Why do people do things badly, even though they know how they should be done?

Every time a serious problem arises in a company, someone almost inevitably utters the same phrase:

— I don’t understand. They knew perfectly well what they were supposed to do.

Behind this statement lies one of modern management’s greatest illusions: the belief that people act according to what they know.

If this were true, there would be no managers who exhaust their teams despite having read dozens of leadership books, nor organisations that invest thousands of euros in training only to see no change six months later.

Knowledge rarely changes behaviour.

Behaviour is changed by interests, fears, rewards, and the environment in which a person works day after day.

This is why, when a manager says of an employee that “they know, but they don’t do,” the question they should ask is not whether the person understood the procedure. The question is what they gain, lose, or avoid by not following it.

It sounds cynical.

In reality, it is one of management’s most useful exercises.

I have met people who appeared disorganised. Their diaries were endless chains of emergencies, missed deadlines, and deferred promises. At first glance, the conclusion was simple: they do not know how to manage their time.

More often than not, however, the problem was not time management.

It was decision management.

They would start the day with small tasks, reply to unimportant emails, attend meetings that produced nothing, and postpone precisely the activity that made them uncomfortable. By evening, they would leave convinced they had worked hard, even though the real issue remained untouched.

It was not a lack of time that blocked them.

It was avoidance of the difficult decision.

In other organisations, I have encountered an even more interesting phenomenon.

There were people about whom everyone said the same thing:

“Without them, nothing works.”

At first glance, it seemed like a compliment.

After a few days, you would discover that passwords were held only by them, client relationships existed only through them, important files resided only on their computers, and any holiday became a cause for panic across the company.

Many managers view such people as exceptional employees.

I view them with caution.

Not because they lack value. On the contrary. More often than not, they are competent, committed, and work overtime. The problem arises when the organisation becomes more dependent on them than on its own processes.

Indispensability is not always the result of competence.

Sometimes it is the result of information kept to oneself.

Other times, it is the result of procedures that are never documented.

Still other times, it is the result of a team that was never trained, despite having all the resources to do so.

Paradoxically, managers are not entirely blameless either.

They declare that they want autonomy, initiative, and people capable of making decisions on their own. In practice, they check every document, approve every expense, rewrite every email, and turn every decision into a bureaucratic journey in which no one dares take responsibility.

After a few years, they wonder why the organisation produces no leaders.

The answer is uncomfortable.

Because leaders do not emerge in a system built to control them constantly.

There are, however, situations in which neither competence, nor power, nor control explains the lack of engagement.

There are people who have stopped believing their work matters.

They do not protest.

They do not complain.

They do not demand explanations.

They come to work, fulfil their duties at the bare minimum acceptable level, and go home.

Managers quickly label them as lazy or unmotivated.

Sometimes they are right.

Other times, however, this behaviour is the result of an environment in which initiative has been punished too often, merit has been ignored, and mistakes have been reprimanded faster than successes have been recognised.

People learn the unwritten rules of an organisation with astonishing speed.

They do not do what the internal regulations say.

They do what they see is rewarded.

If promotions come through loyalty to a person rather than performance, the organisation will produce loyalty.

If the person who solves every problem alone is praised rather than the one who develops their team, the organisation will produce indispensable individuals.

If the person who tries something new and fails is criticised while the one who never takes a risk is praised, the organisation will produce conformity.

This is why, perhaps, the question at the outset is the wrong one.

We should not ask why people do things badly when they know how they should be done.

Perhaps we should ask why organisations continue to reward behaviours they claim, in every strategy and management meeting, they wish would disappear.

The answer to this question is not merely a matter for human resources, leadership, or procedures.

It lies in the honesty with which an organisation is willing to look at itself in the mirror.

Because sooner or later, every company comes to resemble the behaviours it tolerates.