For a long time, I believed competence would protect me.

I believed that each problem solved earned trust, and that experience, education, judgment, and rising compensation would gradually quiet the chaos around me.

That is not what happened.

Across three decades, a pattern repeated itself. The titles changed. The technology evolved. The organizations grew larger and more complex. But the underlying dynamic stayed the same.

I was consistently brought into systems that needed order and clarity, then quietly penalized for providing it.

On paper, my career looked stable.

Degrees earned. Certifications added. Senior titles. Consulting engagements with respected institutions.

These are the markers we are taught to associate with progress.

However, I learned that stability is not the same as protection.

In many environments, especially large or regulated ones, stability is an appearance rather than a condition. Beneath it sit unclear ownership, internal politics, and unresolved technical debt. These systems rarely fail loudly. They fail slowly, and they recruit people to absorb pressure and keep the surface intact.

People like me.

I was often hired after things had already gone wrong.

Decisions had been made without consequences. Ownership was diffuse. Expectations were misaligned. Timelines were aspirational. Leadership needed someone who could bring order, steady delivery, or get things back on track.

What I did not recognize early enough was that this role comes with an unspoken cost.

In failing systems, the person who introduces clarity becomes a mirror. And mirrors can be uncomfortable.

Clarity exposes gaps in decision making, reveals where accountability has been deferred, and surfaces tradeoffs no one wants to own.

In these environments, competence does not reduce chaos. It attracts more of it.

One of the most disorienting aspects of this pattern was not the workload. It was invisibility.

Problems would get solved. Delivery would stabilize. Risks would be surfaced early. But credit rarely returned to the source. It diffused. It became “the team,” “the process,” or simply disappeared.

Blame behaved differently.

When priorities shifted, budgets tightened, or political pressure rose, blame needed a container. In organizations without clear ownership, that container is often the person closest to the work and farthest from power.

This is not malice. It is mechanics.

In low-clarity systems, accountability fragments and blame flows downward.

Looking back, many roles were never designed for success in the way I assumed.

I was given responsibility without authority. Outcomes without ownership. Urgency without support.

Information arrived late. Context was withheld. Decisions shifted after commitments were made. When friction emerged, the expectation was silent endurance rather than resolution.

I was not being developed. I was being used as a shock absorber.

These roles exist to take the impact, not fix the system, which makes them unstable by design.

At one point, my body reacted before my intellect could rationalize what was happening.

I remember sitting in meetings, outwardly professional, inwardly under a level of stress I had never experienced before. Not because the work was hard, but because the environment was corrosive. Information did not flow. Respect was not mutual. Accountability was uneven.

That was the first real signal that something deeper was wrong.

The issue was not performance.
It was the system I kept agreeing to enter.

When my last contract ended almost exactly thirty years after I completed my undergraduate education, the symmetry forced a reckoning.

I had done everything I was supposed to do. Learn more. Lead better. Be adaptable. Stay professional. Push through.

Yet the disrespect persisted. The instability persisted. Only the stakes increased.

That was when I could no longer ignore the pattern. These experiences were not random. They were systemic.

Here is the uncomfortable truth I wish I had understood earlier.

Clarity forces decisions that were previously avoided. Those decisions require someone to take ownership. And ownership brings risk into the open.

That is why the person who introduces clarity can become a liability unless they control the conditions under which that clarity is applied.

Experience does not solve this. Credentials do not solve this. Effort does not solve this.

Only leverage does.

For years, my North Star was stability. A role. A title. A steady paycheck. A sense of institutional belonging.

That North Star failed me.

The new one is simpler and harder to compromise.

Clarity with dignity.

That means choosing roles with explicit ownership. Defining success before execution begins. Refusing responsibility without authority. Prioritizing defined outcomes over vague importance.

It also means accepting that some systems cannot be fixed from the inside, no matter how skilled or well-intentioned you are.

If you are someone who consistently brings order to chaos, you may recognize this story.

You are acknowledged in private, then loaded with risk.
Assured support, then left exposed.
Labeled valuable, then blamed when pressure rises.

This is not a character flaw.
It is a systems mismatch.

And it will not change until you change the model you operate within.

This wasn’t a failure that turned into progress.

It was a system I outgrew.

One that treated clarity as a threat.

If you find yourself cleaning up messes you did not create, solving problems no one wants to own, or being handed responsibility without protection, pause.

This may not be a performance issue.
It may be an organizational issue.

Clarity, when paired with control, is not a liability.
It is leverage.

In 1999, the S&P 500 peaked. Then it took 14 years to gradually recover by 2013.

Today? Goldman Sachs sounds crazy forecasting 3% returns for 2024 to 2034.

But we’re currently seeing the highest price for the S&P 500 compared to earnings since the dot-com boom.

So, maybe that’s why they’re not alone; Vanguard projects about 5%.

In fact, now just about everything seems priced near all time highs. Equities, gold, crypto, etc.

But billionaires have long diversified a slice of their portfolios with one asset class that is poised to rebound.

It’s post war and contemporary art.

Sounds crazy, but over 70,000 investors have followed suit since 2019—with Masterworks.

You can invest in shares of artworks featuring Banksy, Basquiat, Picasso, and more.

24 exits later, results speak for themselves: net annualized returns like 14.6%, 17.6%, and 17.8%.*

My subscribers can skip the waitlist.

Skip waitlist

_{*Investing involves risk. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Important Reg A disclosures: masterworks.com/cd.}