Systems — physical, biological, and organisational — tend toward states that require less energy to maintain. A ball rolls downhill. Organisms conserve calories. People take shortcuts. The tendency to minimise energy output is not a law that nothing ever does hard things; it's a default. When there's no countervailing force, the system drifts toward the path of least resistance. That explains why change is hard, why defaults win, and why "just make it easy" is such powerful design.
Physics: systems evolve toward lower potential energy (e.g. minimum energy principle). Biology: organisms that wasted energy were outcompeted; we're descended from energy conservers. Psychology: cognitive load and effort are costs; we avoid them when we can. The result is inertia around current behaviour and attraction to low-friction options. To get a different outcome, you must either make the desired path lower energy (easier, default) or add energy input (incentives, urgency) to overcome the tendency. You can't assume people or systems will "just" do the right thing if it costs more effort.
The strategic use: don't fight the tendency without a plan. Make the behaviour you want the path of least resistance — default options, one-click flows, fewer steps. If you need people to do something effortful, you need a strong reason (reward, loss avoidance, identity) or you need to make the alternative even harder. The mistake is designing as if users or employees will reliably choose the high-effort option. The second mistake is ignoring that your own organisation will minimise energy too — so process and structure must align with the outcome you want.
Section 2
How to See It
The tendency shows up wherever the easy option wins: default settings, incumbent behaviour, "we've always done it this way," and low-friction products capturing share. Look for resistance to change and adoption of whatever requires less effort.
Business
You're seeing Tendency to Minimize Energy Output when customers stick with the incumbent because switching requires effort — forms, migration, learning. The incumbent wins not because it's better but because it's the default. New entrants must either make switching very low effort or make staying costly. Same with internal process: the path of least resistance is often "do nothing" or "do what we did last time."
Technology
You're seeing Tendency to Minimize Energy Output when users choose the option with fewer clicks, less configuration, or lower cognitive load. One-click signup beats multi-step. Defaults dominate. Friction (extra steps, unclear value) kills adoption. Product design that minimises user effort wins; design that assumes users will invest effort often fails.
Investing
You're seeing Tendency to Minimize Energy Output when capital flows to familiar names, standard structures, or liquid assets. The effort of diligence and conviction is a cost; the path of least resistance is to follow the crowd or stick with the index. Active managers who overcome this tendency need a process that forces energy in (research, discipline).
Markets
You're seeing Tendency to Minimize Energy Output when incumbents persist because the energy required to displace them (switching cost, habit, distribution) is high. Disruption often works by making the new path lower effort (e.g. digital vs in-person) or by making the old path higher effort (e.g. regulation, obsolescence).
Section 3
How to Use It
Decision filter
"When designing product, process, or change, ask: what is the path of least resistance? Is it the outcome we want? If not, either lower the energy required for the desired behaviour (make it easy, default) or add energy to overcome the tendency (incentives, friction on the wrong path)."
As a founder
Make the right behaviour the low-energy path. Onboarding: fewer steps, smart defaults. Retention: reduce friction to use the product, not just to sign up. Internally: make the desired process easier than the workaround. The mistake is assuming people will do the right thing if they "care enough." They'll often do the easy thing. Design for that. The second mistake is adding process that makes the wrong path easier (e.g. approval shortcuts that bypass quality).
As an investor
Assess whether the company has designed for low-friction adoption and retention or is relying on users and customers to exert effort. Companies that require a lot of energy from users (complex onboarding, many decisions) are fighting the tendency; those that make the desired action the default or the one-click path are using it.
As a decision-maker
Use the tendency when implementing change. Don't rely on "everyone will do X because we said so." Make X the default, or make not-X harder. When you see resistance, ask what energy you're asking people to expend and whether you've made the desired path low enough energy.
Common misapplication: Assuming minimising energy means "lazy." The tendency is descriptive: systems drift toward lower energy. It doesn't mean people never work hard — it means they need a reason (reward, identity, threat) to expend energy. Design with that in mind; don't moralise it.
Second misapplication: Thinking you can override the tendency with communication alone. "We'll explain why it's important" often fails if the important thing still costs more effort. Communication helps when it's combined with making the right path easier or the wrong path harder.
Bezos obsessed over reducing friction for customers: one-click ordering, fast delivery, easy returns. The strategic bet was that the path of least resistance would be "buy from Amazon" — so Amazon worked to make that path lower energy than going elsewhere. Internally, "disagree and commit" and written memos reduce the energy of alignment (fewer meetings, clearer decisions).
