Sometimes the biggest risk in a system is not what is broken, but what is working.
I see this pattern in many teams.
Single points of failure are often embedded in how work actually gets done:
- The expert everyone relies on
- The person who always steps in
- The one who “just knows how it works”
It looks like capability.
It feels efficient.
It gets results.
But it quietly creates a constraint.
When important work depends on one person:
- They get pulled into reactive, high effort work
- They are kept away from bigger, higher impact contribution
- The system becomes fragile, even if it does not look that way
This is not just a system issue.
It shapes what people can contribute, and what they become known for.
Over time, it shapes identity.
That person becomes known for what only they can do.
Their value is reinforced every time the system leans on them.
So when someone tries to spread capability, systematise the work, or reduce reliance, it does not feel like improvement.
It can feel like loss:
- Loss of value
- Loss of recognition
- Loss of what made them successful
That is where resistance comes from.
Not because people do not want things to be better, but because the system is asking them to let go of what it has rewarded.
Single points of failure are rarely accidental.
They are created, reinforced, and often protected by the system around them.
The question is: A
are we making deliberate decisions about what we leave to effort, and what we choose to build so it can be sustained?