When everything depends on one person, everything depends on one person
Why hero-culture is a leadership trap
Introduction: The Iron Man Problem
In The Avengers (2012), Tony Stark (Iron Man) is the genius inventor, charismatic leader, the “go-to guy” when things explode. He pulls off miracles, solves crises, gets the applause. On screen it’s thrilling.
But imagine if your organisation ran like that movie, except instead of safe exits and credits rolling, you face real-life absence, turnover, disruption. What happens when Stark is off mission… and no one else knows how to suit up? That’s the business risk of a hero-dependant system.
This isn’t about knocking high-performers. It’s about seeing that when everything depends on one person’s presence, decisions, knowledge and relationships, you don’t have a system. You have a bottleneck. The moment they’re unavailable, everything hangs.
Why this matters
Here’s why the “hero model” matters and why it’s risky:
Organisations where one specialist or leader is the linchpin become fragile. When they’re unavailable, things stop. This is often described as a “single point of failure1”.
In high-change, high-complexity environments (digital transformation, growth, disruption) speed matters. And speed often leads to relying on the one who can do it fastest, reinforcing hero dependency rather than building robustness.
Many companies reward hero behaviour: the fast fix, the person who “saved the day”, rather than the person who built the process to prevent the day needing saving. That tilts the culture toward heroism, not team resilience.
Hidden risk: the metrics often hide the dependency. Dashboards show outputs, not “how sustainable was the result if person X was unavailable?” So the vulnerability remains invisible until absence, turnover or crisis exposes it.
In short: The hero model looks like efficiency. It feels like strength. But what you’re really building is fragility with a nice veneer.
Where hero culture comes from and what the research says
Let’s dig into why organisations drift into hero culture. It’s not just “bad leadership” or “lazy teams”, there are rooted patterns and cognitive, structural forces at play.
Cognitive and social roots
Humans prefer simple stories. We love clear protagonists, clear outcomes. We have a bias called the fundamental attribution error2, where we attribute success to individuals rather than context or systems. So when something went well, we say “X pulled through”, not “the system held up”.
The “hero narrative” is deeply embedded in our culture (see myth-theory, heroism studies).
Organisations amplify this: If someone always steps in, is visible, has results, they get praised and the pattern becomes normalised, even if it’s structurally unsafe.
Organisational and structural enablers
Reward systems often emphasise individual performance over team process. For example, bonuses for “sold this deal” rather than “we built a process so this deal won’t need firefighting next time”.
Visibility bias3: The hero crisis, the late-night fix, the urgent call,… these are visible. Meanwhile, the steady work of mentoring, documenting, cross-training is invisible and un-celebrated.
Growth & complexity push organisations into hero mode: A start-up needs “heroes” to move fast and create new solutions. But if that model persists into scaled operations without process, you have a company built around its heroes rather than its systems.
Silo and “tribal knowledge4” effects: One person holds unique knowledge, others cannot access it, knowledge hoards. A recent review found a correlation between hero-cultures5 and silo mentalities: “Hero-silos” where the hero keeps the knowledge to themselves, weakening cross-team collaboration.
Tribal knowledge (undocumented expertise held by one person) becomes a silent risk factor.
Empirical research findings
A 2022 study in Frontiers in Psychology (Lisak et al.) found that teams with high interdependence rely less on heroic or directive leadership.
A large-scale analysis of open-source projects (Agrawal et al., 2017) showed that while “hero developers” drive short-term speed, they reduce long-term resilience.
And a 2023 systematic review (Molek et al.) found that hero cultures often correlate with weaker collaboration and knowledge sharing across teams
What we see: Hero culture is not about “bad people”, it’s about structural patterns, incentives, psychology. Acknowledging it is the first step to changing it.
How hero culture sneaks in
We’ve introduced the concept, now let’s observe how it actually takes root in organisations (often subtly).
The “go-to person”: A specialist who knows everything, becomes the default.
The “rescue mode”: When things go off track, the hero is tapped. Others see it as normal that only one person can fix things.
The “knowledge moat”: Documentation may be poor, backups sparse, colleagues kept at arm’s length.
The “reward loop”: Successful crisis handled by hero → praise, promotion → more crisis handled by hero → culture reinforces this pattern.
The “growth trap”: As business scales, if you don’t build the next layer, the hero load increases, leaving no capacity for mentoring, hand-over, system building.
Example: A senior engineer is the only one who can deploy a critical platform. No documentation, automation or backups. He goes on leave. Ten people are stuck waiting. That is not expertise, that is exposure.
But the risks go further:
Innovation slows when only one voice dominates. Others don’t experiment.
Team morale drops when others feel “not needed” or ″just backup”.
Burn-out risk for the hero who’s always called in. Knowledge hoarded, no rest.
Culture signals: The message becomes “heroes save us”, not “we solve together”. That creates deeper dependency.
