Feb 18, 2022Liked by @ibscribe

Thanks for the in-depth response. The synchronicity and affordability components were not at all obvious to me.

After reading this, affordability seems like a rolling litmus test for both leaders and employees. The appetite to forego short-term gains (in terms of employees, partners, customers, revenue, etc.) isn't always available and probably reasonably so. For example, if a company or product area is early in its life and needs revenue to build traction, it may have to accept and build to customer needs that it wasn't intending to. Or, if a product area is going through a challenging time, employees may have to stomach unexpected demands because well...the area cannot forego the instability in exchange for a "smoother" experience.

I haven't fully digested the synchronicity aspect yet because in my experience, constant change (re-orgs, pivots, attrition) is commonplace in tech companies and yet these companies are successful by objective metrics while roughly adhering to their strategies. So there's two questions there for me: 1) am I mis-attributing their success to intentional strategy setting and 2) are these companies magical ninjas at staying synchronous despite change? Might that change (e.g. new leads that ladder up to C-level vision, merging of area teams for better scale, etc.) even be the form through which synchronicity is enabled?

Expand full comment