pattern appears across companies. Different organisations, different domains, different teams, different products - yet the same dynamic surfaces again and again. Not through dramatic conflict, but through a steady tension that slowly weaves itself into the culture over months and years.
Across different workplaces and different chapters of my career, this dynamic has shown up in surprisingly similar ways. Different timelines, different releases, different priorities - but the same gravitational pull around one central role. Every major delay, every tight release window, every difficult conversation seems to circle back to the same bottleneck. Not because anyone is incompetent, but because the system is shaped around a single point of expertise.
Teams express frustration. Managers feel the pressure from those who depend on them. And yet, leadership hesitates to push too hard, because losing that key individual feels riskier than absorbing the friction.
This is how dependency forms. Not overnight. Not with intention. But gradually, through a series of small decisions made in the name of safety, stability, and continuity.
Dependency rarely announces itself. It doesn’t come with alarms or warning signs. It builds quietly, like dust collecting in corners you stop noticing.
And the paradox deepens when the individual at the center is genuinely committed to quality. Their standards are high. Their reasons are logical. Their pride in craftsmanship is sincere. In their mind, the delays are justified - even necessary - to preserve technical excellence and integrity.
But that’s where the tension sharpens.
When one person becomes the gatekeeper of “how things should be done,” their definition of quality becomes the definition of quality. Their pace becomes the team’s pace. Their comfort becomes the organization’s constraint.
Everyone else adapts. Everyone else must adapt.
Meanwhile, other teams delivering on time begin to feel that their consistency goes unnoticed - or worse, that it’s taken for granted. When someone insists that delays are simply the price of higher standards, it implicitly questions the standards of everyone else. No one says it outright, but the message lingers under the surface.
As a leader, this creates a very specific kind of challenge.
Push too hard, and you risk alienating someone essential. Say nothing, and you risk losing the confidence of the broader team. Try to impose process changes, and you may trigger resistance from someone who feels their identity is tied to gatekeeping quality. Let things continue, and you reinforce a culture where timelines bend around one individual instead of the system as a whole.
There are no clean solutions in situations like this. Only tradeoffs, navigated week by week.
And this is where leadership becomes less about authority and more about understanding.
Maybe the real lesson is simpler than it seems: every leader eventually meets people they cannot reshape, only understand. And that shift from pushing for change to recognizing the limits of change opens up a different path.
It’s not the ideal progress you imagine in a perfect world. It’s the quieter, more realistic progress that becomes possible when you accept the person as they are and work with the constraints instead of fighting them.
Not dramatic solutions. Not perfect alignment. Just steady navigation through a complex human dynamic.
And perhaps that, in its own way, is a form of leadership too.
#potofhoney #Leadership #Philosophy #Team Dynamics #Workplace Reflections