The Default Tax

Figure 2. The default life cycle — formation, service, drift, and intervention with the cost curve.

4.2 Service

The second stage is the one most accounts of habit overlook. Once formed, a default enters service, and it can remain in service for years. The pattern runs, produces its outcome, and is reinforced each time it does. Two things happen during this stage, both consequential, and neither visible to the person running the default.

The first is that the pathway strengthens. Each execution of the default deepens the association between cue and response; the pattern becomes faster, more reliable, and more resistant to interference. The second is that the alternatives atrophy. While one pathway is being strengthened through use, the competing pathways — the other ways the person might have responded to the same cue — go unused, and what goes unused weakens. Over a long enough service period, the default is not merely the easiest response available. It is, increasingly, the only response that remains fluent.

This is why the cost of change is set during service, long before change is contemplated. A default caught early, while alternative pathways are still viable, is far cheaper to interrupt than a default that has been in service for a decade and has no fluent competitor. Service is also the stage in which the costly defaults of Section 3.3 take shape. A pattern that involves chronic effort, suppression, or vigilance does not announce its cost; it accumulates it quietly, execution by execution, while the output it produces still looks entirely acceptable from the outside.

4.3 Drift

A default in service is matched to a context. Drift begins when that match breaks — not because the default changes, but because the context does. A role expands. A team forms or dissolves. A specialist becomes a manager. A founder's company outgrows the founder. The cue that once triggered the default still occurs; the default still runs; but the outcome the default was built to produce is no longer the outcome the new context rewards. The pattern has not failed. It has simply been left behind by the situation it was built for.

The reason the default does not update is the central mechanism of this stage, and it is not a metaphor. Research on outcome devaluation has shown that once a behaviour becomes sufficiently habitual, it persists even when the outcome it produces is no longer valued (Dickinson & Balleine, 1994). A goal-directed action checks its result against a current goal; a habitual one does not. It runs on the cue. This is what it means to call a maladaptive default outcome-insensitive: the pattern is no longer consulting the question it was built to answer. It is answering a question the context has stopped asking.

Drift is, by its nature, silent. To notice that a default has outrun its context, a person would have to bring deliberate attention to a process that was automated precisely so it would not require deliberate attention. The efficiency of the default is what conceals its growing misfit. The cost is rising — the pattern is now producing friction, not fit — but it accrues below the threshold of notice, and it can continue to accrue, unexamined, for as long as the cue keeps firing and the person keeps mistaking fluency for fit.

4.4 The cost of a default over time

Tracking cognitive cost across the four stages produces the curve shown in Figure 2, and the shape of that curve is the central claim of this section.

Through formation and service, the cost of a well-fitted default is low and stable. This is the cost-saving function that habit research has long documented, and it is not in dispute. Through drift, the cost rises. The default is now producing friction rather than fit, and — depending on the pattern — may also carry the chronic load of suppression, vigilance, or conflict that characterises the costly defaults of Section 3.3. The rise is gradual, which is part of why it is not noticed.

The sharpest feature of the curve is the spike at the point of interruption. Overriding an established default is cognitively expensive, and this is the best-anchored cost in the model. Research on cognitive control treats the allocation of control as an intrinsically costly act, one the brain will avoid unless the expected return justifies it (Shenhav, Botvinick & Cohen, 2013). The effort of override is measurable: studies of task-switching show reliable reaction-time and error-rate penalties when a person must abandon a prepared response for a less practised one, and inhibitory-control tasks produce measurable physiological markers of effort. Overriding a default in real conditions recruits exactly this machinery — and it does so against a pattern that, after a long service life, may have no fluent competitor left to switch to. The spike is steep because the work is real.

Two cautions keep this claim honest. The first is that the cost of cognitive control appears to be a computed and subjective cost — a cost the brain assigns and works to minimise — rather than a large metabolic drain; the older account in which self-control depletes a glucose-like resource has been substantially challenged (Kurzban et al., 2013). The model claims that override is treated as expensive, not that it burns a measurably scarce fuel. The second is that, to our knowledge, no study has directly compared the cost of running an established default against the cost of overriding it within a single paradigm. The asymmetry the curve depicts is well-motivated by the convergent evidence above, but it is assembled from adjacent findings rather than measured in one. We return to this in the limitations.

