TL;DR: Most conversations about sustainable performance start from the wrong premise—that the performance standards themselves are neutral. They're not. Before optimising for sustainability, ask: whose definition of "good" am I trying to meet? The answer might explain why it feels so hard.

You're exhausted. Not the kind of tired that sleep fixes—the kind that accumulates despite doing everything right. The productivity systems, the boundary-setting, the rest. You've tried it all.

The advice you get assumes the problem is execution. Work smarter. Delegate more. Manage your energy better.

But here's what that advice never questions: the performance standards themselves.

Most feedback is useless.

Not because people lack good intentions. Not because organisations don't invest in training. But because we've been taught to give feedback in ways that trigger defensiveness, focus on personality rather than behaviour, and leave people with nowhere to go.

A follow-up to "Corporate Innovation in the Age of AI: Navigating the Hype, the Hypertail, and the Hard Limits"

In my previous piece, I explored how corporate innovation leaders face four key scenarios in the age of AI: the "hypertail" overload of point solutions, the slow burn of transformation, regulatory compliance pressures, and talent bottlenecks.
While these strategic frameworks help navigate the landscape, they miss a more fundamental truth that's becoming increasingly apparent in boardrooms and innovation labs alike.

The real bottleneck isn't AI adoption—it's organisational readiness.