“I am done. I feel like staying in bed until the next holiday.”

A senior leader said that last month. Slumped in his chair. End of a long meeting.

What struck the researcher who heard it wasn’t the exhaustion. It was the next sentence.

“And it pains me, because my example is needed more than ever.”

He knew what was required of him. He just couldn’t find the fuel to do it.

In a recent HBR article, clinical psychologist Merete Wedell-Wedellsborg describes hearing variations of this from dozens of leaders across industries and geographies. She’s careful to say this isn’t burnout as we traditionally understand it. It’s quieter. More disorienting.

Leaders are withdrawing from decision-making. From the belief that their effort still matters. From the sense that their actions are connected to outcomes at all.

She calls it a self-reinforcing loss of agency.

I have a name for what’s causing it. And it starts with two engineering degrees.

The IE and the SED

I studied Industrial Engineering at the University of Illinois. Then I went back for a second degree in Systems Engineering and Design.

Same university. Same department in fact. Same tools and methods. Completely different philosophies.

My IE degree taught me to optimize the components of a system, with the human inside the system. How do you make this faster, safer, more efficient? The human is a resource. A variable. A cog with a heartbeat. When a cog wears out or a better one becomes available, you swap it.

My SED degree taught me something harder. How do you design systems that serve an overall purpose, with the human inside them? The human isn't a cog. The human is the point. The system exists to help that person think better, decide better, achieve their own goals.

Same tools. Two completely different worlds.

Here's what I've been watching happen as AI reshapes how we work and how we decide:

Most organizations — and most individuals — defaulted to the IE philosophy without realizing it. We've been treating AI adoption as an optimization problem. How do we get more output with fewer human hours? The analyst runs the numbers. The AI runs the numbers faster. Swap the cog.

The result is a workforce that feels exactly like that leader in the chair. Efficient. Replaceable. Disconnected from the outcome.

This is the Resource Route. And it's quietly eroding the one thing that makes your organization worth leading.

The alternative isn't less AI. It's a different philosophy entirely.

The SED engineer doesn't ask how to squeeze more from the human. She asks how to design the system so the human inside it can flourish. Fluid. Adaptive. Messy when it needs to be. Biological rather than mechanical.

In that model, the analyst isn't running the numbers. The analyst is making recommendations, framing choices, guiding decisions. The AI handles the computation. The human handles the judgment. Agency intact. Actually amplified.

This is the Human-Centric Route. And it starts with a foundation solid enough to support real adaptability.

That's where the Anchor comes in. When you've done the hard work of defining the decision clearly — your constraints, your values, your non-negotiables — you can afford to be fluid and messy in everything that follows. The Discern and Decide phases can breathe. You're not grasping for control because the foundation is already set.

Clear anchor. Adaptive system. Human in the pilot seat.

That's the antidote to the withdrawal Wedell-Wedellsborg is describing. Not more resilience training. Not tighter controls. A different philosophy about what the system is actually for — and who it's supposed to serve.

👥 If you lead a team:

The withdrawal Wedell-Wedellsborg describes — the cancelled commitments, the ghosted emails, the sudden restructurings that feel decisive but aren't — these are symptoms of a system running on the wrong philosophy. Your people aren't disengaged because they're weak. They're disengaged because the system is treating them like cogs and they know it.

Your audit: Pick one process your team uses regularly — a meeting, a reporting structure, a decision workflow. Ask honestly: is this designed to extract output from my people, or to help my people think and decide better? One question. One process. Start there.

⚡ If you’re running solo:

You feel this too. Every time you hand a task to AI without thinking about what you're actually trying to decide, you're running the IE model on yourself. The output gets produced. Your judgment doesn't develop. Over time the system gets smarter and you get more dependent.

Your audit: Think about the last three times you used AI in your work. Were you outsourcing a task — or were you using it to sharpen your thinking and expand your options? One was efficient. The other was generative. Which one are you running?

✝️ If you’re navigating this with faith:

The withdrawal the article describes — the breakdown of the link between action and consequence, the erosion of meaning — has significant consequences. Our org structures were already causing it, and AI is accelerating it.

Stewardship isn't just protecting what you've been given. It's deploying it. The mind, the judgment, the discernment God developed in you over decades — those aren't inputs to be automated away. They're the point.

Your audit: Where can you put AI to work in a more redemptive way? How can it foster and serve human agency and flourishing? You have a responsibility to ensure you are being a good steward of the technology. Those questions are your audit.

If this sounds like a leader you know — someone who's been quieter than usual, slower to decide, going through the motions — forward this email to them. Sometimes the right frame at the right moment is all it takes to get someone back in the pilot seat.

The good news: all systems can be redesigned. Even messy, evolving, human-centered ones.

That's what my engineering degrees taught me.

And - GO ILLINI. 🧡💙

Andy

1445 Woodmont Lane NW #713, Atlanta, GA 30318
​Unsubscribe · Preferences​