When Leaders Become the Bottleneck

Philip Gift, a U.S. Navy helicopter pilot, argues that leadership bottlenecks can be traced back to technological developments during the First World War. In his Military Leaders blog post, “The Leadership Bottleneck: What happens when managers and leaders cross lines,” he highlights how the telegram transformed decision-making. For the first time, kings, generals, and foreign ministers could issue instructions instantly from hundreds of miles away. Decisions no longer needed to be made by those closest to the situation. Instead, authority could be centralised—physically distant, yet operationally present.

On the surface, this represented progress. Communication became faster, coordination more efficient, and control more centralised. But it also introduced a hidden risk: the emergence of leadership bottlenecks.

When decisions flow upwards too easily, they often stop there. Responsibility concentrates in fewer hands. Those closest to the problem—the people with the clearest understanding of context—can become passive recipients of instruction rather than active decision-makers. Over time, this doesn’t just slow organisations down; it reshapes their culture.

Schools are not immune to this dynamic. Modern technology—email, messaging platforms, management systems—means school leaders can be involved in every decision, no matter how small. While this can create a sense of oversight, it can also unintentionally signal something deeper: that authority resides at the top, and initiative resides elsewhere.

Culture is shaped not just by what leaders say, but by what they allow others to do. When staff feel they must seek permission for routine decisions, a culture of dependency begins to form. Teachers stop acting autonomously. Middle leaders stop leading. Initiative is replaced by compliance. Over time, the organisation becomes slower, quieter, and more fragile—not because staff lack capability, but because culture has taught them not to act.

This is the modern leadership bottleneck. And like its First World War counterpart, it is enabled by technology—but sustained by culture. Philip Gift argues that breaking through these bottlenecks requires two things: face-to-face interaction and a clear organisational structure with defined roles and responsibilities. Both are fundamentally cultural acts.

Face-to-face interaction builds trust. Trust creates confidence. Confidence enables autonomy. Clear roles and responsibilities create clarity about who decides what. But more importantly, they signal belief. They communicate that leadership is not confined to titles—it is distributed through the organisation.

In schools with strong cultures, decisions do not accumulate at the top. They flow to the person best placed to make them. Senior leaders set direction, but they do not become a barrier. They create clarity, not dependency. This is not about relinquishing accountability. It is about creating capacity.

A school culture free from bottlenecks is one where:

• Teachers feel trusted to make professional decisions

• Middle leaders act, rather than wait

• Senior leaders focus on strategy, rather than control

• Responsibility is clear, visible, and lived

Ultimately, leadership bottlenecks are not just structural problems—they are cultural ones. They emerge when systems centralise authority, but they persist when culture reinforces it. The lesson from the telegram is not about technology. It is about proximity. The closer decisions are to the people who understand the work, the healthier the culture becomes.

Because strong school cultures are not built on control. They are built on clarity, trust, and the confidence to act.