Many leaders assume that a busy organisation is a productive one. Full calendars, constant meetings, rapid task‑switching, and overflowing inboxes are often interpreted as signs of momentum and commitment.

But the truth is far more uncomfortable:

Busy organisations are often the least ready for change.

Busyness is not a marker of performance. It is a marker of load, drift, and structural fragility.

A system that is constantly busy has no slack, no bandwidth, and no structural stability — the exact conditions required for adaptation.

Here’s why.

1. Busyness consumes the cognitive capacity required for adaptation

Change requires:

• attention

• reflection

• sensemaking

• problem‑solving

• learning

But in busy organisations, people’s cognitive bandwidth is already consumed by:

• meetings

• reporting

• rework

• firefighting

• navigating ambiguity

Real example: A hospital that can’t adopt a simple improvement

A major hospital introduced a new digital handover tool designed to save time. But nurses were already overloaded with documentation, patient flow issues, and constant interruptions.

What happened?

• staff reverted to paper

• workarounds emerged

• adoption stalled

• frustration increased

The change didn’t fail because people resisted. It failed because busyness had consumed the cognitive capacity required to adapt.

2. Busyness is a symptom of structural weakness, not strength

Busy organisations are rarely busy because they are high‑performing. They are busy because the structure is failing.

Common structural causes of busyness include:

• unclear priorities

• inconsistent leadership signals

• decision bottlenecks

• excessive rework

• drift

• low coherence

Real example: A bank with 1,000 recurring meetings per week

A large bank ran more than a thousand recurring meetings across its transformation program. Everyone was busy. Everyone was “aligned.” Everyone was exhausted.

But nothing moved.

Why?

• priorities contradicted each other

• decisions were slow

• teams were overloaded

• every meeting created more work

The organisation looked active, but structurally it was drifting.

3. Busyness accelerates drift

Drift — the slow erosion of alignment and clarity — thrives in busy environments.

When people are overloaded, they:

• create workarounds

• interpret messages inconsistently

• prioritise survival over alignment

• rely on informal networks

Real example: A retail chain drowning in initiatives

A retail head office launched new campaigns, new KPIs, new training modules, and new reporting tools — all at once.

Store teams were already stretched.

The result?

• training wasn’t completed

• managers improvised

• staff reverted to old habits

• customer experience didn’t improve

The head office blamed “poor execution.” The real issue was structural overload, which accelerated drift.

4. Busyness destroys coherence

Coherence is the alignment of:

• goals

• priorities

• expectations

• decisions

But in busy organisations:

• priorities shift constantly

• decisions are rushed

• communication becomes noise

• teams optimise locally instead of systemically

Real example: A tech company with endless stand‑ups but no progress

A fast‑growing tech firm ran:

• daily stand‑ups

• weekly all‑hands

• sprint reviews

• retrospectives

• cross‑functional syncs

Everyone was talking. Everyone was busy. But product delivery slowed.

Why?

Because the structure was incoherent:

• priorities changed weekly

• decisions were unclear

• communication became noise

Busyness masked the structural misalignment.

5. Busyness erodes trust — and trust is a structural readiness signal

When people are overwhelmed, they stop trusting:

• timelines

• decisions

• leadership signals

• organisational promises

Real example: A government department with constant policy churn

A department introduced a new case management system. But staff were already overloaded with compliance, reporting, and shifting political priorities.

They didn’t trust the timeline. They didn’t trust the rollout plan. They didn’t trust that this change would “stick.”

The system had eroded trust through chronic busyness.

6. Busyness eliminates slack — and slack is the oxygen of change

Slack is not waste. Slack is capacity.

Slack allows people to:

• think

• learn

• coordinate

• reflect

• improve

• innovate

Busy organisations have no slack. Every minute is allocated. Every resource is stretched.

Real example: A manufacturing plant stuck in firefighting mode

A plant manager once said:

“We’re too busy fixing problems to prevent them.”

Because the team was constantly firefighting:

• maintenance was delayed

• small issues became big issues

• breakdowns increased

• improvement work never happened

Busyness eliminated the slack required for change.

7. Busyness hides structural problems behind motion

Leaders often misinterpret busyness as:

• commitment

• engagement

• productivity

But busyness hides:

• misalignment

• overload

• unclear decisions

• weak processes

• low Change Fitness

• structural drift

Real example: A school system overwhelmed by initiatives

Teachers were busy from dawn to dusk. When a new curriculum arrived, the system couldn’t absorb it.

Not because teachers didn’t care. Because the system was structurally overloaded.

8. The paradox: the busier the organisation, the less it can change

Readiness requires:

• clarity

• coherence

• capacity

• trust

• alignment

• manageable load

Busyness destroys all of these.

The organisations that look the most active are often the least capable of adapting. The organisations that look the calmest are often the most ready.

Calm is not complacency. Calm is structural integrity.

The Bottom Line

Busy organisations are not high‑performing. They are overloaded, drifting, and structurally fragile.

They lack the cognitive capacity, coherence, trust, and slack required for adaptation.

If leaders want their organisations to be ready for change, they must stop celebrating busyness and start strengthening the structure.

Because busyness consumes readiness. Structure creates readiness. And leadership, at its core, is the stewardship of the system.