Ford's assembly line minimised the energy (time, skill) required to produce a car. The system was designed so that the path of least resistance for each worker was to perform their task; the whole line minimised total effort per car. The tendency to minimise energy was harnessed by process design.
Section 6
Visual Explanation
Tendency to Minimize Energy Output — Systems drift toward the path of least resistance. Design so the desired path is the low-energy path.
Section 7
Connected Models
The tendency to minimise energy ties to inertia, friction, and how behaviour is shaped. These models either describe it or help design against or with it.
Reinforces
Inertia
Inertia is resistance to change; the tendency to minimise energy explains why. Changing state costs energy; so systems stay put unless pushed. The two together explain why "we've always done it this way" is the default.
Reinforces
Path Dependence
Path dependence means history constrains the future. The tendency to minimise energy reinforces path dependence: switching paths costs energy, so the current path persists. Past choices become the low-energy default.
Reinforces
Friction
Friction is what raises the energy of an action. Reducing friction for the desired behaviour and increasing it for the wrong behaviour is how you work with the tendency. Friction is the lever; the tendency is the default it opposes or harnesses.
Leads-to
Least Effort Principle
Least effort principle (Zipf, etc.) is the explicit statement: agents tend to minimise effort. The tendency to minimise energy is the same idea in physical and systems terms. Both predict that ease wins unless something overrides it.
Leads-to
Section 8
One Key Quote
"Water flows downhill."
— Lao Tzu (attributed)
The metaphor is exact: water follows the path of least resistance. So do systems and behaviour when nothing pushes them otherwise. Design the slope so that "downhill" is where you want things to go.
Section 9
Analyst's Take
Faster Than Normal — Editorial View
Default to the path of least resistance. When you're not sure what users or the organisation will do, assume they'll do the easy thing. Then make the easy thing the right thing. Defaults, one-click, fewer steps — that's the play.
Friction is a design choice. Every step, every field, every decision is friction. Add friction to the paths you want to discourage (e.g. cancelling, wrong configuration). Remove friction from the paths you want (signup, activation, correct use).
Don't rely on motivation. "If they cared they would..." is a losing strategy. They'll often take the low-energy path. So either make the right path low energy or give a strong reason to expend energy (reward, loss, identity). Or both.
Your own org minimises energy. Process, approvals, and norms will be gamed or shortcut if the shortcut is easier. Design process so that the compliant path is the path of least resistance. Audit for where the easy path is the wrong path.
Switching cost is energy. Incumbents persist because switching costs energy. Disruptors win when they make the new path lower energy (or when the old path becomes higher energy — e.g. regulation, obsolescence). When evaluating competitive dynamics, ask where the energy is.
Section 10
Test Yourself
Is this mental model at work here?
Scenario 1
A product has a 12-step onboarding flow. Most users drop off after step 3. The team says users don't understand the value.
Scenario 2
A company's expense policy requires receipts and manager approval for everything. Employees use personal cards and skip small reimbursements.
Scenario 3
A new entrant makes switching from the incumbent a one-click import. Migration takes 5 minutes. Incumbent loses share in that segment.
Scenario 4
A team is told to use the new project tool. They keep using spreadsheets and email because the tool requires more setup.
Section 11
Top Resources
Summary: Systems tend toward lower energy states. Make the behaviour you want the path of least resistance; add friction to the wrong path or energy input (incentives) when needed. Don't assume people will choose the high-effort option.
Norman on affordances and reducing user effort. Design so the right action is the obvious, low-friction one. The tendency to minimise energy is the basis for good UX.
Make good habits easy (low energy) and bad habits hard (high energy). The tendency to minimise energy is the lever; habit design is the application.
[Habits](/mental-models/habits)
Habits are low-energy behaviour patterns — automatic, low cognitive load. The tendency to minimise energy favours habit formation: repeated behaviour becomes the path of least resistance. Changing habits requires raising the energy of the old path or lowering the energy of the new one.
Tension
Efficiency vs Effectiveness
Efficiency is minimising energy (or cost) for a given output. Effectiveness is achieving the right output. The tendency favours efficiency; sometimes the effective thing costs more energy. The tension: don't minimise energy at the expense of the right outcome.
