I almost made a quote graphic for that line because it's the essence of the entire piece for me. I walked away from the highest paying job I ever had because the CEO refused to be a grown up and wanted to play business instead. The women who worked there (while all kind and meant well) got pretty much nothing done, ever. It was brutal. No amount of money was worth what that was costing me in inner peace. I just wasn't built to sit around and pretend to be productive.
I'm in the process of blowing my life up to do the same. It feels like every time I try and do something "outside my lane" I get penalized for it or shamed for it. Despite everything I've done being to help others at my office. It's resulted in me literally sitting doing nothing for the past couple of months, because I'm tired of being punished for trying to be productive.
The processes at my office are twisted and largely "vibes" because nobody writes anything down. And when they do it's categorized to the Nth degree such that you need a doctoral thesis in law - great for the attorneys that run the firm and horrible for the rest of us.
Nope, still just me! I think wild bare thoughts was the brand I built bc I was afraid to use this new name. I’m trying to fully embrace myself… so this is just me doing that I suppose. It’s only aesthetic though :)
My god, this resonated a lot. You verbalized what has been thoughts and feelings inside me for years. The whole bit about narcissism brought me to tears. Thank you for writing this. I absolutely loved it.
The article resonated so deeply with me! My whole life, I’ve felt annoying to be honest. Like I’m “too much.” When I was young for making new rules to old games. In college for asking tough questions and being critical when participating in group projects. I could list a million stories. But now that I am older I have found this to be one of my best attributes (especially at work)! My high agency has lead to me to raise awareness to important issues and creative problem solving.
It’s tough to go against the grain but diversity of thought is so important!
As many others have pointed out, there’s a lot of praise-worthy social and workplace diagnostics going on here, which is laudable. So instead of reiterating what’s already been said about the strength and clarity of your argument, I’ll point out one area I kept waiting to see addressed—but which never fully arrived: the problem of competency.
Your theories of high-agency people seem to assume that the high-agency individual in question is competent. And that works beautifully when the high-agency individual is competent. But, sadly, some high-agency people are not. They act on initiative even when they lack the skill to achieve an optimal outcome—or worse, they mistakenly believe their outcome is desirable for everyone, whether others agree or not.
The way you’ve laid it out, it can almost seem as though high agency produces competence, or that true competence naturally leads to high agency. But as Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” A high-agency individual may believe they’re competent and push initiatives through by sheer force of will—but if competence isn’t fueling that self-determination, high-agency behavior can lead an enterprise to ruin.
You write from a perspective where competence is implied, and to be clear, I’m not calling yours into question. Still, some readers who may feel emboldened to assert their will in the workplace might do well to take stock of their bona fides first and ask themselves a pragmatic question: “I may be high-agency—but am I also high-quality?” One doesn’t automatically entail the other, and if someone’s initiative outpaces their skill, what they perceive as leadership may read to others as empty self-assurance.
Your distinction between agency and narcissism is an important one, since it introduces the idea that if one is truly high-agency, then it will include the ability to self-correct. But that self-awareness—honest self-evaluation and reflection—isn’t always achievable. Everyone has a blind spot.
Finally, high-agency people have their part to play, but it’s worth acknowledging that low-agency people shouldn’t be slighted. As the saying goes, “Behind every strong boss are legions of toiling underlings who bring the vision into reality.” Which raises an interesting systems question: what’s the proper ratio of agency in a functional organization? Two low-agency contributors for every high-agency director? Three to one? Four to one? There’s no formula, of course, but the broader point stands—any thriving system requires a mix of agency levels.
For every person who stands up to chart a course toward a bright and dynamic future, there must be a cadre of capable, less showy executors who can actually build it. Pharaoh may have been a high-agency leader who envisioned the pyramids, but today we credit their construction less to the Pharaoh who commissioned them and more to the thousands of laborers who carried it out—and they relied on "the script" to make it happen.
