When does optimization turn into stagnation? (Q&A)

[Bryan]

We’re jumping into @ian_batterbee’s article today, When innovation gets stuck: Apple, Tesla, and the path fixation trap. He argues that innovation breaks down when teams keep refining what worked before instead of questioning the path they are on. Real progress comes from balancing improvement with exploration.

The idea of path fixation shows up when teams cling to familiar processes, metrics, or products out of comfort, fear, or pressure, even when the market has changed. We’ve all been there, so this resonates with me.

He uses Apple and Tesla as contrasting examples. Apple focuses on steady refinement. Products improve year over year, but mostly along the same track. This brings stability and short-term wins, but it can also lead to boredom, missed opportunities, and a slow loss of relevance. Small tweaks start to replace meaningful change.

Tesla, by contrast, refines existing products while also pushing into new territory. The point is not to copy either company, but to notice when teams measure progress by what is easiest instead of what actually matters.

You start to see path fixation when teams keep optimizing, stick too tightly to the roadmap, and ship features just to ship them.

Let’s jump into the discussion

I like Ian’s suggestion for breaking out of it… teams need to ask harder questions, explore multiple futures, challenge assumptions, and stay open to changing direction.

Innovation comes from balancing refinement with exploration, and from planting new seeds instead of endlessly trimming the same plant.

Here’s the big question:

What signals tell you your team is stuck on the wrong path?

Let’s explore path fixation with Ian Batterbee! Ian is a featured Helio author and a guest on Glaringly Obvious. Excited to jump into the topic.

[Bryan]

It’s great chat with you today @ian_batterbee! You’re a deep thinker and bring new perspectives to a lot of topics that designers and product peeps need to know about. I love it.

This idea of path fixation really affects even the smallest teams. What got you thinking about it?

[ian_batterbee]

Hi @bryan, thanks for inviting me to the forum! I’ve been looking forward to this.

Great question.

Path fixation has been on my mind for a long time. It was something I was aware of when working in different product teams, but I didn’t know how to articulate it back then.

Now, as I explore the problems in organisational culture, I can see that teams focusing on limited ideas or vague metrics are characteristics of a behaviour called path fixation.

It’s also a pattern I’ve recognised in books, such as Managing Uncertainty and Destructive Goal Pursuit – great books BTW.

So now, ironically, I’ve become very fixated on path fixation as a cultural behaviour.

[Bryan]

@ian_batterbee

Now, as I explore the problems in organisational culture, I can see that path fixation has been one of the primary causes for teams focusing on limited ideas or vague metrics.

I’ve experienced this quite a bit myself, as it’s one of the reason’s people hire ZURB- they’re trying to get unstuck. Organizations (spelled the right way on this side of the pond) often suffer from group think. I tell my team organizations are dumb, people are smart.

What are the signs that design and product leaders should be looking for to stop this from happening- it’s tricky no? There’s not an exact time where you can point to… or can you?

[ian_batterbee]

Absolutely! Groupthink is a common pattern in path fixation – and yes, that makes organisations dumb. You’re right, people are smart. But without independent autonomy, they can’t make decisions, and therefore become overly dependent on leadership or system rules.

Spotting the signs is tricky, but once you know how and where to identify them, it should become more ingrained in the team’s culture and ways of working.

So first, there are the obvious signs: increased focus on the same metrics while outcomes worsen. Investment in ideas, goals, or tasks without understanding the purpose – the why.

Confusion, difficulty in making decisions, and the feeling of “being stuck” are the red flags.

Then, there are quieter signs: teams seem to be following the ideal process, but when they step back, they realise they’re working on the wrong problem or that the overarching strategy doesn’t align with their customers or market. Leaders might also notice that learning slows, which then leads to errors compounding.

There’s no direct resolution, as it’s a deep-rooted, multi-layered fixed mindset.

[Bryan]

@ian_batterbee

So first, there are the obvious signs: increased focus on the same metrics while outcomes worsen. Investment in ideas, goals, or tasks without understanding the purpose – the why.

This is the argument we use with design and product teams to convince them to use UX metrics at a conceptual level. It keeps them continually focused on the decisions at hand.

