The fence that isn’t there: Questioning the constraints that aren’t real
Complexity is tricky enough without us creating extra hurdles, yet we so often accept limitations without a second thought.
In 1961, psychologist Martin Seligman conducted a controversial experiment with dogs.
The animals were placed in a cage with a low barrier separating it into two sections. One area gave them mild electric shocks, the other side offered safety.
But the dogs had been conditioned to believe they couldn’t escape. So, when they were given the chance to leap to freedom, they didn’t. They just endured the pain.
This phenomenon became known as learned helplessness - when we stop trying to change our situation because we assume the constraint is real.
In complex projects, we do this all the time.
We make our lives harder than they need to be.
Some constraints are real, others are self-imposed
Constraints are everywhere in project work - budgets, timelines, regulations, team capacity. But not all constraints are created equal.
Some are structural, fixed and, for the moment, unchangeable.
But others are artefacts of legacy decisions, unspoken agreements, organisational habits, or simply assumptions that were never checked.
We treat them as real, so they become real – inscribed into the plan, the organisational chart, the reporting structure – and we rarely question if they still apply.
The leadership challenge is understanding the difference between real and perceived constraints.
The danger of phantom constraints
These scenarios might ring a bell:
• “We can’t talk to the customer directly, legal won’t allow it.” (… has anyone actually asked legal?)
• “That process is off-limits, it’s owned by another department.” (But no one’s spoken to them in years.)
• “We have to deliver to the plan.” (Even when the world has changed around us.)
Phantom constraints are often more dangerous than the real ones. They limit creativity, stifle progress, and trap teams in false trade-offs. In complexity, where emergence requires flexibility, treating all constraints as fixed is a recipe for failure.
Why we create constraints
There are several reasons why we accept untested constraints:
• Comfort: Boundaries give us structure when things feel uncertain.
• Protection: They give us an excuse not to challenge the status quo.
• Plausible deniability: It is easier to blame something beyond my control
In the long run, these made-up fences cost us momentum, creativity, and trust. They allow the project to stagnate while everyone wonders why it’s so hard to move forward.
How to tell the difference
So how do you distinguish a real constraint from a phantom one?
• Ask: Who says it’s a constraint? Is it written down? Mandated? Or is it simply something everyone assumes to be true?
• Probe gently: “What would happen if we didn’t follow that rule?” If the answer is “I’m not sure” then you might be onto something.
• Look for the origin story: When was this constraint introduced? Is it still relevant? Often, constraints made sense then but not now.
• Experiment: Test the validity of the constraint. Can you run a small trial to see if the constraint holds up? Complexity reveals a lot when probed.
Real constraints bring focus
We can't just get rid of all constraints, because some are essential.
Designers talk about the importance of constraints in being able to create effective solutions. A completely unconstrained environment makes progress virtually impossible. Knowing which constraints are real or not is critical in complex projects.
Because if you’re navigating an uncertain landscape, you need to know which fences you need to go around, and which ones were never really there.
Something to think about
What's one constraint in your current project that you've never really questioned?
If it turned out to be optional, how much easier would things become?