The final movement of the curve is its decline. After the spike, the cost of the new pattern falls. The same automaticity mechanism that made the old default cheap now begins to operate on the replacement: with repeated execution in a stable context, the new response requires progressively less deliberate control (Gollwitzer, 1999). The rebuild plateau settles above the original baseline at first and descends toward it as the new pathway consolidates. This is the most consequential implication of the curve, and the one most often missed: the cost of behaviour change is concentrated at the point of interruption and in the period immediately after it — not across the long life of the new default. The expense is front-loaded. What feels, at the moment of interruption, like the permanent price of change is in fact its peak.

4.5 Three points of intervention

If a default has a life cycle, then it also has points at which the cycle can be intervened upon. Three are available, and they correspond to the three movements of the cost curve. We name them See, Interrupt, and Rebuild. They are sequential — each depends on the one before it — but, as this section will argue, they are not equally costly, and they are not equally well served by the interventions organisations currently fund.

See is the act of bringing a default into awareness. By definition, a default runs below deliberate notice; to See it is to make the automatic momentarily visible — to catch the pattern in the act of running. This is a metacognitive operation: the person observes their own processing rather than simply undergoing it. Of the three points, See is the least expensive, provided it happens early. To notice a pattern is not yet to fight it. A person can observe that they are over-functioning, or over-preparing, or avoiding a conflict, without yet having spent the cost of doing otherwise. On the cost curve, See sits before the spike — which is precisely why interventions that stop at insight feel productive while changing very little.

Interrupt is the act of breaking the default before it completes — and the central point, drawn from clinical practice, is that this is not done by winning a real-time contest of will against a firing pattern. Asking a person to override an automatic response through deliberate effort, in the precise moment that response is most strongly cued, is asking them to out-muscle the system at its strongest point. It rarely holds. Instead, the interruption is itself engineered in advance. A trigger is specified — an if-then structure of the form if the old cue occurs, then a defined response runs — and rehearsed until the trigger, rather than the deliberation, is what fires. This applies the logic of implementation intentions (Gollwitzer, 1999) to the moment of interruption itself: rather than installing only a new behaviour, the if-then plan is aimed at the default, installing an automatic interruption against an automatic pattern. The cost on the curve still spikes here — building and rehearsing the trigger is effortful, and until the trigger is established the old pathway still has the retrieval advantage — but the expense is the cost of engineering the interruption, not the recurring cost of improvising it under pressure.

The interruption, when it succeeds, does not produce a new behaviour. It produces a gap. The default has been blocked from running, but the replacement is not yet fluent enough to take its place. This moment — brief, uncomfortable, and consequential — is the conditions under which the Rebuild stage either succeeds or fails. If the gap is left unfilled, the system reverts to the default it has been blocked from, because the old pathway, however blocked, is still the only fluent one available. If the gap is filled by a deliberately designed replacement, the Rebuild stage has somewhere to begin. Interrupt and Rebuild are sequential precisely because the gap one creates is what the other requires.

Rebuild is the installation of the replacement — and what is installed is not arbitrary. A default, by the time it reaches intervention, holds the retrieval advantage: it is the pattern the system reaches for first. Rebuild succeeds when the new response becomes more accessible than the old one, and two design principles make that possible. The first is that the replacement must be low-cost to initiate. A new response that demands significant effort to begin will lose to a default that demands none; a replacement designed to start small — a first action framed as brief, minimal, and easily entered — clears the threshold the old pattern would otherwise win on. The second is that the replacement is reconnected to a felt outcome. Drift, as Section 4.3 described it, is the state in which a default has gone outcome-insensitive — running on the cue, no longer consulting the result. An effective replacement reverses this: it ties the new response to the outcome the person actually wants, in a form vivid enough for the system to register it. A procrastinator, for instance, may be guided to begin not by being told to work, but by first picturing the felt relief of the work already done, and then committing only to a brief, low-cost entry into the task. The replacement is easier to start than the default and carries a reason to be chosen. Rehearsed in a stable context, it requires less deliberate control with each execution, and the cost curve descends as the new pathway consolidates into the one the system reaches for first. Rebuild is not the most expensive intervention point — that is Interrupt — but it is the longest, and the one at which support is most often withdrawn too early, while the replacement is still more expensive than the default it is meant to succeed.

