TL;DR
Summer resets cognition, but re-entry friction drags leaders back to stale habits.
Executives default to outdated mental models, compounding blind spots and bad decisions.
Updating models must happen at both individual and collective levels, team dynamics and power structures matter.
September isn’t just an energy window, it’s a friction window. Treat friction as a design lever.
LABs clients can measure impact: surface “untouchable” models, track decision velocity, and reduce avoidable errors.
Recovery sharpens cognition, but re-entry friction is the trap
Recovery research shows detachment improves self-regulation and problem-solving (Sonnentag, 2018).
Neuroscience confirms rest restores cognitive capacity.
But re-entry creates drag. Studies show “post-vacation syndrome”, stress, anxiety, and cognitive friction, is common, often pulling leaders back to default routines (Hernández et al., 2022).
Rest primes clarity.
Re-entry reinforces inertia.
The winners aren’t the most rested. They’re the ones who design the transition.
The hidden trap: stale models
Rather than from a lack of frameworks, leader tend to fail from mental model drift.
Outdated assumptions: rational-looking but wrong decisions
Shared blind spots: teams aligned to yesterday’s context
Over-optimised efficiency: irrelevance in a shifting market
McKinsey found 72% of executives rate bad strategic decisions as common as good ones (McKinsey, 2019).
Why? Leaders polish frameworks but ignore the lenses beneath them.
Quick Aside…Frameworks vs Mental Models
Decision Frameworks
Explicit tools and processes for making choices
Step-by-step, teachable
Examples: SWOT, OKRs, Eisenhower Matrix
Function: organise data and guide action
Mental Models
Implicit lenses and assumptions shaping perception
Context-dependent, often unspoken
Examples: Inversion, Second-Order Thinking, Opportunity Cost
Function: define how problems are even seen
Key difference:
Frameworks are maps.
Mental models are the compass.
If the compass is off, no map will save you.
September: Energy and Friction
The “energy window” story is partial. Cognitive capacity may be higher after recovery, but inertia is strongest here too.
This friction is both hazard and lever:
Hazard: inertia locks in outdated models.
Lever: friction can be engineered into deliberate rituals that force recalibration.
Leaders should treat September as a designed inflection point, not just a reset, but a stress-test.
Individual vs. team models…and the power trap
Most decision failures are collective.
But surfacing shared assumptions isn’t easy. Power dynamics matter.
Senior leaders dominate the narrative.
Team members self-censor around “untouchable” models.
Psychological safety is rarely high enough for candour.
That’s why process design matters as much as content. Within my Performance LAB (Leadership, Alignment, Behaviour) we recommend:
Anonymous digital boards to surface unspoken assumptions.
Structured facilitation where junior voices go first.
External challenge (coach or peer observer) to prevent groupthink.
Without safety, reflection rituals become theatre.
Industry friction points
The September trap isn’t uniform. It plays out differently by sector:
Finance – post-summer inertia is high; regulatory cycles peak in Q4, but relationship-first models often resist change.
Tech – sprint reviews get refreshed, but risk tolerance models lag, creating blind spots in volatile markets.
Professional services – client demand spikes after summer, narrowing bandwidth for reflection; firms often double-down on delivery at the cost of recalibration.
Where friction rituals succeed, they’re deliberate: quarterly reflection workshops, model swaps in retros, explicit assumption-naming before strategy resets. Where they fail, leaders default to decks and dashboards while deeper models go untouched.
How to sharpen…and measure impact
Updating models without measurement risks drift. My LAB clients use concrete metrics:
Surface “Untouchables”
Track how many hidden models surface in September vs. annual reviews.
Indicator: are more blind spots being named earlier?
Decision Velocity
Measure cycle time from problem identification to decision.
Faster, with fewer reversals, signals aligned mental models.
Error Rate
Track frequency of “avoidable errors” (decisions reversed due to missed assumptions).
Decline signals stronger model fit.
Three actions to test now:
Inversion – What would guarantee Q4 failure?
Second-Order Thinking – What’s the ripple effect by December?
Energy-as-Capacity – Does this expand or drain systemic energy?
Strategic LABs implications
This isn’t productivity advice. It’s operating system design.
Individual Level - sOS (Self-Operating System): Pair energy audits with explicit model reflection prompts post-break.
Team & Organisational Level - OrgOS: Build assumption stress-tests into team reviews and retros, not just annual offsites.
LABs workshops: Run “Mental Model Swap” sessions, combining anonymous input, structured facilitation, and measurable outputs (untouchables surfaced, decision velocity shifts).
My Final Push…
Most leaders will polish their strategy decks this September.
Few will touch the mental models underneath.
That’s the invisible trap.
Strategy is the map. Mental models are the compass.
If you don’t recalibrate both, you’ll navigate Q4 blind.
Reflection:
What “untouchable” mental model in your team most deserves to be surfaced and stress-tested — before Q4 pressure makes it too costly to ignore?
References
Farnam Street (2021). Mental Models: The Best Way to Make Intelligent Decisions (109 Models Explained). FS. Available at: https://fs.blog/mental-models/
Hernández, A. et al. (2022). Post-vacation syndrome: stress, well-being, and adaptation in employees returning to work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5).
McKinsey & Company (2019). Bias Busters: Correcting for the Psychology of Decision Making. McKinsey Quarterly.
Sonnentag, S. (2018). The recovery paradox: portraying the complex interplay between job stressors, lack of recovery, and poor well-being. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, pp. 169–185.
Reeves, M., Levin, S., & Ueda, D. (2016). The Biology of Corporate Survival. Harvard Business Review, Jan–Feb.