Post #3528674

2026-06-25 05:40 UTC

Organisational Dysfunction of the Day Permanent urgency Context: Everything is urgent. The backlog is full of high priorities. Every quarter brings a new set of critical initiatives. People are context-switching constantly, barely finishing one thing before the next emergency arrives. There is no time to reflect, refactor, learn, or plan properly. Leadership acknowledges this is not ideal but frames it as the nature of the industry or the market. The pace is presented as a sign of ambition. People are tired in a way that a long weekend does not fix. OST explains: Permanent urgency is what a DP1 structure produces when it has no mechanism for deciding what not to do. Prioritisation lives above the team: someone outside the group determines what is critical, and the team executes. When everything coming down is labelled urgent, the team has no structural way to push back, because pushing back requires owning the goals, not just the delivery. The six psychological requirements for productive work include adequate variety and continual learning, both of which require time that is not committed. A team running at permanent capacity cannot learn, cannot reflect, and cannot improve. It can only execute until the people in it stop being able to. The exhaustion is not a sign of ambition. It is a sign that the structure has no off switch. #OpenSystemsTheory #SocioTechnical #OrgDesign #agile

Replies (1)

@trondhjort@hachyderm.io 2026-06-26 06:08

Organisational Dysfunction of the Day The market we think we shape Context: The organisation is genuinely engaged with its market. There is a customer advisory board that meets twice a year. The head of product speaks at industry conferences. The company publishes case studies, contributes to working groups, and has a reputation for being thoughtful about the space it operates in. Leadership talks about being a market shaper, not a market follower. Internally, roadmap decisions are still driven by competitive analysis, quarterly OKRs, and what the sales team is hearing from prospects. The advisory board gives feedback on features that have already been decided. The conference talks describe what the company has built, not what the industry needs. The working groups produce documents nobody implements. The organisation is present in the field. It is not shaping it. OST explains: An open system survives by maintaining an active relationship with its environment, not just absorbing signals from it but acting on them. Most organisations in turbulent fields are reasonably good at the first: they scan, survey, monitor, and respond. What they systematically underinvest in is the second: actively shaping the field. Responsiveness alone is reactive. The US auto industry watched fuel prices rise, saw consumer values shifting, and kept building SUVs. The signals were there. The field was not taken seriously as something to act on, only to respond to. In turbulent conditions that gap is fatal, because the field changes faster than any planning cycle can track. Shaping a field at its fullest means contributing to conditions under which customers, partners, and the broader system can develop sustainably. That requires treating the future as a puzzle to be explored together, not a problem to be solved internally. The advisory board, the conference talk, the working group document are all problem-solving instruments. None of them is puzzle-solving. The organisation is not shaping its environment. It is describing it, at a safe distance, and calling that strategy. #OpenSystemsTheory #SocioTechnical #OrgDesign #strategy

Open ##3528673