Sometimes nothing is stopping us.
At least, nothing we can point to.
- There is no policy saying no.
- No budget line preventing movement.
- No senior leader explicitly blocking the idea.
And yet the answer still arrives with surprising certainty.
- “That would never work here.”
- “We’ve always done it this way.”
- “Senior leadership would never allow it.”
- “People like us don’t do things like that.”
We’ve all heard those sentences.
If we are honest, we have probably said them ourselves.
That is what makes this metaphor uncomfortable.
Because the barrier is not always structural.
Sometimes it is psychological.
Sometimes the organisation is not a machine, an organism, a culture, a political system, an algorithm, a network or even an instrument of domination.
Sometimes it is a prison.
And sometimes we are helping build the walls.
The Organisation as Psychic Prison
Gareth Morgan saved one of his strangest and most powerful metaphors for this in Images of Organization.
The organisation as psychic prison.
It sounds dramatic, almost melodramatic, but the experience is ordinary.
The prison is made of assumptions.
- Habits of thought.
- Inherited beliefs.
- Professional identities.
- Stories we repeat so often they stop sounding like opinions and start sounding like reality.
Nothing is formally prohibited.
But behaviour still narrows.
People stop asking certain questions before anyone else needs to silence them.
That is the prison.
Not rules.
Certainty.
We Inherit Reality Before We Question It
Most organisations do not need to control people aggressively.
They simply teach us what feels normal.
- What counts as professional.
- What can be challenged.
- What should remain politely untouched.
- What kind of ambition is admirable and what kind feels dangerous.
After a while, the control becomes internal.
People censor possibility before governance ever needs to.
I see this in local government. I saw it in suppliers. I have seen it in private sector teams and, more uncomfortably, in myself.
Someone says:
Why don’t we just…
…and the room fills with reasons why we can’t.
Sometimes those reasons are real.
Sometimes they are inherited reflexes wearing the clothes of wisdom.
That distinction matters.
Because a psychic prison feels like realism.
That is why it is so effective.
Bartleby Wasn’t Lazy
I wrote before about Bartleby, the Scrivener and the phrase:
I would prefer not to.
It unsettles people because it quietly steps outside the script.
Bartleby is disturbing not because he rebels loudly, but because he exposes how much of organisational life depends on unquestioned compliance.
He does not fight the system.
He simply refuses to perform the expected logic of it.
That is often enough to make the whole structure look strange.
Psychic prisons survive because we stop noticing the script.
Sometimes the most radical act is not rebellion.
It is asking why the script feels inevitable.
That was also the point behind my piece on Modern Times and even the reflection on Nobody Died.
We become so accustomed to institutional absurdity that survival starts to look like agreement.
The Myth of Professional Seriousness
There is another version of this I see often.
The belief that seriousness must look a certain way.
- Certain language.
- Certain behaviours.
- Certain forms of confidence.
- Certain people sounding authoritative in familiar accents.
Ideas that arrive too imaginatively are treated with suspicion.
Curiosity is welcomed, but only if it remains professionally tidy.
Innovation gets invited into the room and then politely asked not to touch anything important.
This is one reason AI unsettles organisations.
Not simply because of capability, but because it challenges assumptions about where authority is supposed to come from.
- Who gets to have the answer?
- Who is trusted to think?
- Who is allowed to question the process without being seen as unserious?
That is not a technology problem.
It is a psychological one.
Which is why the reactions are often emotional long before they are rational.
My Own Blind Spots
This metaphor is uncomfortable because it is personal.
It is very easy to spot institutional assumptions in other people.
Much harder to notice the ones I am defending myself.
As project managers, we can become prisoners of control.
As governance people, prisoners of defensibility.
As change professionals, prisoners of the belief that if only we communicate clearly enough, people will finally behave rationally.
Sometimes the prison is competence.
We become good at navigating the system and start protecting the map instead of questioning the territory.
I have done this.
Most experienced professionals have.
Experience is useful.
It is also excellent at making the familiar feel inevitable.
That is why expertise can quietly become conservative.
Not because experts dislike change, but because competence creates emotional investment in how the world currently works.
Plato, Pink Floyd and the Comfort of the Cave
This metaphor reaches far beyond management theory.
Plato gave us the cave.
Pink Floyd gave us The Wall.
Both ask the same question:
What if the thing limiting us is partly inside our own perception?
We are often more comfortable discussing external barriers because they preserve innocence.
The system is the problem.
Sometimes it is.
Sometimes the harder truth is that we are helping maintain it.
Not because we are malicious.
Because certainty is comforting.
Because belonging matters.
Because questioning shared assumptions is socially expensive.
That is why real change feels threatening.
It is not just operational.
It is existential.
People are not defending process.
They are defending identity.
That is a much harder thing to move.
AI as a Mirror, Not Just a Tool
This is why I keep arguing that AI is as much a mirror as a machine.
It exposes assumptions we did not realise we were carrying.
- What counts as expertise.
- What counts as originality.
- What counts as valuable work.
- What counts as “real” thinking.
If a machine can produce something we thought proved our uniqueness, the discomfort is not technical.
It is identity.
That is why AI debates become strangely moral so quickly.
They are not only about productivity.
They are about self-definition.
Who are we if the old boundaries move?
This links directly to the question I keep returning to:
Is it better to have a question without an answer than an answer without a question?
AI gives us answers cheaply.
The human work is often deciding which questions threaten the walls we have built around ourselves.
That is psychic prison territory.
The Prime Directive Again
Even my obsession with Star Trek’s Prime Directive lives here.
The most interesting question was never whether intervention was possible.
It was whether we were wise enough to recognise our own assumptions before deciding what counted as progress.
That is the same challenge in leadership.
Before we ask how to change the organisation, we should probably ask:
What version of normal am I treating as unquestionable?
That is not a comfortable board question.
It is probably the right one.
A Different Question
So the question changes again.
Not:
“What is stopping us?”
But:
What belief are we protecting by saying this cannot change?
That question is harder because it moves responsibility closer.
It asks us to examine not just systems, but ego.
Not just governance, but identity.
Without that, transformation often becomes theatre.
We redesign structures while preserving the assumptions that made the old structure necessary.
The furniture moves.
The room remains the same.
I have seen entire programmes succeed beautifully at changing process while leaving thought untouched.
That is renovation, not transformation.
Where This Leaves Us
The machine taught us structure.
The organism taught us adaptation.
Culture taught us meaning.
Politics taught us conflict.
The algorithm taught us hidden power.
Narrative taught us shared reality.
The network taught us interdependence.
Domination taught us consequence.
The psychic prison asks the most intimate question of all:
What if the thing we are trying to change is partly the way we see?
That is the hardest metaphor because it offers no comfortable villain.
Only reflection.
And perhaps that is why it belongs at the end.
Because after all the governance, frameworks and strategy papers, the final frontier of change is often much closer.
It is us.
Comments
Post a Comment