Key takeaways:
-
Leadership in Triage often begins as responsible response to real needs.
-
When urgency becomes normal, leaders become increasingly oriented towards what has escalated rather than what has been chosen.
-
Busyness can disguise drift when activity replaces strategic movement.
-
Organisations learn from leadership behaviour; repeated response can teach escalation, dependency, and reactive patterns.
-
The Triage Drift Map helps leaders notice escalation, displacement, and dependency without reducing the issue to time management.
When the Day Keeps Winning
Transcript
There is a particular feeling at the end of some leadership days.
You have moved all day. You have answered questions, made decisions, checked on people, handled the issue that could not wait, responded to the message that needed care, stepped into the conversation that had become more complicated than expected, and kept the school moving.
Nothing about the day was wasted. Much of it was necessary. And yet, there can be a strange hollowness at the end of it.
The calendar was full. The decisions were real. The needs were legitimate. The work mattered.
But the work you meant to lead barely moved.
I’ve sat with leaders who describe this almost apologetically. They are not complaining about the work. They are trying to make sense of the gap between how much they did and how little of the deeper work seemed to shift.
That feeling is worth paying attention to.
Because when it becomes familiar, it may be a sign that leadership has drifted into triage.
This week, I want to sit with a pattern I see often in capable leaders: the moment when responsiveness becomes the rhythm of the role.
In the previous episode, I explored urgency overload — the way legitimate priorities can all arrive as if they require immediate attention. This week, the question becomes behavioural.
What happens to leaders when urgency becomes the rhythm?
What happens when the day is increasingly shaped by what escalates, what interrupts, what appears, and what needs response now?
The accepted language for this is often busyness. Leaders are busy. Schools are demanding. The work is complex. All of that is true.
But busyness is not always the full story.
Sometimes, what we are seeing is triage. And triage has a rightful place in leadership.
Schools are human organisations. They are not machines. They are full of unpredictability, emotion, risk, care, need, conflict, trust, fatigue, hope, and complexity. There will always be moments when a leader needs to step in directly.
A student is distressed. A teacher is overwhelmed. A parent is anxious. A staffing issue appears. A safety concern emerges. A system deadline cannot be ignored.
Those moments require judgement. They require presence. They require response.
The danger begins when triage stops being a moment and becomes the operating rhythm.
At first, the shift can be hard to see. A leader is simply doing what the day requires. They are solving problems, clearing obstacles, calming situations, supporting staff, protecting students, responding to parents, making decisions, and keeping the organisation moving.
And in the moment, much of this can feel like good leadership.
People appreciate responsiveness. Problems get solved. Pressure reduces. The leader becomes useful, visible, and trusted.
But over time, responsiveness can become a form of drift.
The leader becomes oriented towards what has escalated rather than what has been chosen.
Their attention is repeatedly captured by the next presenting issue.
Strategic commitments remain important, but they become easier to postpone because immediate needs carry more emotional force.
This is why one of the core lines from this week’s article is: Triage is not strategy.
It can feel like strategy because there is movement. There are decisions. There is visible effort. There is relief.
But triage is organised around what has already become urgent.
Strategy is organised around what must be protected before it becomes urgent.
That difference is not abstract. I’ve watched it happen in leadership teams.
Someone brings a problem to the table, and before anyone has asked who should be holding it, the principal has solved it. Everyone feels relief. The meeting moves on. But the system has learned something: bring the pressure high enough, and the leader will carry it.
Do that once, and it may be appropriate.
Do it repeatedly, and it becomes a pattern.
Mintzberg named something leaders recognise immediately: managerial work is often fragmented, interrupted, varied, and shaped by brief interactions and incomplete information (Mintzberg, 1973). School leaders know that world intimately. Their day is made up of signals, conversations, risks, decisions, emotions, and interruptions.
Urgency overload deepens that fragmentation.
The leader begins to scan constantly:
-
What needs attention?
-
What could escalate?
-
Who needs a decision?
-
What has become visible?
-
What might go wrong if I do not respond?
Those questions are part of the role. But when they dominate the role, strategic attention begins to thin.
A leader can become very good at responding and still slowly lose strategic ground.
That is one of the more uncomfortable truths inside Leadership in Triage.
Competence in response can hide drift.
A leader may be handling the day skilfully. They may be preventing damage. They may be helping people feel supported. They may be making good short-term decisions. And still, the deeper work may be waiting.
The culture-building.
The instructional leadership.
The capacity development.
The trust repair.
The coherence work.
The strategic conversations that do not arrive with urgency attached to them.
Those things rarely interrupt the day. Culture rarely screams. Trust rarely arrives as a deadline. Capacity-building rarely lands in the inbox with a red flag.
And yet these are often the conditions that determine whether the school becomes less dependent on triage over time.
Kahneman helps explain why the loudest issue can start to feel like the most important one. Under conditions of speed, salience, and pressure, human judgement tends to privilege what is immediate, visible, and emotionally compelling (Kahneman, 2011).