The three points are not equally served by current practice. The interventions organisations most often fund — assessment, feedback, insight-oriented training — concentrate almost entirely on See. They produce awareness, and awareness is necessary, but awareness sits before the spike. The cost, and the failure, live at Interrupt and Rebuild. Section 6 develops what follows from this for the design of organisational intervention.

5. From individual to organisation

5.1 The bridge from individual to organisational

The model developed so far operates at the level of the individual — a single nervous system, a single pattern of automation, a single life cycle of formation, drift, and intervention. But maladaptive defaults do not stay individual. They aggregate, propagate, and become structural. Decades before this paper was conceived, Leonard-Barton (1992) named the same mechanism at the level of the firm. The capabilities that make an organisation successful — its established routines, its culture of execution, its accumulated technical and managerial expertise — eventually become the constraints that prevent it from adapting when context shifts. As she put it: “strengths help performance, but if they become too deeply embedded, they can block innovation and change.” What Leonard-Barton describes at the firm level, this paper proposes, operates at the individual level — and the two levels reinforce each other. Individual maladaptive defaults aggregate into team patterns; team patterns harden into culture; culture rewards the very defaults that originated the cost.

5.2 The aggregation argument

The aggregation is not arithmetic. When a team is composed of individuals running maladaptive defaults, the patterns do not average toward the mean — they interact. Defaults that protect each other become invisible to all participants simultaneously. The over-controlling manager and the over-accommodating direct report co-produce a working relationship in which neither can name what is happening; the perfectionist and the conflict-avoider build a meeting culture where genuine dissent never surfaces. Each pattern, alone, would be diagnosable. Together, they become the way things are done here — a stable equilibrium that no participant can disrupt without first destabilising the whole. This is what we propose to call culture as shared automaticity: the collective default of a group, running below conscious choice, telling people what normally happens here before anyone consciously decides. The framing extends Levitt and March's (1988) account of organisational learning as routine-based and history-dependent. Their argument is that organisations encode past success into procedures that guide future action — efficient until the environment shifts, after which the same routines become competency traps. Our claim is that this trap operates not only through formal procedures but through the aggregated automaticity of the people who run them. Procedures can be revised. Shared defaults usually cannot — at least not without first being seen.

5.3 The specialist-to-manager case

The clearest instance of this dynamic in organisational life is the transition from specialist to manager. The defaults that produce promotion — depth of expertise, ownership of detail, a perfectionist quality bar, a willingness to extend personal capacity to absorb the work others leave undone — are exactly the patterns that the new role makes maladaptive. The specialist's context rewarded individual mastery; the manager's context demands delegation, ambiguity tolerance, and second-order influence. The pattern that produced the promotion does not transfer cleanly to the role the promotion created.

What happens next is the life cycle compressed into the first six months of a new job. The new manager continues to do what worked, in subtler form. They redo their team's work after hours rather than send it back. They join the difficult client call to support — and find themselves doing most of the talking. They write the long late-night message clarifying what should have been said in the meeting. The behaviour is automatic — the system no longer consults the current goal, only the cues that once predicted success — and it produces three costs the manager rarely sees. Their own bandwidth shrinks. Their team's development stalls. The signals the manager should be tracking at second-order — team dynamics, strategic direction, cross-functional alignment — fall outside the range of attention the old defaults still occupy.

The organisation is rarely a passive observer of this migration. It produced the pattern by promoting the specialist, and it now sustains the pattern by treating the resulting overwhelm as an individual capability gap rather than a default-update problem. Leadership training, when provided at all, targets the skills the new manager is failing to deploy — delegation, prioritisation, feedback — without addressing the defaults underneath that make those skills hard to deploy in the first place. The skills are known. The defaults are running. The training cannot reach what it does not name.

5.4 The surfacing problem

Why does no one in the system name what is happening? The answer is not that participants lack insight. It is that the conditions under which the pattern could be named do not exist. The new manager cannot admit overwhelm because admission registers as failure to deliver on the promotion. The direct reports cannot name the over-functioning because doing so requires criticising a person with formal authority over their advancement. The peers — other managers running variations of the same pattern — have no incentive to surface a problem they share. The manager's own manager often promoted them, and naming the pattern calls that decision into question. The pattern continues upward: each layer has authorised the layer below, and naming the default at any level implicates the levels above it. Every node in the system has a reason to leave the default running.

