High Agency is the ability to bend reality to your will. The refusal to accept a “that’s not possible” or “we’ve never done it that way”. The term comes from the tech and startup world and describes people who see obstacles not as stop signs, but as detours. The opposite, Low Agency, describes people who manage problems instead of solving them. The difference between the two is the difference between someone who starts and someone who documents.
What does High Agency mean?
High Agency is not a technique, a method, or a framework. It is an attitude.
People with High Agency see obstacles not as stop signs but as detours. They do not spend weeks asking for permission. They start with what is there, figure out what works, and adjust along the way.
The classic image: if the door is locked, someone with High Agency climbs through the window. If the window is bolted, they dig a tunnel. And if that does not work either, they build a new house with a different door.
High Agency does not mean recklessness or cowboy mentality. It means taking responsibility for the outcome, not the process.
What else is it called?
High Agency goes by many names. In American business culture it is called "bias for action", "self-starter" or "ownership mentality". Amazon has made "bias for action" an official Leadership Principle. Others call it a builder mindset, execution mindset or simply a can-do attitude. Different words, same principle: someone who does not wait for someone else to start.
What does Low Agency mean?
Low Agency is the opposite. And anyone who has spent a few years in larger organisations or in classic consulting knows this mode very well.
People with Low Agency see obstacles as obstacles. They wait for approvals. They document problems thoroughly. They follow processes, even when those processes lead nowhere.
The most telling sign: someone with Low Agency can always explain exactly why something was not possible. The responsibility lay elsewhere. The process did not allow it. The budget was not approved. That sounds plausible. It is still surrender to the obstacle and won't solve the issue.
Where does the term come from?
The term was largely shaped by Eric Weinstein, mathematician and Managing Director of Thiel Capital, who used it in the context of people who can actually change the world. George Mack, author and investor, popularised it in the tech and startup world in recent years and described it as the most important quality you can have in an employee or partner.
The idea behind it is not new. What is new is that it has a name. And with that, something becomes visible that was previously described vaguely as “own initiative” or “entrepreneurial thinking”.
Low Agency: The face of the modern consulting problem
Low Agency looks like this: the problem is known. Everyone knows it. And still nothing happens.
Instead the problem gets managed. There is a meeting to discuss the problem. Then a follow-up meeting to structure the findings from the first meeting. Then a presentation about the problem, 200 pages, with benchmark comparisons and best practice recommendations from the industry.
And at the end, when still nothing has happened, comes the sentence that sums it all up: “Unfortunately the process did not allow for it.”
That is Low Agency in its purest form. The problem is not missing intelligence or missing will. The problem is the fundamental belief that obstacles are obstacles. Not detours.
The tech world has a name for it. We have two.
The tech world calls it High Agency. We call it MacGyver meets Chuck Norris.
- MacGyver: creative problem solving with what is there. No complaining about missing resources. Always finding a way out.
- Chuck Norris: no excuses. It gets done. Not documented, done.
That is our default mode. Not a self-image, not a marketing statement. Simply the way we work.
When we come into a company, we do not spend six weeks asking for access and approvals. We look at what is broken, clarify who can make the decisions, and start. Shadow IT that has built up over years? Data silos nobody touches because it seems too complex? Systems running past each other? These are not insurmountable problems. These are tunnels that have not been dug yet.
Why High Agency is rarely the standard in organisations
High Agency is not a given. Especially not in grown structures.
Because organisations often reward exactly the opposite. Those who wait for permission are covered. Those who act carry the risk. Those who take a new path have to explain and defend it. Those who take the old path, even if it leads nowhere, can at least say they followed the process.
That is not a criticism. That is a system failure. And that is exactly why many come to us: not because nobody internally could solve the problem, but because the system does not allow it.
We come from outside. We do not carry the political risk. We have no history with the problem. And we do not ask whether we are allowed to, but whether it makes sense.
How do you recognise High Agency in the first conversation?
There are a few signals you see early. Not in CVs, not in reference lists. In conversation.
Someone with High Agency talks about things they tackled, not things they analysed. They describe obstacles they got around, not processes they followed. If you ask them what they would do if they were not allowed to, they answer immediately. Those who hesitate or start talking about responsibilities have already given their answer.
Another signal: how someone handles “that’s not possible”. Someone with High Agency hears it, nods briefly, and then asks: “why not? And what would it take for it to work anyway?” Someone with Low Agency nods, writes it down, and carries it to the next status meeting.
And the clearest signal of all: someone who in a first conversation already starts sketching solutions, instead of just asking questions to buy time.
High Agency is not a talent. It is a decision.
The decision to see an obstacle as a detour instead of an end. The decision to start instead of wait. The decision to take responsibility for the outcome instead of the process.
Those who are looking for exactly that and want their problem genuinely off the table: let’s talk. Those who would rather discuss the problem one more time in depth are in good hands with the classic consultants.
— Robert
