Why Value Creation fails when Organisations need it most

Technology has accelerated. Organisational decision logic has not.

Over the past two decades, organisations have adopted increasingly advanced technologies. Data flows in real time, automation reduces manual decision overhead and AI systems can test hypotheses faster and more reliably than any traditional process. The potential for value creation has increased substantially.

Yet when uncertainty rises, organisations consistently pause the very initiatives that could stabilise or strengthen them. Value creation fails not because the ideas are weak, but because the system that should support them defaults into defensive behaviour. The gap between technological possibility and organisational behaviour becomes most visible during crises, when companies would benefit most from continued investment.

This is not a matter of leadership preference. It is a structural phenomenon. As March and Simon noted, complex organisations are built to reduce uncertainty, not to maximise opportunity. When pressure increases, they revert to the behaviours their architecture rewards.

---

The crisis reflex: why value loses when the organisation feels threatened

The persistent failure of value creation during uncertainty is not irrational. It is the

predictable outcome of how organisations perceive and distribute risk. In behavioural economics, loss aversion becomes more influential under threat. Inside companies, this effect is multiplied by governance structures that reward variance reduction and penalise deviation from plan.

Value initiatives introduce variance. Cost measures reduce it. The result is a default preference for cost action, even when the strategic case for value is strong. Executives understand the long-term implications. They know that self-funding or high-leverage initiatives should continue. Yet they operate inside systems where the downside of a failed experiment is personal, while the upside of a successful initiative is distributed across the organisation. The decision is shaped by the system, not the insight.

This is why value creation fails precisely when it is most needed: not because leaders misjudge the opportunity, but because the organisational architecture makes the safer option appear rational.

---

Incentives as the hidden architecture behind organisational behaviour

Incentive structures quietly shape what organisations do in moments of stress. Most companies reinforce budget ownership, not systemic value. Performance targets emphasise adherence to plan, not intelligent deviation from it. Variable pay reacts more strongly to cost control than to long-term outcomes. And benefits that span multiple departments lack a natural sponsor.

These mechanics make value creation structurally disadvantaged. Even self-funding initiatives face resistance because their effects cross boundaries while their risks sit locally.

Some organisations have begun to adjust this infrastructure. Certain firms have reduced variable pay to counteract short-term bias. Others created pooled value funds to avoid charging investments back to individual departments. Some implemented short-cycle value testing to reduce the perceived risk of experimentation. These adjustments do not rely on cultural change. They modify the system so that value creation becomes feasible within it.

---

Structural conditions that allow value creation to survive crises

Mitigating the failure of value creation requires system design. Four conditions have demonstrated practical impact across organisations that manage to preserve value even in periods of uncertainty.

1. Decision cycles must be short and reversible

   Irreversibility increases perceived risk. When initiatives demand multi-quarter commitments, approval thresholds rise. If value hypotheses can be tested within 30 to 60 days, downside exposure narrows and decision-makers can engage without committing to long-term consequences. Reversibility is the key enabler. It reduces defensive behaviour and allows organisations to test early, commit later and scale only when evidence supports action.

2. Investment logic must be separated from operational budgets

   Operational budgets are structured to maintain stability and minimise variance. Value investments require variance. When both are assessed through the same logic, value consistently loses. Ring-fenced transformation budgets, central investment funds or other structures that decouple value from operational cost centres reduce this structural conflict. The specific mechanism matters less than the separation of logics.

3. Outcome visibility must become symmetric

   Costs are visible immediately. Value is often visible only quarterly, if at all. This asymmetry shifts organisational attention and reinforces defensive decisions. Early, leading indicators of value such as cycle-time reductions, error-rate improvements or adoption behaviour can rebalance the perception of impact. When organisations observe value with the same cadence and granularity as cost, the decision landscape stabilises.

4. Organisations need parallel operating modes

   Efficiency work focuses on predictability and variance reduction. Value creation focuses on exploration and learning. Blending the two logics into a single governance model creates contradictions that almost always resolve in favour of efficiency. Establishing parallel modes with distinct rules, expectations and resource allocation allows value to continue without undermining operational stability. This separation is one of the strongest predictors of whether value creation survives crisis conditions.

---

A forward-looking note: value creation will only succeed when the system is designed for it

The failure of value creation in moments when organisations need it most is not an error of judgment. It is a predictable outcome of systems that reward short-term variance reduction and constrain investment. When these mechanisms remain unchanged, defensive decisions will continue to dominate.

Some organisations have already begun to redesign their systems by removing structures that intensify short-termism and by creating architectures where value work can coexist with operational stability. Whether this will become a broader trend remains to be seen.

The crisis reflex is not an inherent organisational trait. It is a byproduct of system design. Change the design and the reflex changes with it. The organisations that understand this will preserve more of their value creation capacity in the next cycle of uncertainty than those that continue to rely on instinct alone.