Knowledge silos6, when critical information stays locked inside one team or person, make this even worse.
Recognising the hidden bottlenecks
Hero culture isn’t always loud. Often it hides in silent dependencies. Here are fewer-noticed signals:
One person manages critical customer or vendor relationships alone (no deputy).
Key decisions always route through a single manager, others rarely decide.
Knowledge lives in heads, not documented. Hand-over takes weeks.
Audit trails show most contributions from one person, others are peripheral.
Emergent “urgent fixes” dominate calendar, preventive work is rare.
Metrics like “time to cover absence of key person” are long or undefined.
When the hero is absent, there is no plan B. Projects stop.
If you have to ask who would step in when ‑X‑ is gone, you already have a single point of failure.
What leaders should actually do
We now move into the practical-action zone. These steps help you transition from hero-dependence to resilience7 while retaining high performers.
1. Audit your dependencies
Asking “if person X disappeared tomorrow, what breaks?” is powerful.
Map key processes, decisions, customer relationships, vendor links, documentation gaps.
For each process: Who knows it? Who can step in? How long would ramp-up take?
Use the concept of Single Point of Failure (SPOF) and list them.
2. Structure knowledge flow
Introduce the “two-know rule8”: Every critical task must be understood by at least two people.
Rotate “knowledge-sharing” sessions: Tiny regular slots where team-members present what they know, how they do it, what decisions they make, what dependencies exist.
Make documentation part of the target (not optional).
Encourage peer-reviews, shadowing9 and “teach-back10” formats, where someone explains what they’ve learned to confirm understanding.
3. Rotate roles and share responsibilities
High-performers often stay in their lane because it’s efficient. But efficiency now = fragility later.
Let them pick up a different role, mentor someone else, step back and let someone else lead for a period.
Build “planned absence” drills: Let them step out for a week and test how well the team carries on.
Pair juniors with seniors, shadowing or pairing helps knowledge move through real-world collaboration.
4. Recognise the right behaviours
Shift recognition: Celebrate someone for enabling others, not just for delivering alone.
Introduce metrics: “Number of processes covered by more than one person”, “Time to ramp up substitute for key role”, “Percentage of tasks where more than one person can answer questions”.
Encourage culture of shared ownership: “team delivered” instead of “hero delivered”.
5. Redefine your own leadership role
Ask yourself: “Where am I the bottleneck?” and “Where am I encouraging a hero rather than a system?”
Delegate visibly: lead meetings, give others the chance to lead, hold back the rescue impulse.
Make time for process, coaching, documentation. Yes it may feel slower, but slower building of resilience now means faster recovery later.
Model failure, transparency: Show the team you expect fallibility and build accordingly.
6. Transform the system, not just the behaviours
Review performance measurement: Are you rewarding crisis fixers or process builders? Are you encouraging teaching/training or just doing?
Align incentives: Recognise mentors, knowledge distributors, team enablers.
Review resource allocation: Does your high-performer have time to mentor, document and distribute? Or are they always firefighting?
Embed continuous learning: High-reliability organisations11 emphasise learning from near-misses, not just hero rescues.
7. Introduce change management for culture
Shift language: From “I need a hero” to “We build circuits that work without one”.
Communicate: Let teams know the aim is not to push heroes out, but to build strength into the system.
Pilot: Select one unit or process to apply this change. Then scale.
Monitor: Track progression, gather stories of where resilience improved.
So what’s the better model? Try the Avengers 2.0
By Avengers: Endgame, Tony Stark is powerful, but the final victory isn’t his alone. The team is prepared, roles shift, capabilities overlap and several members can step in when needed. That transition mirrors a resilient organisation.
What does that look like in business terms?
A team where knowledge is shared, decisions are distributed, relationships are cross-owned.
One person’s absence doesn’t halt operations.
High-performers aren’t isolated stars. They are multipliers12 and they raise others.
The system is less about “who we rely on” and more “what we rely on”.
You don’t need a cape. You just need good habits.
Additional dimensions & research insights
To make this article truly comprehensive, here are deeper aspects backed by research:
Relationship & network dependencies
Hero often holds external relationships: one person may be the key link with a customer, vendor or regulatory body. Losing them means losing that bridge.
Organisations with heavily centralised network links are more fragile.
Decision-making load and fatigue
When decisions wait for the hero, there is decision-latency, overload and risk of poor decisions due to fatigue. Research in team dynamics shows that distributed decision-making and high inter-dependence reduce load.
Innovation and growth constraints
A hero-centric team may solve current problems, but built for novelty? Not so good. The study of “hero projects” in software found that as size increased, reliance on heroes rose, but that may limit adaptability.
Burnout and retention issues
Heroes often carry heavy cognitive, social and operational load. Without buffers, burnout risk rises. Recent studies link servant leadership, culture and burnout as significant factors.
Cultural and organisational culture effects
A systemic review found that hero culture often correlates with silo thinking: hero silos => less cross-team knowledge sharing, more internal barriers.
