You can get The Gist on this story here.
In 1901, the National Cash Register Company in Dayton, Ohio, was nearly broken by a strike. The lockout that followed was bitter, ruinous, and very public, and when it ended, the company's president, John Patterson, did something no large American company had done before. He built a department whose entire purpose was to stand in the space between the company and its workers. It handled grievances, dismissals, safety, and the thickening undergrowth of the new labour law. By the standards of the age, it was a genuinely neutral office, with what one historian calls a dual allegiance: it existed to protect the employer and to defend the fair treatment of the employee, at the same time, in the same room. It was the first personnel department. It was invented to keep the peace.
John Patterson - Genesis
For most of a century, it did. Then, somewhere in the long bureaucratic afternoon between the 1970s and the 1990s, Personnel was renamed Human Resources, and in the renaming, it changed sides. It moved its desk next to leadership. It became, in the phrase of one industry historian, a corporate enforcer. The office built to mediate between the company and the worker became the office that defends the company against the worker, and its true modern function, underneath the wellbeing webinars and the lanyards and the values printed on the wall, is this: to take a human judgment that might one day be used against the company in a court of law, and turn it into a documented procedure that cannot. HR is the apparatus that allows an institution, when something has gone wrong, to say the words that matter more than any other words in modern organisational life.
“We followed the process.”
So, when a chief executive stands on a stage and announces he has abolished it, listen carefully, because he is bragging, and a brag and a confession are very often the same sentence heard by two different people.
Ryan Breslow
In May 2026, Ryan Breslow, founder of the payments company Bolt, told a corporate summit that he had dismissed his entire HR team. "We had an HR team," he said, "and that HR team was creating problems that didn't exist. Those problems disappeared when I let them go." His reasons were not philosophical. Bolt's valuation had fallen from $11 billion in 2022 to around $300 million; he had returned to a company in freefall and cut roughly a third of its staff, calling it a move to wartime footing. HR went out with the tide. The coverage logged it as founder provocation and scrolled on.
Read the sentence again, because, heard from the other side, it stops being a boast. The job of an HR department is to find problems. To surface the grievance before it becomes a tribunal. To record the dispute before it becomes a claim. To notice the burnout, the bullying, the discrimination, while it is still small enough to be noticed. Breslow removed the people whose job was to find the problems, observed that no problems were being brought to him, and concluded there were none. A smoke alarm taken down for the crime of going off will, it is true, also make a house feel safer. The problems did not vanish. The detection did, and the only reason a founder can rip out his own immune system and call it strength is that Bolt, for the moment, is small enough and poor enough not to be worth the trouble of suing. The day it is valuable again, the department will reassemble itself, because it was never truly about the people. It was always about the lawsuits. Breslow has not beaten the logic. He has simply caught the one short season in a company's life when he is allowed to pretend it does not apply to him.
The logic has a name and a number. The psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer calls it defensive decision-making: the moment a person works out the option that is best for the organisation, then knowingly chooses a worse one because it is safer for them if the sky falls. He surveyed 950 managers across a large administration. Eight in ten admitted to at least one defensive decision among the most important calls they made that year.
Nearly one in five said that half or more of their major decisions were made not to serve the institution but to shield themselves. These are not weak or stupid people. They are people behaving with perfect rationality inside a structure that has rigged the payoffs, and the structure has rigged them everywhere at once.
You see it most starkly where a life is on the table. Ask a doctor. In one American study, 93% of physicians admitted to defensive medicine: ordering the scan, the biopsy, the third test, not because the patient in front of them needed it, but because its absence might one day be read aloud in a courtroom. It is estimated to cost the United States about $46 billion a year.
Hold the human shape of that number in your mind. A doctor looks at you, understands what you actually need, and then does something else, something more invasive, more expensive, less necessary, and the something else is not for you. It is for the file. The test is not taken to find out what is wrong with your body. It is taken to establish, in advance, that the doctor did everything that could be asked of him. You have become, in the consulting room, the evidence in your own future malpractice case.
That is America, and it is tempting to file it as an American disease, a product of a litigious culture and a private system. It is not. The most beloved institution in British life runs on the same fuel. Clinical negligence costs the NHS £2.8 billion in 2023, and the Department of Health has set aside £58.2 billion to meet the estimated future cost of claims, a sum approaching a third of everything Britain spends on health and social care in a year. Pause on the strangeness of that. The NHS is the institution the country reveres above all others, and it is also among the most heavily sued organisations in the nation, and those two facts are not in tension. They are the same fact viewed from opposite ends.
The more a society worships something, the less it can bear to be failed by it, and the less it can bear to be failed, the more defensively the people inside it are forced to work. Reverence and litigation are one and the same. Parliament's own inquiries have documented where it leads: Baroness Cumberlege's review of maternity care found the threat of litigation driving obstetricians and midwives into risk-averse practice, and researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University found clinicians responding to the risk of a claim by writing ever more detailed notes and lowering the threshold at which they refer and investigate.
The midwife makes the referral not because the case demands it, but because the referral she failed to make is the one that ends up in court. The caring has not gone anywhere. It is drowning in indemnity. A third of the future of British medicine is already pledged, not to medicine, but to the cost of having been blamed.