There’s no direct resolution, as it’s a deep-rooted, multi-layered fixed mindset.

So, what causes teams to stay on a failing path despite warning signs?

[ian_batterbee]

I agree. UX metrics encourage learning. By learning, we acquire new information about changing conditions, such as customer behaviour. That insight is gold. Without it, we can’t adapt. Then, we lock onto a narrow path.

Teams stay on failing paths for multiple reasons.

Many problems stem from inexperience in teams and leadership. They believe they’re taking the right approach, yet they’re more focused on performance than learning.

Then, there’s the lack of psychological safety. People don’t challenge ideas out of fear. Leaders might overlook or dismiss feedback as they’re under pressure to deliver. And then there’s overconfidence based on past success – it’s the “it worked before” argument.

The one thing that always locks teams onto the same path is when they rationalise their decisions with internal logic. But that logic is rigid. So, interestingly, it’s not just emotion that drives the path fixation behaviour, it’s also logic.

[Bryan]

@ian_batterbee

Then, there’s the lack of psychological safety. People don’t challenge ideas out of fear. Leaders might overlook or dismiss feedback as they’re under pressure to deliver. And then there’s overconfidence based on past success – it’s the “it worked before” argument.

Antifragility is hard concept, as your organization has to be tough enough to get to the truth, but also be encouraged to dive into the fire when things are going so well.

How do power dynamics make it harder to challenge the path?

[ian_batterbee]

I’m reframing your meme to: “This [path] is fine”

@Bryan

How do power dynamics make it harder to challenge the path?

Good question. We can recognise the signs – or the fire – but we still need to navigate the power dynamics to address them.

We know that authority – and gatekeeping – can concentrate or restrict decision-making. If teams can’t make decisions independently, then they’ll continue down the same path. (Or sit and watch the flames around them in despair.)

The lack of inclusion also makes it harder to challenge the path. Conventional leadership will tell teams what goal to reach, rather than show them the means to achieve it. That’s when designers, researchers, engineers – people crucial to the process – become locked out of roadmapping, planning, and other strategic methods.

But when leadership foster inclusion and psychological safety, people can freely participate, offering fresh perspectives and challenging ideas and assumptions.

[Bryan]

@ian_batterbee

Conventional leadership will tell teams what goal to reach, rather than show them the means to achieve it. That’s when designers, researchers, engineers – people crucial to the process – become locked out of roadmapping, planning, and other strategic methods.

How do you feel this should work?

[ian_batterbee]

As with any environment – like airline crews and medical teams – learning and inclusion are key.

Product teams are obviously different since the stakes are lower (usually), but allowing information to flow freely is vital to making the strategies work – and correct course if needed.

There are already different frameworks teams can adopt, such as Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning and the TArT approach. But before we shop around for the appropriate tools or methods, we need leadership to work with their teams to shift to a more future-focused mindset, which involves:

• Asking questions
• Challenging ideas
• Exploring the terrain
• Balancing perspectives
• Adapting to changing conditions

That’s quite a lot to cover overnight, so teams should turn these behaviours into habits. When leadership encourage these behaviours, they should begin to recognise how to bring more people into the conversations where decisions are discussed or made.

It’s a gradual process that requires time and refinement.

[Bryan]

@ian_batterbee

Experiential Learning and the TArT approach. But before we shop around for the appropriate tools or methods, we need leadership to work with their teams to shift to a more future-focused mindset, which involves:

Love this. Mindset.

Awesome conversation and so much good stuff to lean into @ian_batterbee. I want to thank you for answering my questions! We’ll keep it open for others to join the conversation.

[EricZ]

@ian_batterbee

I agree. UX metrics encourage learning. By learning, we acquire new information about changing conditions, such as customer behaviour. That insight is gold. Without it, we can’t adapt. Then, we lock onto a narrow path.

This really resonates. I think an unspoken rule of customer behavior is that novelty is a requirement. That means that locking in on a path of optimization and consistency will often result in diminishing returns. Targeting that north-star will eventually just pull you in circles in Santa’s Village.

