Visibility Bias in Leadership

-

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” - Warren Buffett

One consistent truth I have observed in business is that leaders tend to reward what is visible, while some of the most essential work within organizations remains unseen.

Consider a product launch. Slack channels fill with celebration, leadership offers public praise, and performance metrics are widely shared. Now contrast that with months of refactoring, quiet mentoring, and diligent risk mitigation that largely go unnoticed. Visibility distorts perception.

This is visibility bias in action. It appears as:

  • Shipping rewarded more than stabilizing.

  • Roadmaps praised more than operational rigor.

  • Deck-building valued over difficult conversations.

  • Activity mistaken for impact.

This connects directly to a post I previously wrote on shipping versus advancing, where I argued that organizations often conflate visible activity with meaningful progress. Shipping, with releases, tickets, and launches, creates a sense of momentum. Advancing, however, requires direction, alignment, and measurable impact. Drawing on Ellen Glasgow’s reminder that not all movement is forward, I explored how teams can be busy yet drift strategically, and why effective leadership focuses not merely on output, but on durable outcomes that move the organization closer to its objectives.

The invisible work that sustains organizations generally falls into several categories. First is stability work: refactoring, infrastructure upgrades, and risk audits. Second is cultural work: mentoring, cross-functional alignment, and listening. Third is strategic clarity work: simplifying goals, discontinuing misaligned initiatives, and maintaining disciplined backlogs. Often, the absence of crisis is itself evidence of invisible labor performed well.

A historical example illustrates this point clearly. In the lead-up to the year 2000, countless developers worked tirelessly to remediate the so-called Y2K bug. When January 1 arrived without catastrophe, many concluded the threat had been exaggerated. In reality, it was the success of largely invisible, preventive work that ensured stability.

Leaders fall into visibility bias for understandable reasons. Psychologically, humans reward what they can see, and public wins carry political capital. Structurally, incentive systems often favor visible outputs. Boards and executives gravitate toward metrics that are easily displayed and celebrated.

The consequences, however, are significant. Technical debt accumulates. Burnout increases. Quiet contributors disengage. Hero culture takes root. Over time, fragility is concealed by motion.

To counteract this dynamic, leadership must intentionally reframe its lens. Shift from asking, “What launched?” to asking, “What became more stable?”, “What risk was reduced?”, and “What complexity was removed?” Reward invisible work explicitly, even in modest ways. Ensure performance reviews recognize maintenance, mentoring, and preventive effort. Incorporate stability and risk-reduction metrics into reporting frameworks.

Diagnostic questions can help surface bias:

  • What kind of work gets promoted?

  • Who receives praise?

  • Is prevention valued as highly as rescue?

  • Do we measure stability?

If leaders reward only what they can see, they will ultimately erode what they cannot. Sustained organizational health depends not merely on what is visible, but on the disciplined, often quiet work that prevents failure, builds capability, and enables long-term progress.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dual Faces of Technology: Enhancing and Replacing Jobs

-
Image
Automation has been on my mind a lot lately, more immediately due to a book I read , but also because of the looming reality of artificial intelligence. To understand what's involved, making the distinction between replacing technologies and enabling technologies is crucial. As we traverse the timeline of the 20th century, we observe how each type of technology has distinctly influenced employment. Automated technologies have transformed industries by replacing manual labor with machines. Consider the automated switchboards introduced in the early 20th century. Previously, telephone operators manually connected calls using physical connectors on a switchboard. With the advent of automated switchboards in the 1920s and 1930s, many of these jobs were eliminated as calls were routed through electromechanical systems. Similarly, in agriculture, the introduction of mechanical harvesters like the combine harvester in the 1930s drastically reduced the need for manual labor. These machine...
Read more

The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor and Power in the Age of Automation (Book Review)

-
Image
In his compelling book, " The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation ," Carl Benedikt Frey offers a sweeping examination of the historical and ongoing impact of mechanization and automation on society. Starting with the onset of the first Industrial Revolution, Frey deftly navigates through the evolution of technology up to the modern age of artificial intelligence, presenting a nuanced view of how technological innovations have reshaped labor markets and power dynamics. Frey categorizes technological innovations into two types: enabling technologies, like the typewriter, which enhance worker productivity without displacing the labor force, and replacing technologies, such as robotic machinery in factories, which eliminate certain job roles altogether. This distinction forms the backbone of Frey’s analysis, as he explores the varying implications of each type of technology on different segments of the workforce. The book traces a historical patter...
Read more

Deputy Product Owners

-
Image
"The Product Owner is one person, not a committee. The Product Owner may represent the desires of a committee in the Product Backlog, but those wanting to change a Product Backlog item’s priority must address the Product Owner." - The Scrum Guide There are a lot of ways in which my approach to Scrum differs from what's in the official guide, and since that document refers to Scrum as 'immutable,' let's just call what I do 'Notscrum™.' In Scrum, there is only one product owner per team. That person is the sole person responsible for the product backlog, and the person who advocates for the work to be done. In Notscrum there is one product owner, but there can be multiple deputy product owners. Here's how it works. When my program at Viacom was first forming I met with the then-director of the Library & Archive group and learned that while he set the priorities on work done, the archivists were organized in three distinct areas with a team lead ...
Read more