Thread by @eriktorenberg

A simplified history of the evolution of management practice may help understand this.

Traditional theories assumed workers were pre-systematic.

The job of management was to provide a systematic framework within which employees worked, prototypically in manufacturing.

The company as a whole could operate systematically, despite the pre-systematicity of most employees. (We could call this the “three in four” model.)

Systematic executives could then optimize operations using rational, often mathematical, methods.

As postindustrial economies shifted to “knowledge work,” management practice recognized that individual employees may work systematically, and so can and must be given much greater autonomy to exercise their specialized expertise.

At first this left the company’s structure unchanged: systematic employees worked in a systematic framework optimized by systematic executives. (“Four in four.”)

But as VUCA intensified, companies that had dominated their industries with relentless rational optimization and technical excellence suddenly failed when market conditions changed out from under them.

“Adapting to changing market conditions” means not just introducing new products or entering new markets or changing market position.

It means rethinking the mindset of the company, because otherwise you find yourself weighed down by “how we do things” & unable to react.

This culminates in meta-systematic fluidity: continuous ontological remodeling.

This is now almost conventional wisdom, and considered best practice

Meta-systematic management is widely admired in theory, but putting it in practice is difficult, and not so common even in tech.

It demands meta-systematicity in senior executives.

Even then, the assumption remains that employees can only function systematically.

That means that the company’s overall operation is still systematic, albeit with leaders injecting frequent doses of structural change.

Some now recognize that executives alone cannot provide sufficient fluidity.

They can’t have sufficiently intimate knowledge of the details of their employees’ work—which may be even more subject to VUCA than the company overall.

Just as a previous generation had to learn to trust workers to function systematically managers now need to learn to trust workers to function meta-systematically.

That is, management needs to delegate continuous reformation of parts of the company to the employees who get it

This might sound “nice” and democratic to workers, or terrifying for managers, but increasingly it’s just necessary.

No one knows how to structure organizations in the whitewater world; there are no longer any standard principles that work reliably.

You cannot see the world clearly through the lens of a system—any system.

Effective organizational functioning has to be a collaborative improvisational dance with the environment, figuring it out together as you go along.

You can’t afford not to involve as many of your people as possible in that effort.

Ideally, every employee should contribute to the continual redefinition what the company is and how it functions.

Realistically, most can’t do that today.

The capacity must be developed.

Especially, systematic employees must develop meta-systematic competence, so they can go beyond formal professional expertise to respond rapidly and accurately to emerging business conditions, exercising judgement that goes beyond any set criteria.

Because meta-systematicity is rare, takes years to develop, and is not taught in school, companies have to train it in-house.

This makes for what Robert Kegan and his collaborators call a deliberately developmental organization.

This requires huge management effort, but appears to have correspondingly huge financial as well as human payoffs.

The deliberately developmental approach is not easily put into practice, but there’s a growing enthusiasm for it & increasing bodies of theory & practical resources

This understanding naturally extends to the concept of a deliberately developmental society, in which a nation-scale culture explicitly recognizes the value of adult development, not just teaching specific facts and narrow skills.

In 2019, critical political, educational, and economic systems are visibly crumbling. It’s urgent to bring more of the population to systematicity; and bringing some others to meta-systematicity is critical to enabling that.

The development of the cofounder relationship

Some venture capitalists say that startup success depends more on the cofounder relationship than any other factor.

It can be their main reason for choosing to invest, or not, in a founding team.

Conflicts between cofounders may be the most common reason for startup failure.

So, many resources aim to help strengthen these relationships: blog posts, podcasts, coaching, and bootcamps.

Tech startup founders are invariably cognitively systematic, from their education and early-career work in either STEM or business.

However, many may not have developed to systematicity in their emotional lives and relationships.

Tech startup founders are invariably cognitively systematic, from their education and early-career work in either STEM or business.

However, many may not have developed to systematicity in their emotional lives and relationships.

Most cofounder relationship advice I’ve found is about moving from being driven by emotions and personal relationships (stage three) to professionalism (four):

- Don’t let conflicts or resentments fester.
- Fight fair; disagree constructively.

- Respect each others’ strengths and give space for each others’ emotional needs
- Make sure everyone’s concerns are taken into account
- Negotiate explicitly abt who has responsibility for which decisions
- Let go of your ego & don’t insist on proving you are right all the time

This is probably exactly what many straight-out-of-school founders need.

It’s too basic for someone who’s gained some maturity from several years work experience, perhaps in a team leadership role.

Putting coherent organizational systems in place is the main job of scaling.

When investors say “it’s time to bring in professional management” or “adult supervision,” the point may be to force a professional mode of relationship on the executive team.

Or, to bring in technical expertise in building systematic administration, which the founders lack.

Since entrepreneurship is inherently meta-systematic, earlier training in personal and organizational fluidity should be valuable.