James was, by all accounts, a high performer. Reliable, intelligent, and deeply committed, he had been with the company for over a decade and was widely respected. He rarely took holidays, worked long hours, and often carried more than his share. But behind this dedication was something less productive: a growing sense of martyrdom.
He held critical technical knowledge, rarely shared it, and didn’t delegate easily. To some, this looked like loyalty. To others, it looked like control. Either way, the result was the same: James had become a bottleneck.
The team felt it. Projects slowed down when they required his input. Deadlines slipped because no one else knew how to do certain tasks. Frustration grew, but few challenged him—partly out of respect, partly out of fear, and partly because they were too stretched themselves.
Over time, James had helped create a culture of individualism and overwork. Senior Management had “enjoyed” getting more done with fewer resources — but the cost was mounting. Burnout. Blame. Quiet resentment. The culture was beginning to suffer.
My Role
My task wasn’t to “fix” James. It was to understand the root causes of the issue and to take a systemic view. I wasn’t zooming in on James as the problem, but rather exploring the environment that had allowed this dynamic to persist. Why had this way of working gone unchallenged? What unspoken norms were shaping behaviour? And how had dependency and avoidance become institutionalised?
I worked at two levels:
- With James — through one-to-one coaching, we explored his identity at work. What did it mean to be useful? Why was it hard to let go? What was the cost of being indispensable? We looked at how his sense of worth had become entangled with self-sacrifice — and how that quietly undermined the very team he thought he was protecting.
- With the system — I facilitated conversations within the leadership team that had previously been avoided. We surfaced the implicit rewards of martyrdom. We named the discomfort around conflict. We acknowledged the management avoidance that had allowed this dynamic to persist. These were not easy conversations — but they were honest.
What Helped
My approach leans more on enabling honest, skilful conversation than applying models or tools. In this case, what helped was creating the safety and structure to have conversations that hadn’t been possible — or permissible — before. James began to shift. He started documenting and delegating. Others began to step up. The system slowly rebalanced.
The Bigger Picture
This wasn’t a story about a difficult individual. It was a story about a well-meaning person caught in a set of reinforcing dynamics — a system that valued output over sustainability, and loyalty over learning. Once we understood that, change became possible.