This is the team-level expression of the See problem developed earlier in this paper. Edmondson's work on psychological safety (1999, 2018) provides the standard frame: in low-safety environments, people withhold the observations that would allow collective learning to occur. We extend her argument: low safety does not only reduce voice. It entrenches default, because the conversational friction required to update shared practice never appears. The team cannot See what it cannot say, and the longer the default runs unsaid, the more it hardens into the team's tacit operating rule. Psychological safety, in this framing, is not primarily a wellbeing concern. It is a structural precondition for organisational self-correction.

5.5 Propagation and crossover

When the surfacing problem holds, the cost does not stay with the manager. It propagates. The manager's overwhelm shows up in their team as the cluster of behaviours commonly labelled micromanagement: inconsistent feedback, late micro-corrections to work already considered finished, sudden urgency about issues that were not urgent yesterday, and an emotional climate that team members learn to read more carefully than they read the work itself. Direct reports develop their own protective defaults in response — over-checking, pre-emptive perfectionism, conflict avoidance with the manager, withdrawal of discretionary effort — each of which is itself a maladaptive default in formation. The pattern compounds laterally as peers absorb the same signals, and downward as each protective layer adds friction to the layer beneath it.

This propagation is not a metaphor. Westman's (2001) work on crossover effects established that stress and strain transfer measurably between people in close working contact, through emotional contagion, behavioural mirroring, and the shared environmental load of difficult interactions. The construct of group-level depletion — a single shared resource pool that the team draws down together — is not well-supported in the empirical literature and is not what this paper claims. What is supported, and what this paper does claim, is that individual maladaptive defaults produce conditions that reliably generate maladaptive defaults in others. The organisation pays for this in three places it already measures: in retention — the high performers who leave before the pattern can be named; in decision quality at the leadership-team level — the degradation that accompanies chronic shared overload; and in the depletion of the leadership pipeline, where the people most likely to reach senior roles are often the people most likely to have spent a decade running defaults that those roles will make maladaptive.

5.6 From diagnosis to intervention

The diagnosis this section has developed is not that organisations have a leadership-skills gap. It is that they have a default-update deficit. The skills required of senior roles — delegation, ambiguity tolerance, second-order attention, conflict tolerance — are well-documented and well-taught. The deficit is not that leaders do not know what they should be doing. What the standard interventions do not address is the layer underneath those skills: the maladaptive defaults that make the skills hard to deploy in the first place, hard to surface once they are running, and hard to interrupt once they have propagated through a team. The applied question, which Section 6 develops, is therefore not how to teach leaders new skills. It is how to make their existing defaults visible, interruptible, and ultimately rebuildable — at the level of the individual, the team, and the organisational system that produced the pattern in the first place.

6. Applied implications

6.1 From skills to defaults

Building on the life cycle and intervention model developed in Section 4, and on the organisational diagnosis of Section 5, the framework points toward a specific shift in how interventions are designed. The diagnosis was that organisations face a default-update deficit rather than a leadership-skills gap. The applied question that follows is not how to teach senior people skills they already know about; it is how to make their existing defaults visible, interruptible, and rebuildable — and how to allocate intervention effort across those three points in proportion to where the cost and the failure actually live.

6.2 Designing for See

Most of what organisations already do under the heading of leadership development is, in framework terms, work on the See stage. Three hundred and sixty degree feedback, behavioural assessments, coaching engagements that begin with diagnostic interviews, leadership training that opens with self-awareness modules — each of these is a structured intervention aimed at bringing patterns into awareness. The work is not misdirected. Awareness is the necessary first stage of the intervention sequence, and the literature on metacognition supports the claim that surfacing an automatic pattern is the condition for any subsequent change.

What the framework qualifies, however, is the assumption that awareness is sufficient. The cost curve developed in Section 4 places See before the spike: noticing a pattern is comparatively inexpensive, which is part of why insight-oriented interventions feel productive — they generate visible engagement, recognisable language, and a sense that work is being done. They are also, for the same reason, the cheapest stage to fund. The mismatch arises when the budget and attention an organisation spends on See are then implicitly expected to carry the work of Interrupt and Rebuild as well. They cannot. Awareness opens the door. It does not walk through it.

6.3 Investing in Interrupt and Rebuild

If See is the cheapest stage and the one most heavily funded, Interrupt and Rebuild are the opposite: more expensive in cognitive cost, slower to produce visible outcomes, and consequently under-served by the resourcing decisions organisations currently make. The framework does not propose abandoning the work on See — it proposes correcting an allocation in which the cheap stage receives the bulk of the investment and the costly stages are expected to take care of themselves.

The applied principle for Interrupt follows directly from the mechanism described in Section 4.5. Interruption is not produced by asking a person to win a real-time contest of will against a firing default; it is produced by engineering the interruption in advance. The intervention design that follows from this is one in which a trigger — an if-then structure tied to the specific cue that activates the old pattern — is identified, made specific to the situation, rehearsed in advance under low-stakes conditions, and refined until it can fire reliably without depending on the person's deliberate effort in the moment. The work is design work, not willpower work, and it takes time. It is also work that rarely succeeds without external support: a coach, a structured programme, or a peer accountability arrangement that holds the person in the design process long enough for the trigger to consolidate. This is what the cost curve predicts about the spike at Interrupt: real, expensive, but bounded — provided the support stays in place across the spike rather than withdrawing before it.

The applied principle for Rebuild — what fills the gap the interruption creates — is similarly direct. A replacement that demands high initial effort or fails to connect to an outcome the person can feel will lose to the default it was designed to succeed. Intervention design at the Rebuild stage therefore concerns itself with two questions: how is the replacement made low-cost to initiate, and how is it reconnected to a felt outcome vivid enough to give the system a reason to choose it? These are not abstract questions. They are the questions a coaching engagement, a behavioural-design programme, or a structured peer practice must answer if the new pattern is to consolidate into the one the system reaches for first. The corresponding allocation principle is patience: Rebuild is the longest stage of the cost curve, and the stage at which support is most often withdrawn too early. A budget shaped by the cost curve sustains the work past the point at which the visible signs of progress slow down.

6.4 Implications beyond the individual

The same principles apply when the unit of intervention shifts from an individual to a team or an organisation. At the team level, the surfacing problem described in Section 5.4 means that See itself becomes structural work — the conditions under which the team can name a shared default must be built before the awareness can occur. Psychological safety, in the framing offered earlier, is the structural precondition for organisational self-correction, and investment in safety operates here as upstream investment in See. Once the shared default can be named, the same design logic applies: an engineered interruption against the collective pattern, a replacement that is low-cost to enact at team scale and reconnected to outcomes the team actually values, and sustained support past the point where the costly stages would otherwise be abandoned. The framework does not prescribe a specific programme for any of this. It prescribes a basis for allocating attention across the three points — a basis in which the question is no longer how much to spend on leadership development, but how the spending is distributed across stages whose costs and returns are not symmetrical.

7. Limitations and future research

7.1 Limitations

Four limitations of the framework as presented in this paper are worth naming explicitly.

The first concerns the cost curve developed in Section 4.4. No study, to our knowledge, has directly compared the cost of running an established default against the cost of overriding it within a single experimental paradigm. The asymmetry the curve depicts is assembled from convergent findings across the EVC framework, the switch-cost literature, the demand-avoidance literature, and pupillometry — but it has not been measured in one. The claim is well-motivated, not directly tested.

The second concerns the construct itself. Maladaptive defaults is proposed here as a synthesising label that brings together mechanisms documented at experimental, clinical, and applied levels. It has not yet been operationalised as a measurable construct in adult, non-clinical, organisational contexts. There is no validated instrument that reliably distinguishes a maladaptive default from a stale default or a costly default in a working professional. Until such an instrument exists, the taxonomy of Section 3 functions as a diagnostic framework rather than as an empirical measurement tool.

The third concerns the aggregation claim of Section 5. The proposal that individual maladaptive defaults compound at team and organisational level — and that they generate, rather than merely co-occur with, organisational rigidity — is consistent with the literatures cited (Leonard-Barton, Levitt & March, Westman, Edmondson) but has not been demonstrated longitudinally. The causal direction between individual default persistence and organisational stiffness remains, for now, a claim from convergence rather than a finding from measurement.

The fourth concerns the case anchor. The specialist-to-manager transition described in Section 5.3 is drawn from sustained practitioner observation across sixteen years of corporate work. It is not derived from a published case study or a controlled comparison. The pattern it describes is broadly recognised in the leadership-development literature, but the specific claim that maladaptive defaults systematically migrate during this transition has not been formally established.