In leadership, that means the issue that has appeared loudly can begin to feel more important than the issue that quietly needs protection.
Fast judgement matters. School leaders need it every day. But when fast judgement becomes the dominant condition, slower strategic judgement becomes harder to protect.
Urgency crowds out intention. Not dramatically. Not all at once.
One response at a time.
One postponed conversation at a time.
One strategic commitment moved again because something immediate appeared.
That is how busyness can disguise drift. The leader is moving constantly. But movement and strategic movement are not the same thing.
That is why Leadership in Triage cannot be reduced to time management.
A better calendar may help. A sharper inbox routine may help. Clearer boundaries may help. But those things will not shift the deeper pattern if the organisation has learned to rely on the leader’s immediate response.
Organisations learn from leadership behaviour.
They learn what gets attention.
They learn what gets escalated.
They learn what needs to be framed as urgent.
They learn whether the leader is the default resolver.
They learn whether strategic commitments can be interrupted.
None of this usually happens through formal policy. It happens through pattern.
Heifetz gives us a crucial distinction here: relief is not always the same as adaptive progress. His work on adaptive leadership distinguishes between technical problems, which can often be addressed through existing knowledge or expertise, and adaptive challenges, which require people to learn, change behaviour, and take shared responsibility (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009).
Triage pulls leaders towards technical response.
A problem appears. The leader answers.
A conflict escalates. The leader intervenes.
A decision is needed. The leader decides.
The organisation experiences relief.
And relief can feel like progress.
But adaptive work asks something different.
It asks leaders to build capacity rather than become the sole source of resolution.
It asks teams to hold more of the work.
It asks people to stay with complexity long enough to learn.
It asks the organisation to become less dependent on escalation.
That is difficult work, because triage often carries moral weight.
Most leaders respond because they care.
They see the need. They understand the pressure. They feel the fragility of the situation. They know the person in front of them needs something.
Day and Gu help us resist the shallow resilience story. Their work treats resilience not as simple personal toughness, but as something shaped by professional identity, commitment, relationships, and organisational conditions (Day & Gu, 2014).
That matters because Leadership in Triage often draws on the very qualities that make leaders admirable.
Care.
Responsibility.
Commitment.
Availability.
The willingness to step in.
Those qualities matter. Under sustained pressure, they can also make leaders more available to every immediate need.
So the question is not, “How do I care less?”
The question is: how do I protect the strategic work that allows care to become more than constant response?
That is the conversation I think many leadership teams need to have.
Not a conversation about becoming less responsive.
A conversation about what responsiveness is teaching the organisation.
One useful lens is what I am calling the Triage Drift Map.
The map looks for three signs that triage has become a pattern.
Escalation.
Displacement.
Dependency.
Escalation asks: what keeps reaching me?
What issues repeatedly rise to the leader because escalation has become the path of movement?
This might be parent concerns, behaviour issues, staff decisions, conflict, or anything that keeps bypassing the structures that should be able to hold it earlier.
Displacement asks: what keeps losing its place?
What strategic work keeps being postponed because it does not arrive urgently?
This might be instructional leadership, culture-building, feedback conversations, middle leadership development, or time for sensemaking with the team.
Dependency asks: where has responsiveness become the operating model?
Where has the leader’s availability become a substitute for shared capacity?
Where are people waiting, referring, escalating, or seeking permission because the system has learned that the leader will carry it?
These three zones are not a checklist.
They are a way of seeing.
They help leaders ask where triage is no longer an event, but a pattern.
And perhaps the most important question is this:
What condition would reduce the need for this to keep becoming urgent?
That question changes the conversation.
Triage asks, “What needs attention now?”
Strategy asks, “What condition would reduce the need for this response again?”
That is where leadership begins to return.
Leadership returns when response is placed back inside intention.
Leaders remain present, but they stop allowing every escalation to define the centre. They keep caring, but they begin asking what conditions would prevent the same need from returning again and again.
There is a phrase I keep returning to:
Busyness can disguise drift.
It is possible to be active all day and still feel the deeper work slipping away.
It is possible to be responsive, useful, and committed while strategy becomes episodic.
And it is possible to restore leadership without shaming the triage that helped the school keep moving.
The first step is to name the pattern.
Where are we escalating?
What is being displaced?
Where have we become dependent on immediate response?
Those are serious questions. They are not productivity questions. They are leadership questions.
And they are worth sitting with.
The work that shapes a school rarely arrives with urgency attached to it.
Culture does not usually shout.
Trust does not arrive as a deadline.
Capacity does not send a red-flagged email.
Coherence does not interrupt the morning demanding attention.
These are the things leaders have to return to deliberately, because they will not always fight for space on their own.
If this idea resonates with something you are experiencing in your own leadership, I explore the deeper argument in my full Leadership Paper, The Sustainability Myth.
