Leaders frequently describe their work using the word “trying.”

They are trying to move initiatives forward.
They are trying to lead effectively.
They are trying to overcome resistance.

This language appears most often in environments where competence is high and expectations are implicit. Effort increases, but execution does not stabilize. Progress feels fragile despite sustained activity.

“Trying” functions less as a description of work and more as a signal that standards, ownership, or success criteria have not been fully specified.

This pattern shows up consistently across scientific, technical, and operational leadership contexts.

---

Key Takeaways

• “Trying” signals unresolved ambiguity about standards and expectations.
• Increased effort often compensates for missing clarity rather than insufficient discipline.
• Discomfort is frequently misinterpreted as risk when standards are implicit.
• Execution stabilizes when expectations are made explicit.

---

Table of Contents

1. Why the Pattern Shows Up in High Performers
2. The Common Misdiagnosis
3. The Core Distinction
4. How the Problem Is Created
5. Signs the Issue Is Clarity (Not Effort)
6. What to Look for Instead
7. A Practical Diagnostic Question
8. Why This Matters for Leaders

---

Why the Pattern Shows Up in High Performers

High performers are trained to persist under pressure. Their roles reward endurance, responsiveness, and tolerance for ambiguity.

Over time, this creates a consistent behavioral expectation. Resistance is interpreted as something to push through rather than something to examine. Effort becomes the default response to uncertainty.

In technical and scientific environments, competence is often assumed. Standards are inferred rather than articulated. Ownership is distributed informally.

As a result, execution continues without a stable reference point for completion or success.

This dynamic appears frequently in otherwise capable systems, a pattern also described in EDC writing on execution breakdowns in complex scientific organizations: Why great science fails and how to fix it.

The Common Misdiagnosis

When progress feels heavy, the default interpretation is that more discipline is required.

Leaders respond by increasing pressure, reinforcing endurance, or compressing timelines. These responses persist because they align with existing performance norms.

However, effort is not the variable that is failing.

When standards are unclear, additional effort increases cognitive load rather than throughput. Energy is spent interpreting expectations instead of executing against them.

This same misdiagnosis appears in communication contexts, where leaders explain more detail instead of clarifying structure or success criteria. A parallel pattern is examined in the Four Ps framework article:
The 4 P’s pitching framework for scientific founders & leaders

The Core Distinction

The central distinction in this pattern is between discomfort and damage.

Discomfort reflects ambiguity, misalignment, or undefined standards.
Damage reflects an actual breakdown in system integrity.

When standards are implicit, leaders cannot reliably distinguish between the two. Cognitive friction is interpreted as risk. Effort increases in response.

This distinction maps directly to the Vision, Alignment, and Strategy sequence used throughout EDC diagnostic work. When vision or alignment remains implicit, discomfort is misclassified and effort escalates prematurely.

How the Problem Is Created

False effort forms through a consistent structural mechanism.

Standards are assumed rather than defined.
Ownership is implied rather than assigned.
Completion criteria remain subjective.

Execution becomes personal instead of procedural. Progress is evaluated emotionally instead of structurally. Leaders compensate by applying force where precision is required.

The work itself is often manageable. The strain comes from carrying unspoken expectations while attempting to perform.

Similar mechanisms appear in alignment failures that precede execution breakdowns, a recurring theme across EDC diagnostic articles.

Signs the Issue Is Clarity (Not Effort)

The issue is likely clarity rather than effort when the following behaviors are present:

• “Done” cannot be defined consistently
• Work is restarted rather than completed
• Progress feels mentally heavier than technically complex
• Momentum alternates between urgency and avoidance
• Endurance is rewarded more than outcomes
• Execution feels harder than the task warrants

These are observable system behaviors. They do not reflect motivation, commitment, or work ethic.

What to Look for Instead

When clarity is present, effort stabilizes without intervention.

Standards are explicit. Ownership is unambiguous. Boundaries define acceptable variance. Discomfort no longer signals risk by default.

Execution becomes repeatable rather than effort-dependent.

This condition mirrors prior EDC writing on how execution stabilizes when vision and alignment are established before strategy, rather than after.

A Practical Diagnostic Question

What standard am I trying to meet right now, and who defined it?

Why This Matters for Leaders

When effort is misread as the problem, leaders introduce unnecessary strain into the system.

Over time, this produces predictable downstream effects:

• Decision drag
• Cognitive fatigue framed as commitment
• Slower execution despite increased effort
• Reduced confidence in judgment

Clarity does not reduce rigor. It reduces unnecessary resistance.

Ready to Apply This to Your Own Work?

If this framework resonates, the next step is not more reading. It is diagnosis and application.

At Experimental Designs Consulting, we work with scientific founders, PIs, and technical leaders to translate complex ideas into clear narratives that earn trust, alignment, and momentum.

Book a Clear Path Diagnostic Call: A structured conversation to assess fit and identify the most effective next step. Schedule my Diagnostic Call