Rory Sutherland has named the trick that makes all of this feel like cleverness rather than cowardice. You win an argument, he says, by taking a question that is genuinely open, that has many defensible answers, and pretending it is a sum with one right answer, which you then reach using the available data, "and nobody can argue with you, because apparently you haven't made a decision. You've simply followed the data."
There is the whole seduction of process in a single move. Process does not merely give you cover. It lets you claim, with a straight face, that no choice was ever made, that the outcome was not authored by a fallible human being but extracted from the numbers like a mineral. And so, Sutherland observes, we have filled our institutions with people who are magnificent at winning arguments and useless at solving problems, because somewhere along the way, the two skills divorced. The politician gets into trouble not when he fails but when he actually fixes something, because a fix requires a judgment, and a judgment has an author, and an author can be named. Far safer to commission the review, apply the framework, convene the panel, and produce a decision with no fingerprints on it.
This is the unwritten constitution of the modern institution, reduced to a single line.
“Better a good process and a bad outcome than a bad process and a good outcome.”
A good outcome arrived at by instinct is a threat because it cannot be defended, cannot be reliably repeated, and suggests that next time, too, you should back your own judgment, which is the most dangerous habit a careerist can have. A bad outcome arrived at by impeccable procedure is safe because the rules were obeyed, and no single hand can be found on the wheel. An institution that takes this lesson to heart stops aiming for outcomes altogether.
It begins by aiming at defensibility, which looks almost identical from the outside and is the opposite from within. And the eeriest thing about watching it take hold is that there is no fear in the room. Nobody is shaking. It has simply become how things are done here, the medium everyone moves through without noticing, a mandate rather than a panic. The committee where every person privately knows the decision is mad, and which together produces the madness anyway, is not a gathering of cowards. It is a gathering of rational people, each declining to be the one whose name ends up attached to the alternative.
To feel how deep this now runs, do not look at a hospital or a boardroom. Look at a playground.
The modern British and American playground is a sterile, rounded, padded place. The seesaws are gone. The merry-go-rounds are gone. The high slides and the tall frames have given way to low, soft shapes squatting in a lake of rubber matting. The town of Bristol, Connecticut, took out every seesaw and merry-go-round it owned. Go to Germany or the Netherlands or Denmark, and the playgrounds are a different species: taller, harder, faster, built on the open admission that if a child now and then falls and breaks an arm, that is one of the things that happens to children. The gap between the two has nothing to do with one set of children being more precious than the other. The gap, the research says again and again, is litigation. We strip the danger out of play, not because children are being maimed but because, if one were, someone could be blamed. It is defensive medicine, performed on childhood.
And this is where the small bureaucratic reflex reveals its true size. The risk we have machined out of the playground was not a childhood defect. It was the curriculum. The studies are unanimous: children denied real risk grow into adults who are worse at judging it, more anxious, more brittle, less able to trust themselves. The terror at the top of the frame, mastered; the leap measured and made; the fall survived and learned from. That is how a small person discovers that the world can be assessed and that their own judgment can be relied upon. We have removed the apparatus that teaches judgment to protect ourselves from the consequences of a child's judgment failing. The seesaw was load-bearing. We took it down because no one was willing to have their name on the incident report.
Stand back far enough, and the stakes stop being bureaucratic and become almost civilisational. Every genuine thing a society has ever achieved was, on the morning it was actioned, indefensible. The cure that broke protocol. The building that ignored the orthodoxy. The unjust law was overturned by someone who could not prove in advance that they would win. Progress is the residue left behind by people who were willing to be blamed, who made a judgment they could not yet justify and carried the risk of it on their own backs.
A society that perfects the art of never being blamed is not a safe society. It is a society that has bought comprehensive insurance against its own future. Everything will still appear to work. The trains will run, the reviews will be filed, the boxes will be ticked in their thousands. It will simply, without ever quite deciding to, lose the capacity to do anything that cannot be justified before it is attempted, which is the same as losing the capacity to do anything that has never been done before.
There is a difference between not dying and being alive, and an institution can stay in the first state indefinitely while abandoning the second. Defensive decision-making is the machinery of not dying. It cannot be killed because it never moves, never reaches, never risks the leap that could fail; it survives because it has declined to do any of the things that living requires.
The hospital that mortgages a third of its future to the fear of being sued has not died. It has simply stopped being able to afford to live. The company that tears out its own capacity to notice its problems has not died. It has chosen to feel safe rather than to be well. Every committee which produces a decision, each of its members privately knows is mad has not failed; it has succeeded perfectly at the only thing it was really trying to do, which was to ensure that no single person could be blamed for the madness.
A horse
We are not merely raising a generation on rubber matting. We are training them, from the sandpit upward, in the one reflex that every cure and cathedral and act of courage in human history had to overcome: the instinct to do the safe, defensible, blameless thing, and to call it wisdom. They will inherit institutions already fluent in it, they will be fluent themselves, and they will be magnificent at winning the argument for why nothing should be attempted. They will know how never to be found holding the decision when it turned out wrong. They will not know how to be right, because being right, the kind that matters, the kind that cures and builds and overturns, has always required someone willing to be wrong in public first. Everybody, in the end, avoids being blamed. Not everybody gets to have built something. Nobody, after all, ever got fired for that.
See you on the next one.
Refs:
