In a recent LinkedIn post, Steven Bartlett highlights a common leadership dilemma: the difficulty in mandating a return to the office and ending remote work, a challenge he terms ‘Obvious Pain Paralysis.’ Bartlett recounts a conversation with a CEO struggling with this exact issue, where employees like Sarah, Marcus, and Emma have expressed strong opposition, even threatening to quit or citing contractual issues.
The core of Bartlett’s analysis lies in the contrast between the tangible, immediate pain of employee resignations and the abstract, future consequences of maintaining a remote-first policy. He notes:
“You can see Sarah’s resignation letter clear as day. You can picture Marcus storming out. You can calculate exactly how much it’ll cost to replace them.”
Bartlett contrasts these clearly visualized, albeit negative, outcomes with the less concrete, but potentially more damaging, long-term effects on company culture, innovation, and employee engagement. He argues that the brain prioritizes immediate, visible threats over slower, more insidious problems.
Understanding ‘Obvious Pain Paralysis’
Steven Bartlett defines ‘Obvious Pain Paralysis’ as the tendency for leaders to be immobilized by the clear, immediate negative consequences of a decision, while underestimating or ignoring the less visible, but potentially more destructive, long-term risks. This paralysis, according to Bartlett, “seems to kill more great companies than almost anything else.”
He elaborates on this cognitive bias, suggesting that the lack of immediate, tangible evidence for future problems makes them easier to dismiss. While the departure of key employees is a concrete event with calculable costs, the “slow death of your company culture” or the “innovation that never happens” are abstract future possibilities that the mind struggles to grasp with the same certainty.
“But the slow death of your company culture? The innovation that never happens because no one’s bouncing ideas off each other? Your best people gradually checking out because there’s no energy anymore? That’s all abstract future stuff your brain treats like ‘eh, maybe, maybe not.'”
The Choice Between Immediate and Future Pain
Bartlett posits that many avoided decisions are not about choosing between good and bad, but between experiencing pain now versus experiencing pain in the future. The immediate pain, though uncomfortable, often has a defined endpoint.
As Steven Bartlett observes:
“In the last 15 years of my career in business, it’s become abundantly clear that most of the decisions we avoid aren’t actually about choosing between good and bad outcomes…. they’re about choosing between pain now or pain for the foreseeable future.”
He advocates for choosing the ‘pain now’ option because it offers a resolution, unlike the indefinite suffering associated with avoiding difficult decisions. This perspective frames leadership not just as strategic planning, but as a psychological battle against cognitive biases that favor short-term comfort over long-term viability.
Leadership and Procrastination
Ultimately, Steven Bartlett warns against indecision, quoting:
“A person who procrastinates in their choosing will inevitably have their choice made for them by circumstance.”
This concluding thought underscores the critical role of decisive leadership in navigating complex organizational challenges. By recognizing and counteracting ‘Obvious Pain Paralysis,’ leaders can make more effective decisions that safeguard the future health and success of their companies, even when those decisions involve immediate discomfort.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Steven Bartlett on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on March 2, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →