Every organisation I have known — the ones I ran, the ones I advised, the ones I watched from the outside with a mixture of admiration and dread — was built by a system. And almost every one of them that died was killed by that very same system.
Here is the paradox. Rigidity is not a character flaw. It is not laziness, not stupidity, not cowardice. It is the natural by-product of efficiency. You find what works. You repeat it. You protect it, you train people in it, you reward them for it. And one quiet morning the world moves a centimetre to the left, and everything you built so carefully to succeed is now perfectly engineered to fail.
It happens in three stages, and nobody notices the transitions. First, the system serves you. Then, you serve the system. Finally, the system serves only itself — and the people inside it defend it with the sincerity of believers, because it is the thing that once made them good.
I have lived this from the inside. When 2008 arrived, I was running a land development company in Catalonia. Our processes were excellent. They were excellent at a game that had just ended. The machine kept running for a while, beautifully, in the wrong direction. Nothing teaches you the cost of calcified competence quite like watching it perform flawlessly on the way down.
That is why the chapter of 2+2 Is Never 4 on building adaptive strategies asks for something most planning cultures resist: plans that behave as “living conversations rather than static pronouncements.” A plan written to be obeyed will be obeyed long after it stopped being right. A plan written to be questioned keeps listening.
So here are three uncomfortable questions I ask every business I sit with, including my own:
Which of your processes exist because they work — and which exist because they once did?
When was the last time someone in your organisation was rewarded for breaking a rule that deserved to be broken?
If you started again tomorrow, with everything you know today, would you build what you have?
If the honest answer to the last one is no, you are not looking at a structure. You are looking at a habit with a payroll.
None of this is an argument against systems. Chaos is not a strategy, and without clear goals and principles, flexibility simply decays into aimlessness. The argument is subtler, and harder: it takes discipline to know when to hold steady and when to pivot. Build the system, use the system, and keep one hand permanently on the door marked exit. The variables will move. They always do.
Build systems. Just never fall in love with them.
2+2 Is Never 4: There Is Always a Way — live presentation on 28 October. [VENUE · TIME · REGISTRATION LINK]
Leave a Reply