Without being ‘reactive’, curiosity can pull teams into seeing the larger picture and avoid a rigid decline.

[ben]

Great article and responses @ian_batterbee

@ian_batterbee

Path fixation has been on my mind for a long time. It was something I was aware of when working in different product teams, but I didn’t know how to articulate it back then.

I was curious, when did path fixation become a thing that you felt like you should focus on? Was there an “AHA” moment?

[ian_batterbee]

Thanks, @Bryan I’ve really enjoyed the conversation. Great questions, too.

I’d love to hear how path fixation resonates with others and how they might address it. I’ll keep popping in to see how the conversation develops.

Thanks again.

[ian_batterbee]

@EricZ

Targeting that north-star will eventually just pull you in circles in Santa’s Village.

That made me laugh – what a line!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate them.

You’re absolutely on point – it’s an optimisation trap so many teams fall into. I’ve seen teams try to A/B test or MVT their way to success, but it was like watching a dog chase its own tail. Without curiosity, they rarely explored the terrain to see the larger picture.

[ian_batterbee]

Thanks @ben – much appreciated.

The concept came to life during my book’s discovery phase. I wanted to understand what holds teams, organisations, and even societies back from realising value. The combination of personal experiences and research in books, articles, and speaking with others led me to frame one of the several critical behaviours as path fixation. While it echoes other concepts like Freudian, path dependency, and goalodicy (D. Christopher Kayes), I see it being much broader.

Thanks again.

[Bryan]

@ian_batterbee

we need leadership to work with their teams to shift to a more future-focused mindset, which involves:

• Asking questions
• Challenging ideas
• Exploring the terrain
• Balancing perspectives
• Adapting to changing conditions

That’s quite a lot to cover overnight, so teams should turn these behaviours into habits. When leadership encourage these behaviours, they should begin to recognise how to bring more people into the conversations where decisions are discussed or made.

This is great @ian_batterbee. As the framework guy, my first question is, do you have a framework?

[ian_batterbee]

Short answer: No, not quite.

Long answer: Get ready…

I’m actually dubious about the term “framework,” because a lot of people take it as absolute truth – another path fixation trait. Take Agile, Lean, and MVP, for example. Teams often commit to these frameworks to measure success through short-term movement rather than long-term relevance. I’m not criticising these methods; I’m simply explaining that people misuse them for quick wins and faster delivery.

In otherwords, when teams seek frameworks, they want solutions. That’s understandable. Even though a framework appears to work, teams continue to stick to it even as the conditions change. And that brings me to a vital point I haven’t explicitly expressed.

Time is a critical path fixation dimension. When teams commit to a framework, they repeat familiar decisions, which ultimately leads them down a “death spiral.” Dramatic, I know.

So, my point is that when choosing a framework, we must be careful not to overcommit to it or treat it as the Holy Grail.

However, I do have a very rough process, which I foresee as being a set of thinking tools:

Recognise > Measure > Address > Sustain/Adapt.

1. Start by recognising path fixation as a behaviour within your system (people, objects, processes, beliefs, constraints, power dynamics, goals/metrics, rules)
2. Measure the patterns/signals (cause and effect chains, frequency, failures, errors, mistakes, losses, costs, sentiment)
3. Address the patterns (DON’T GO ALONE – who else can help? Find existing “change makers” – who already question and challenge. Who can help navigate the power dynamics and rules? Find ways to turn learning into action. Turn each action into ongoing habits)
4. Sustain/Adapt by keeping learning alive through inclusion and reciprocity. Even question the very thinking tools

Sure, we could call it a framework, but I’d rather call it a system of habits which keep the learning experience alive while making performance (goals, metrics) relevant.

Whatever framework you use to address path fixation, make it organic, not concrete.

[Bryan]

@ian_batterbee

I’m actually dubious about the term “framework,” because a lot of people take it as absolute truth – another path fixation trait. Take Agile, Lean, and MVP, for example.

Haha, good point. Frameworks for me are conversation starters. They should be a toolbox of useful sequences and patterns. A toolbox with some practical tools and others specific to the owner. Not prescribed process.

“System of habits” is great, love that.