In a recent LinkedIn post, Lee McCabe delves into the pervasive corporate tendency to prioritize “optics” over genuine execution, arguing that the underlying incentive structures within organizations quietly reward this behavior. McCabe posits that this focus on appearances stems from a system that punishes risk-taking and discomfort more severely than outright failure.
He begins by stating:
People don’t optimise for optics by accident. They do it because the system quietly punishes the alternative. Follow the incentives and the behaviour stops being confusing.
McCabe elaborates on this point, explaining that while most organizations claim to value execution, their actual funding and reward systems often prioritize safety and consensus. This safety, he suggests, manifests as alignment and a reluctance to introduce uncertainty, often leading to situations where multiple individuals agree with a presentation not out of conviction, but out of a desire to avoid rocking the boat.
The Discomfort of True Execution
According to McCabe, genuine execution is fundamentally different from managing appearances. He argues that execution necessitates making difficult choices, which inevitably creates winners and losers and exposes the trade-offs that are often glossed over in presentations. This process, he notes, leads to a clear chain of accountability.
As Lee McCabe puts it:
Execution is different. Execution forces choices. It creates winners and losers. It exposes trade-offs that the deck was politely hiding. It introduces a chain of accountability that usually ends with someone’s name at the bottom of a decision.
This directness and accountability, McCabe explains, are what make real execution a form of political risk. The act of moving from a hypothetical “we should” to a committed “we will” involves reallocating resources, shifting power dynamics, and potentially disrupting established hierarchies. This inherent challenge to the status quo, he implies, is met with resistance.
Why Discomfort is Punished More Than Failure
A key observation from McCabe’s post is the differential punishment of discomfort versus failure. He points out that failures can often be explained away with plausible reasons such as market shifts, timing issues, or competitive responses. However, discomfort, which is immediately visible and social, triggers a much faster and more potent internal reaction within organizations.
McCabe highlights this dynamic:
What’s quietly fascinating is how discomfort gets punished faster than failure. A miss can be explained away. Market moved. Timing. Competitive response. Integration complexity. Plenty of plausible cover. But discomfort is immediate and social. You can see it on faces in the room. It triggers the fastest internal immune response: pushback, delay, committees, “let’s revisit”, and the most lethal phrase in corporate life, “I’m not sure we’re aligned.”
This leads individuals to learn that playing it safe and maintaining a positive appearance is a more effective survival strategy than pursuing potentially disruptive but ultimately beneficial outcomes. McCabe extends this analysis to the private equity sector, where he suggests the inherent structure amplifies these tendencies. In PE firms, the pressure to demonstrate conviction is high, but the career risk of being demonstrably wrong is also significant. Similarly, in portfolio companies, the need for momentum can clash with the personal risk of stepping on influential toes.
Optics as a Survival Strategy
Ultimately, McCabe views prioritizing optics as a hedging strategy. It allows individuals and organizations to appear active and progressing without making irreversible decisions or taking on direct accountability. This focus on survival, he concludes, is a natural outcome of systems that reward safety and the appearance of progress over tangible consequences.
He summarizes this by stating:
Optics are a hedging strategy. They’re a way to look active without becoming accountable. They’re a way to show progress without making irreversible decisions. They’re a way to survive.
McCabe’s analysis underscores the importance of understanding and aligning organizational incentives with desired outcomes, suggesting that systems ultimately get what they incentivize.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Lee McCabe on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on January 28, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →