Why high-level operators cut people off

This isn't a comfortable topic, but my articles aren't here to make you feel "comfortable". They're here to provoke reflections and sometimes put words on things you've attempted to express, but couldn't.

As many of you know, the Grey Zone operates across four domains:

• Geopolitical (the one I mostly talk about here).
• Organizational (internal power plays, restructuring, sabotage)
• Interpersonal (human dynamics, manipulation, undefined relationships)
• Psychological (cognitive dissonance, internal contradictions)

Today, we'll focus on the interpersonal and psychological Grey Zone.

The place where you have to make decisions that don't feel clean. Where there's no good option. Just the one that costs less than the alternative.

And one of those decisions is cutting people off your life.

I've seen this pattern again and again with my clients. Very busy people running companies, negotiations, sensitive teams.

At certain moments, they simply cannot afford people who take their cognitive bandwidth.

Not because they're detached assholes. But because the environment they operate in does not forgive noise.

And nobody tells leaders the truth about this... So let's talk about it.

The architecture of attention

Let's start with the real constraint: attention is finite.

The early cognitive models of Broadbent (1958) and Cherry (1953) showed that humans can process around 100 bits of information per second. A conversation consumes half of that.

Translation : one person can hijack 20-40% of your mind without ever intending to.

And that's before we even talk about emotional leakage, mimetic behaviors, or instability.

Some people drain your bandwidth across multiple layers:

• mental (thoughts intruding into your day)
• emotional (micro-frictions that accumulate)
• temporal (minutes that become hours)
• operational (they distort your clarity)

Some are malicious. Most are not, truly. But that doesn't matter, the effect is the same.

In high-complexity environments, someone who drains you - even unintentionally - is a structural risk.

That's why operators don't wait for visible damage... They act when the pattern appears. I've identified some:

• The ones who watch you too closely: it is cognitively intrusive even if they never say a word. Operators feel this immediately !
• The ones who talk too much: every interaction with them costs you. You leave more scattered, not sharper. This is a structural mismatch. Your system cannot absorb their noise.
• The one here for opportunities: they orbit you not for who you are but for what you open (access, credibility, proximity). Operators detect this extraction instinct instantly because it destabilises the integrity of the field.
• The ones who influence you too strongly: advisors, mentors, consultants, even psychologists. Your judgment is being shaped by someone else's frame. Operators cut fast here, because sovereignty of thought is their primary operating principle.
• The unstable, the dramatic, the emotionally porous: they're unpredictable in their emotional spikes, they're incoherent, they don't hold a boundary, they're contagiously anxious... One unstable person in your proximity can destabilize your entire decision-making architecture.

You're aware of that, yet you refrain.

You don't want to look rude, trigger retaliation or make enemies.

But you know you want off. You know this relationship isn't good for you. You're also very strategic. You know that in high-level circles, you don't just "cut" people like that:

• Particularly if the person was introduced to you a person you respect, or you need strategically.
• Some networks require surgical etiquette.
• Sometimes the political cost of a cut is higher than the personal cost.
• And often, the people you need to cut are socially proximate: colleagues, allies, advisors, observers.

Cutting someone reverberates. It sends a strong message.

So you end up in the worst configuration:

You must protect your bandwidth.
But you cannot afford drama or blowback.

This is the point where most operators fail.

Most people cut badly...

They'll ghost, create a conflict to justify the cut, send a long explanation or just try to have an "honest" conversation...

The thing is, a bad cut is way worse than no cut at all. When you cut badly, you create :

• revenge impulses
• drama loops
• narrative distortion
• victimhood stories
• counter-attacks
• social blowback
• uncontrolled interpretations

You lose control. Indeed, the cut opens a vacuum, and if you don't shape the narrative, they will.

Remember, humans cannot tolerate ambiguity. If you don't fill the space, they will fill it with projection.

That's why operators need a method: a clean exit architecture.

Here is how to cut like an operator: clean, quiet, irreversible.