The hidden workplace inertia trap – and how leaders can overcome it

The demands of life with a newborn offer a sharp reminder that responsibility changes behaviour. Hamed Amiri argues that blurred responsibility and slow decision-making can leave even capable staff doing little beyond what is necessary. Here, he sets out six practical steps leaders can take to build teams that take ownership, act decisively and stay fully engaged

A few weeks ago, I became a father for the second time. Since then, life has been a blur of broken nights, early mornings, a newborn’s constant demands, helping my wife through recovery, and trying to keep things steady for our toddler.

As parents everywhere will know, looking after a baby requires immediate action; when something needs doing, you do it, tired or not, because it simply cannot wait.

It is a lesson many organisations would do well to remember.

McKinsey analysis published last year argued that the hidden costs of ‘quiet quitting’ can be nearly as high as the costs of staff leaving altogether. In the UK, the research suggested that around a fifth of employees stayed in jobs they had wanted to leave, with predictable consequences for attendance, productivity, innovation and wellbeing.

This is how workplace inertia often shows itself: capable people continue to meet basic requirements while their commitment, energy and attention drain away.

The question for leaders, therefore, is how to avoid the inertia trap and build teams that get on with it, much as parents have to.

The six steps that follow are simple, practical ways leaders can create that kind of culture: one in which responsibility is clear, action is expected, and people are more likely to engage fully rather than settle for the minimum.

1. Be explicit about ownership
One of the most common causes of inertia at work is uncertainty over who actually owns a task or decision. Leaders often assume responsibility is clear because a project has been discussed, a team has been assigned, or duties appear in somebody’s job description. Staff may be involved, but involvement is not the same as ownership. That usually becomes clear when pressure rises.

The real test comes when something goes wrong, stalls, or needs a difficult decision. A client complains, a deadline is missed, a supplier fails to deliver, or a piece of work is still not ready. In those moments, staff need to know who is responsible for moving the issue forward, and leaders need to know who is answerable for the result. If that has never been made clear, people tend to hesitate, delay and assume somebody else will step in.

Leaders therefore need to define ownership much more precisely. It is not enough for a member of staff to be loosely connected to a piece of work. They need to know exactly what sits with them, what they are expected to deliver, and what they will be accountable for if progress slips. That clarity should apply in difficult situations as much as in routine ones.

In practical terms, leaders should spell this out in plain language. At the end of a meeting, every member of staff should know who is leading each action, who is supporting, and who is accountable for the outcome. Teams move faster when one person can say, with complete confidence, “this sits with me”. That gives staff a stronger sense of responsibility and makes decisive action much more likely.

2. Remove ambiguity from decision-making
A great deal of organisational delay comes from uncertainty over who has the authority to decide. Staff are often unclear whether they are expected to make a judgement themselves, consult colleagues first, or wait for a senior leader to step in. The result is familiar in many workplaces: problems return to the same meetings, emails go back and forth, and decisions that should take ten minutes take several days. When nobody is sure who can decide, responsibility weakens.

Leaders need to draw much clearer lines around decision-making authority. Staff should know who is making the final call, who is contributing advice, and who simply needs to be kept informed. These distinctions may sound obvious, but many teams work without them. In that kind of environment, even able employees become cautious. They begin to feel that acting too early may create trouble, while delaying a decision carries little immediate cost. Over time, that encourages a habit of waiting rather than acting.

This is where leaders need to be more precise. Staff should understand the boundaries within which they are expected to use their judgement, and they should also understand when an issue genuinely needs to be escalated. That does not require a rigid or heavy-handed culture. It requires clarity.

In practical terms, leaders might tell a manager that they do not need sign-off for every small client-facing adjustment, or make clear that a department head is expected to resolve operational problems before bringing them to senior leadership. When staff know what they can decide for themselves, and leaders are clear about when escalation is required, decisions are made more quickly and responsibility is exercised with greater confidence.

3. Connect contribution to outcome
Staff are far more likely to take ownership of their work when they can see that what they do affects what happens next. In some organisations, inertia grows because the connection between effort and outcome is too weak. Employees complete tasks, attend meetings and send updates, but the link between their individual contribution and the final result is often unclear. When that happens, work can start to feel like a process to get through rather than something that carries real weight.