7.2 Directions for future research

Each of the limitations above suggests a corresponding line of further work.

A direct cost comparison — running an established default versus overriding it, measured in a single paradigm with consistent methodology — would do the most to anchor the cost curve empirically. The current convergent evidence is strong, but a controlled test would move the asymmetry from well-motivated inference to direct finding.

The development of a measurement instrument for maladaptive defaults in adult, non-clinical populations would substantially strengthen the construct. A reliable diagnostic tool — one that distinguishes the four quadrants of Section 3 in working professionals, and that tracks migration between them over time — is the natural next contribution of this line of work.

Longitudinal studies of organisational transitions, with measures at both the individual and the team level, would test the aggregation claim of Section 5 directly. Cohorts followed across role transitions, restructurings, or culture-change initiatives could establish whether individual default persistence predicts organisational rigidity downstream, or whether the relationship runs in another direction.

Finally, structured case research on the specialist-to-manager transition — and on analogous transitions at other levels of seniority — would convert the practitioner observation of Section 5.3 into formal evidence. The pattern is recognisable enough across organisations that prospective studies appear feasible; what is missing is the work itself.

8. Conclusion

Three literatures already describe parts of what this paper calls a maladaptive default. Habit and automaticity research has shown how patterns form and run below deliberate notice. The outcome-devaluation paradigm has shown how those patterns persist when the contexts that produced them change. The clinical and organisational literatures have shown the same persistence at the levels of personality, identity, and institutional routine. What has been missing is a single construct that carries this convergence into adult, non-clinical, organisational use — a construct that names the pattern, locates its cost, and identifies the points at which intervention can succeed. This paper has proposed that construct, the taxonomy that distinguishes its variants, and the life-cycle model that explains its course.

The implication is a shift in how behaviour change is understood in organisations. The work is not the deployment of skills people already possess. It is the updating of automated patterns those skills cannot reach. Awareness opens the door; the cost lies in interrupting what is already running and in installing what will run in its place. A budget, a programme, or a coaching engagement that does not account for that asymmetry will tend to produce the engagement it can measure rather than the change it intends.

The defaults that get us here are not the defaults that keep us here. Naming them is the precondition for changing them, and changing them — building defaults that serve who the person now is, and what the organisation now needs — is the work that follows.

References

Aron, A. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(9), 2424–2433. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4682-05.2006

Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014). Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: One decade on. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.003

Balleine, B. W., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Goal-directed instrumental action: Contingency and incentive learning and their cortical substrates. Neuropharmacology, 37(4–5), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(98)00033-1

Bamber, M. R., & Price, J. A. (2006). A schema-focused model of occupational stress. In M. R. Bamber (Ed.), CBT for occupational stress in health professionals: Introducing a schema-focused approach. Routledge.

Bowins, B. E. (2010). Repetitive maladaptive behavior: Beyond repetition compulsion. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 70(3), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2010.14

Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1704–1711. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1560

de Wit, S., & Dickinson, A. (2009). Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: A case for animal–human translational models. Psychological Research, 73(4), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0230-6

Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. W. (1994). Motivational control of goal-directed action. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199951

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Guenole, N. (2014). Maladaptive personality at work: Exploring the darkness. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12114

Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your career. Harvard Business School Press.

Ibarra, H. (2015). Act like a leader, think like a leader. Harvard Business Review Press.

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching — A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842

Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020198

Kool, W., Shenhav, A., & Botvinick, M. M. (2018). Cognitive control as cost-benefit decision making. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 167–189). Wiley.

Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12003196

Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535

Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Brevers, D., & Turel, O. (2019). Editorial: Etiology, pathogenesis, and consequences of maladaptive habits. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2613. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02613

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7

Oyserman, D., Fryberg, S. A., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1011

Oyserman, D. (2015). Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. Oxford University Press.

Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.968

Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007

Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031526

van der Wel, P., & van Steenbergen, H. (2018). Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2005–2015. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y

Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 418–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005

Westbrook, A., Kester, D., & Braver, T. S. (2013). What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068210

Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54(6), 717–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701546002

Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417

Wood, W., Tam, L., & Witt, M. G. (2005). Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 918–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.918

Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner's guide. Guilford Press.