Success To the Successful
Date Published
Have you ever noticed that the same individuals in a team are repeatedly assigned the most complex tasks? It might seem like a logical decision - after all, they have the most experience. But what if this pattern isn’t just a matter of efficiency? What if it’s a systemic loop that’s quietly creating fragility in your team?
Check this conversation:
Manager: “Hey team, we’ve got a new type of request to handle. It’s not extremely urgent, but I need someone really experienced to take care of it.”
Team Member: “Why does it need to be an experienced person?”
Manager: “Because it’s new. We need to support the architects, and it’ll be a recurring request.”
Team Member: “Couldn’t we have a less experienced person take it on with some support?”
Manager: “That’s not efficient or effective. Just trust me—I need an experienced engineer.”
The decision seems reasonable. The most skilled/experienced person will likely complete the task faster and with higher quality - sometimes that is the only way to handle an urgent request, but if it becomes a habit, let’s check for another recurring pattern.
A project is ongoing, and people are gradually building knowledge around it. However, there’s one particularly complex area where only a single person has deep expertise. Each time a new task arises in that domain, it goes to this person. Another similar task follows - and again, it lands on the same individual. Why so?
You may probably hear the following reasoning: “They’re the only ones who really know how to do this.” “Onboarding someone else would take too long.” “We’re on a tight deadline - we can’t afford mistakes.”
Sounds familiar? It is a systemic pattern known as “Success to the Successful” in Systems Thinking.
The Success to the Successful archetype describes a reinforcing feedback loop in which an early advantage leads to disproportionate success, creating an increasing gap between those who are thriving and those who are struggling to catch up.
Imagine two students, two products, or two teams that start with a slight difference in success. Maybe one team had better initial training, or simply a bit more management attention. Because they deliver slightly better results, they receive more resources: more funding, better opportunities, more support.
More resources lead to even better results, which in turn justifies allocating even more resources to them. Meanwhile, another group struggles with fewer resources, fewer opportunities, and without an opportunity to learn. Over time, the gap widens, making it almost impossible for the disadvantaged group to catch up.
How is it reflected in our working environment?
The highly skilled or more experienced individual keeps getting complex tasks, growing even more competent while the rest of the team remains dependent.
The less experienced team members are left without opportunities to develop and learn as “they are not yet ready for such tasks”.
The organization loses - if the expert leaves, the team faces a knowledge gap and significant risk.
What are the possible long-term issues of such an approach apart from those already mentioned?
Burnout for the “successful” individuals – the more they succeed, the more they’re relied upon, and the pressure around them grows.
Stagnation for the rest of the team – others don’t get hands-on learning experiences, limiting their growth and engagement.
Loss of resilience in the organization – if key individuals leave, they take critical expertise with them.
How to break the cycle even if someone might call it inefficient?
The steps are obvious, still we often forget or deprioritize them for quick short-time wins. What I would advise to start from is:
Assign smaller, low-risk parts of the task to less experienced team members, let them take ownership - pair them with a mentor to ensure the support
Document key learnings so that others can quickly catch up in the future
Prioritize knowledge sharing and stop hiding behind busyness and overload. Think what happens if this person takes a leave of absence?
When you say efficient or effective, check what these words really mean: a system that prioritizes short-term speed over long-term adaptability is not efficient - it’s fragile.
The hardest, to my mind, is changing the culture - team performance must be valued over individual expertise (hello to those who still count Jira tasks or story points per person)
Take a moment to reflect: is your team unknowingly reinforcing a Success to the Successful loop? If so, what small changes could you introduce to shift toward a more balanced, resilient system?
Maybe you have already overcome this pattern with your team or in your organization - How did you handle it? What was helpful?
Let’s continue the conversation - drop your thoughts in the comments! I would love to hear both successful stories and those which we call learnings :)