I appreciate this long and thoughtful comment, Zeighmn. I do believe I covered all of that in the section about narcissists, though. Maybe I'm not fully grasping what the disconnect is for you? But to me, being competent means you can take action, do what needs to be done, admit when you don't know something or were wrong, and update your priors when needed. Which again, I think was covered in the narcissists section—but please lmk if I don't have that right.
I do truly appreciate you reading and the feedback, and I genuinely want to understand where you're coming from and what I may have missed :)
Thanks for your reply – and perhaps you’re right that I’m searching for elaboration on something that was sufficiently addressed in the piece. I always have to be careful to *see what is there*.
But since you asked, I’ll push a little farther just to say that while you do mention competence, it was less clear to me how it’s scaled in priority to high agency. In other words, I gathered that high agency, in and of itself, is a desirable trait for activated individuals — but that competence seemed almost an afterthought, as though high agency would lead to competence somehow.
You do caution against narcissism, but I can see how high agency and narcissism are more closely aligned as natural byproducts of each other than high agency and competence are. I think it might be far more common for someone to be narcissistic and high-agency than it would be for someone to be competent and high-agency. I have no data to back that up, just a gut feeling.
From a re-reading, I come away with the impression that self-moderating competence — and recognizing it as such compared to narcissism and incompetence — *must be innate*. A high-agency individual has to be aware that their agency is fueled by competence and not by narcissism, though it’s still unclear to me how anyone can be certain, especially when their competence is inevitably called into question — and increasingly so if group commitment to a cause is floundering.
*Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong.*
I’ll reiterate that my goal is to provoke some discussion around what I found to be a well-conceived and confidently delivered piece.
I’d also add that what you describe as “annoyance” in your article is a particular favorite wrinkle of thought for me. I’ve found that colleagues sometimes withdraw from assignments not because they disagree with the goal, but because when they hear their own voices carrying out action items, they become self-conscious about their authority — as though they hear themselves being effective and retreat into mediocrity because they can’t risk believing they might actually be able to solve a problem. My advice to them has often literally been to *be annoying*.
*Do what needs to be done, say what needs to be said — even if it is annoying. The worst that can happen is rejection, which will happen anyway, even if you refused to be obnoxious about it.*
All this to say, success should be a little bit obnoxious — though the results speak for themselves.
So, thanks again for your response and patient consideration. I genuinely appreciate the piece. To me, what you describe is self-assuredness — and perhaps where I get tripped up is in what that assuredness is rooted in: where you’re, I think, granting it as *a prerequisite to agency*.
What I’m looking for might very well have been expressed in the idea that immediately preceded the beginning of this one.
i think it’s beautiful that high agency people actually care, and they let everyone know it without fear of people pleasing. it’s easy to resolve to being passive or “chill”, like you’re to cool to care. but they actually make waves instead of checking out. i’ll admit i can waver between both. still working on it! but this piece lights a fire inside.
i remember when i was in college a girl who sat in front of me turned around in her desk while i was working on something, or getting out an assignment that was due (don’t entirely remember) and she smiled slyly and said “oh my god, you actually do your homework?”… i just stared at her dumbfounded but i should’ve said “why are you here?.. this isn’t high school. you’re literally choosing to be here.” lol, i don’t know, your piece here just made me think of that moment.
What an incredible piece. High, wide, and deep. Nothing untouched. Craftwork.
Makeover is tremendous too!
Thanks so much, Richie! I was afraid the rebrand might scare some of the men off—thinking it was some “girl boss” energy or something (it’s not!) 🙈
This: "I got tired of the tax on my time and energy that came from having to manage everyone else’s feelings about my competence."
Perfectly sums up how I've felt for years and why I've finally had enough.
I almost made a quote graphic for that line because it's the essence of the entire piece for me. I walked away from the highest paying job I ever had because the CEO refused to be a grown up and wanted to play business instead. The women who worked there (while all kind and meant well) got pretty much nothing done, ever. It was brutal. No amount of money was worth what that was costing me in inner peace. I just wasn't built to sit around and pretend to be productive.