Leaders should not assume staff will automatically understand why their work matters. They need to show clearly how particular decisions, actions and standards affect the wider result. That might mean explaining to employees how a delayed response can damage a client relationship, how poor follow-up can create operational risk, or how better preparation can strengthen a pitch, a proposal or a negotiation. Staff usually work with greater care when the consequences of weak or strong performance are made specific.

This matters especially in larger organisations, where employees can feel a long way from the outcome of their work. Leaders who want staff to take greater responsibility should make a habit of joining the dots. They should explain what needs to be done, why it matters, who is affected, and what happens if standards slip. When employees can see that their judgement and effort influence a real outcome, they are more likely to take the work seriously.

4. Normalise pressure, but support it properly
Any serious job will involve periods of pressure. Staff will sometimes face urgent deadlines, competing demands and heavier workloads. Leaders should recognise that this is part of working life and manage it properly, rather than pretending pressure can be removed altogether.

The important distinction is between productive pressure and unmanaged overload. Productive pressure arises when leaders give staff clear expectations, sensible priorities and proper support. Employees know what matters most, understand what they are trying to achieve, and trust that their manager will help if problems arise. Unmanaged overload develops when staff are left confused, isolated or carrying unreasonable demands without guidance. That kind of pressure drains energy and morale very quickly.

Leaders should therefore be willing to ask staff to stretch when the situation requires it, but they should do so responsibly. That means helping employees prioritise, stepping in when obstacles arise, being available during difficult periods, and recognising when short-term pressure is becoming harmful. Staff often rise well to demanding situations when they know their manager is present, realistic and supportive. Pressure is much easier to handle when leadership is visible and engaged.

5. Model the behaviour you expect from others
Staff pay close attention to how leaders behave, especially when things become difficult. A leader can talk about ownership, accountability and resilience as much as they like, but employees will take their cue from what that leader actually does. If leaders avoid difficult conversations, delay decisions or disappear when problems emerge, staff will notice. Behaviour at the top quickly shapes behaviour elsewhere.

That is why example matters so much. If leaders want employees to take responsibility, they need to show what that looks like in practice. That might mean admitting when something has gone wrong, making a decision instead of leaving an issue unresolved, or staying calm and involved during a difficult period. Staff remember whether leaders were visible, steady and credible when it counted.

Good leadership also makes it easier for employees to act with confidence. Staff are more likely to make sensible decisions, raise concerns early and take responsibility for problems when they can see that thoughtful action is respected. Leaders who respond well to difficulty help create a culture in which employees feel able to act seriously and honestly. In that sense, leaders are not just setting an example for staff; they are shaping the standards by which the whole team operates.

6. Build systems that reinforce responsibility rather than dilute it
Many organisations say they value accountability, but their day-to-day systems often weaken it. Meetings finish without clear actions. Staff give updates, but no decisions are made. Emails sit unanswered because nobody is clearly expected to follow them up. In these environments, inertia becomes part of the process as well as part of the culture.

Leaders should look carefully at how work is actually managed. Do staff leave meetings knowing exactly what they are responsible for? Are deadlines specific? Are decisions written down? Is there a routine for checking progress, or does follow-up depend on memory and goodwill? If the system is loose, even good employees can lose momentum because delay becomes too easy.

Leaders who want stronger performance need to build clearer habits into daily working life. That may mean ending meetings with named actions and dates, introducing simple reporting systems so stalled work is spotted early, or making sure unresolved issues are raised quickly rather than buried in general updates. Staff usually respond well to that kind of structure because it makes expectations clearer. Good systems help leaders lead more effectively, and they help employees understand exactly what is expected of them.

Hamed Amiri is a speaker and technology leader whose work explores leadership, resilience and identity in a rapidly changing world. A senior leader in technology and transformation at PwC, he combines corporate experience with lived perspective, informed by his journey from Afghanistan to the UK.

READ MORE: ‘Your staff are using AI in secret – here’s how smart leaders should respond‘. Employees are already using AI to save time, improve output and get through the working day faster, yet many still feel safer hiding it than discussing it openly. Here, Hamed Amiri argues that leaders who want the gains must stop treating AI as a taboo subject and start giving staff the rules, confidence and backing to use it properly.

Do you have news to share or expertise to contribute? The European welcomes insights from business leaders and sector specialists. Get in touch with our editorial team to find out more.

_{Main image: Cottonbro Studio/Pexels}