Principles 5, 6, and 10 of Radical Conformity shape this situation – see the system clearly, understand the rules governing it, and act in the right sequence rather than on instinct.
Colin Gautrey, February 2026
Costas arrived at our third call with news.
He had been offered a major project – Seoul-based, consuming half his time, and introduced by his boss with a phrase that should always slow a capable person down.
‘It’s a bit political.’
The assignment was a rescue operation. A large IT initiative was haemorrhaging budget and reputation. Global IT leadership was under pressure from business stakeholders who were losing patience with delays and escalating costs. Costas had been brought in to stabilise it.
He was ready to begin immediately.
I listened to the outline of the project and then asked him to pause.
‘Before you touch anything, let’s consider what you are walking into.’
What was really at stake
‘It’s a bit political’ is rarely a warning. It is an abbreviation.
It compresses competing agendas, damaged reputations, unspoken expectations, and accumulated tension into four apparently harmless words. It signals that the presenting problem may not be the real one.
Costas had built his career on delivery. He was known for it. In this context, that reputation was both his mandate and his vulnerability.
Because delivery, applied without diagnosis, exposes you.
In politically charged environments, outcomes are already entangled with status, credibility, and internal positioning. Stepping in to fix what appears broken without understanding whose version of the problem has been accepted – and who needs it resolved in a particular way – is how capable professionals find themselves solving the wrong issue.
Or becoming the issue themselves.
The principal risk was not technical failure. It was misalignment.
The necessary sequence
Costas’ instinct was to roll up his sleeves and start generating visible progress. That instinct had served him well throughout his career.
In this environment, it required restraint.
Before acting, he needed clarity on what mandate had actually been given, how success would be defined by the most influential stakeholders involved, and where the political pressure points sat beneath the surface of the project narrative.
We worked through what he did not yet know.
We worked through what he did not yet know – what had been promised on his behalf, whose credibility was already tied to the initiative, and which outcomes were politically acceptable and which, however logical, would quietly generate resistance.
Only once that mapping was underway could delivery become constructive rather than dangerous.
The details of how he gathered that intelligence are his. What mattered was the order.
Understand the system first. Deliver second.
Never the reverse.
What changed
Costas did not rush.
He clarified expectations before acting, calibrated his visibility carefully, and identified where early movement would build trust rather than trigger defensiveness.
The technical work followed from that foundation.
From the outside, both approaches would have looked similar – a competent leader stabilising a failing initiative. Inside the system, the starting point was fundamentally different.
One approach would have exposed him.
The other strengthened his position.
The difference lay in sequence, not skill.
What this reveals
High performers are often at greatest risk in political environments.
Their instinct is to solve what is visible. Their confidence in execution leads them to move quickly. In stable systems, that behaviour is rewarded.
In unstable ones, it can be costly.
When you hear ‘it’s a bit political,’ you are being told something important. Not about the difficulty of the task, but about the complexity of the terrain.
Delivery is a strength.
Applied without systemic awareness, it can become a liability.
Costas slowed down in time.
That is why the rescue mission did not become his cautionary tale.
Colin Gautrey, February 2026