I'm in the process of blowing my life up to do the same. It feels like every time I try and do something "outside my lane" I get penalized for it or shamed for it. Despite everything I've done being to help others at my office. It's resulted in me literally sitting doing nothing for the past couple of months, because I'm tired of being punished for trying to be productive.
The processes at my office are twisted and largely "vibes" because nobody writes anything down. And when they do it's categorized to the Nth degree such that you need a doctoral thesis in law - great for the attorneys that run the firm and horrible for the rest of us.
This resonated hard. And I didn't even read the whole damn thing. Fuck yeah!
Overachiever 😅
Shared it on LinkedIn, didn't tag you because it looked like you don't care about LinkedIn anyway: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/icanautomate_high-agency-people-are-annoying-thats-the-activity-7388858195055665152-yvY-
Great read and love the rebrand!
Thanks so much, Byron! I was hoping it wouldn't be off-putting to male readers, so your feedback is reassuring—I appreciate it :)
I read the whole damn thing -- and brava! Going to be my guide on how to question that annoying 'this is just how things are!'.
Whenever I hear a version of that phrase, I know something needs to be changed 😆
“We always do it like this” is even worse 😣
So glad to see the rebranding hasn’t changed anything about the core! Amazing article, stimulating and encouraging!
Nope, still just me! I think wild bare thoughts was the brand I built bc I was afraid to use this new name. I’m trying to fully embrace myself… so this is just me doing that I suppose. It’s only aesthetic though :)
Better “just me” than “just someone else”! Glad we’ll get to know more about your views, keep going unapologetically!
Thanks, Claudia!
My god, this resonated a lot. You verbalized what has been thoughts and feelings inside me for years. The whole bit about narcissism brought me to tears. Thank you for writing this. I absolutely loved it.
The article resonated so deeply with me! My whole life, I’ve felt annoying to be honest. Like I’m “too much.” When I was young for making new rules to old games. In college for asking tough questions and being critical when participating in group projects. I could list a million stories. But now that I am older I have found this to be one of my best attributes (especially at work)! My high agency has lead to me to raise awareness to important issues and creative problem solving.
It’s tough to go against the grain but diversity of thought is so important!
I love this piece.
This is very, very good. Thank you.
First post!
Most people are sheep. You're not. Welcome to the wolves. :)
As many others have pointed out, there’s a lot of praise-worthy social and workplace diagnostics going on here, which is laudable. So instead of reiterating what’s already been said about the strength and clarity of your argument, I’ll point out one area I kept waiting to see addressed—but which never fully arrived: the problem of competency.
Your theories of high-agency people seem to assume that the high-agency individual in question is competent. And that works beautifully when the high-agency individual is competent. But, sadly, some high-agency people are not. They act on initiative even when they lack the skill to achieve an optimal outcome—or worse, they mistakenly believe their outcome is desirable for everyone, whether others agree or not.
The way you’ve laid it out, it can almost seem as though high agency produces competence, or that true competence naturally leads to high agency. But as Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” A high-agency individual may believe they’re competent and push initiatives through by sheer force of will—but if competence isn’t fueling that self-determination, high-agency behavior can lead an enterprise to ruin.
You write from a perspective where competence is implied, and to be clear, I’m not calling yours into question. Still, some readers who may feel emboldened to assert their will in the workplace might do well to take stock of their bona fides first and ask themselves a pragmatic question: “I may be high-agency—but am I also high-quality?” One doesn’t automatically entail the other, and if someone’s initiative outpaces their skill, what they perceive as leadership may read to others as empty self-assurance.
Your distinction between agency and narcissism is an important one, since it introduces the idea that if one is truly high-agency, then it will include the ability to self-correct. But that self-awareness—honest self-evaluation and reflection—isn’t always achievable. Everyone has a blind spot.