Organisational culture frameworks emphasise knowledge sharing and alignment as predictors of healthy performance.
Getting started without the perfect blueprint
You don’t have to overhaul everything overnight. Here are practical first steps, now with extra depth.
Pick one high-risk process this quarter (if person X is unavailable, we’d know).
Map the process: Who knows it? Who could step in? How long would ramp-up take? Who shares the relationship/customer?
Implement the two-know rule: Identify second person, schedule shadowing, knowledge share session.
Run a team workshop: “If person X were unavailable tomorrow: what happens?” Let candid answer live.
Introduce one recognition shift: At next team meeting, thank someone for “making someone else able to do the work” rather than “solving it yourself”.
After 90 days: Check how many processes now have >2 capable people. How long would it take if X were absent? What changed?
Expand: Build dashboard with metrics: number of SPOFs identified, number of cross-trained people, number of processes with 2+ owners.
Final thoughts
If you walk away with one thought, let it be this: Great leadership isn’t about making someone irreplaceable. It’s about making things replaceable in the best way.
The next time you hear, “We couldn’t do this without X,” pause. Ask: “Why is that still true? What would change if X were unavailable tomorrow? Who else can step in? What would prevent us from being stuck?”
Resilient organisations don’t depend on heroes. They build habits, systems and networks. They prepare so when key people are out, the mission continues with no dramatic last-minute rescue.
Because if you have to depend on a guy in a suit to strap on the armour, you’re already building the wrong model. Build like the late-game Avengers instead.
Further reading
Molek, N., de Jager J.E. & Pucelj, M.: Hero Culture and Silo Mentality: a Systematic Literature Review (2023)
Weick, K & Sutcliffe K.: Managing the Unexpected - Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty (2007)
Agrawal A, Rahman A., Krishna R., Sobran A. & Menzies T.: We Don’t Need Another Hero? The Impact of “Heroes” on Software Development (2017)
Lisak A, Harush R., Icekson T. & Harel S.: Team Interdependence as a Substitute for Empowering Leadership Contribution to Team Meaningfulness and Performance (2022)
Project Management.com: 3 Tips for Avoiding the Single Point of Failure.
Glossary
Single Point of Failure (SPOF): A critical dependency on one person or component. If that person is unavailable or that system fails, everything stops. Common in IT, dangerous in organisations.
Fundamental Attribution Error: A thinking bias where we credit individuals for outcomes, even when success came from the team, the system or circumstances. Example: “She saved the project!” Maybe, but how much was process?
Visibility Bias: We reward what we can see. The late-night fix gets applause. The quiet prevention work doesn’t. That skews what we value and what gets repeated.
Tribal Knowledge: Informal, undocumented know-how that lives in people’s heads. Often vital, but if only one person knows how things really work, it becomes a liability.
Hero Culture: A workplace culture that celebrates individuals who repeatedly “save the day.” Sounds good, but it often hides risky dependencies, burns people out and discourages shared responsibility.
Knowledge Silos: When information stays locked in a person, team or function. Unintentional hoarding, often due to time pressure or lack of handover, creates fragility.
Resilience (Organisational): The ability to absorb disruptions and bounce back without chaos. It’s not about perfection, it’s about readiness, adaptability and strong habits.
Two-Know Rule: An internal rule: no critical process should be known by just one person. Simple. Effective. Makes your organisation less fragile.
Shadowing / Pairing: Ways to learn by doing. Shadowing means following and observing, pairing means working side-by-side. Both help knowledge move from head to system.
Teach-Back: A method where someone explains what they’ve learned to someone else. It tests understanding, helps retain knowledge and spreads clarity fast.
High-Reliability Organisation (HRO): Organisations (like aviation, nuclear, healthcare) that perform under pressure and still avoid major failure. They invest in redundancy, shared knowledge and early-warning habits, not just individual expertise.
Multiplier: A person who doesn’t just perform well but helps others perform better. They teach, delegate and build systems, so the whole team grows stronger.
Wow. This article is very deep and well-researched.
My biggest insights/takeaways:
1. It's a culture issue (and there are many factors that create a tendency for this to happen, some of which are based in human nature)
2. I liked how you used the Tony Stark metaphor. A good metaphor can do a lot for bringing an idea to life.
To be honest this was a bit too deep for me personally. I'm not currently in a team leadership position, if you don't count parenting. But I ghostwrite and this is a very relevant topic for one (maybe two) of my clients. I'll get their perspective on this and when I engage with this topic again, I'll re-read your article.
Great work.
PS: It's also a great example of how something that might seem "great" on the surface has actually a lot of negative side-effects in the long-term. To me, leadership is really about seeing the long-term implications of current choices or dynamics. Then to get people on board who do not have this awareness (for whatever reason) and to get them personally involved (in terms of how it affects their own vision, direct experience and thus their motivation).