Finally, high-agency people have their part to play, but it’s worth acknowledging that low-agency people shouldn’t be slighted. As the saying goes, “Behind every strong boss are legions of toiling underlings who bring the vision into reality.” Which raises an interesting systems question: what’s the proper ratio of agency in a functional organization? Two low-agency contributors for every high-agency director? Three to one? Four to one? There’s no formula, of course, but the broader point stands—any thriving system requires a mix of agency levels.
For every person who stands up to chart a course toward a bright and dynamic future, there must be a cadre of capable, less showy executors who can actually build it. Pharaoh may have been a high-agency leader who envisioned the pyramids, but today we credit their construction less to the Pharaoh who commissioned them and more to the thousands of laborers who carried it out—and they relied on "the script" to make it happen.
I appreciate this long and thoughtful comment, Zeighmn. I do believe I covered all of that in the section about narcissists, though. Maybe I'm not fully grasping what the disconnect is for you? But to me, being competent means you can take action, do what needs to be done, admit when you don't know something or were wrong, and update your priors when needed. Which again, I think was covered in the narcissists section—but please lmk if I don't have that right.
I do truly appreciate you reading and the feedback, and I genuinely want to understand where you're coming from and what I may have missed :)
Thanks for your reply – and perhaps you’re right that I’m searching for elaboration on something that was sufficiently addressed in the piece. I always have to be careful to *see what is there*.
But since you asked, I’ll push a little farther just to say that while you do mention competence, it was less clear to me how it’s scaled in priority to high agency. In other words, I gathered that high agency, in and of itself, is a desirable trait for activated individuals — but that competence seemed almost an afterthought, as though high agency would lead to competence somehow.
You do caution against narcissism, but I can see how high agency and narcissism are more closely aligned as natural byproducts of each other than high agency and competence are. I think it might be far more common for someone to be narcissistic and high-agency than it would be for someone to be competent and high-agency. I have no data to back that up, just a gut feeling.
From a re-reading, I come away with the impression that self-moderating competence — and recognizing it as such compared to narcissism and incompetence — *must be innate*. A high-agency individual has to be aware that their agency is fueled by competence and not by narcissism, though it’s still unclear to me how anyone can be certain, especially when their competence is inevitably called into question — and increasingly so if group commitment to a cause is floundering.
*Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong.*
I’ll reiterate that my goal is to provoke some discussion around what I found to be a well-conceived and confidently delivered piece.
I’d also add that what you describe as “annoyance” in your article is a particular favorite wrinkle of thought for me. I’ve found that colleagues sometimes withdraw from assignments not because they disagree with the goal, but because when they hear their own voices carrying out action items, they become self-conscious about their authority — as though they hear themselves being effective and retreat into mediocrity because they can’t risk believing they might actually be able to solve a problem. My advice to them has often literally been to *be annoying*.
*Do what needs to be done, say what needs to be said — even if it is annoying. The worst that can happen is rejection, which will happen anyway, even if you refused to be obnoxious about it.*
All this to say, success should be a little bit obnoxious — though the results speak for themselves.
So, thanks again for your response and patient consideration. I genuinely appreciate the piece. To me, what you describe is self-assuredness — and perhaps where I get tripped up is in what that assuredness is rooted in: where you’re, I think, granting it as *a prerequisite to agency*.
What I’m looking for might very well have been expressed in the idea that immediately preceded the beginning of this one.
i think it’s beautiful that high agency people actually care, and they let everyone know it without fear of people pleasing. it’s easy to resolve to being passive or “chill”, like you’re to cool to care. but they actually make waves instead of checking out. i’ll admit i can waver between both. still working on it! but this piece lights a fire inside.
i remember when i was in college a girl who sat in front of me turned around in her desk while i was working on something, or getting out an assignment that was due (don’t entirely remember) and she smiled slyly and said “oh my god, you actually do your homework?”… i just stared at her dumbfounded but i should’ve said “why are you here?.. this isn’t high school. you’re literally choosing to be here.” lol, i don’t know, your piece here just made me think of that moment.
New sub and this is the first post I get? I'm hooked!