#54: Subsystem Optimization and Organizational Error
The importance of everyone seeing themselves as a leader
Everyone is a leader. This idea has been hammered into my mind repeatedly by listening to Jocko over the last decade.
But, why is that so important? And what does that look like in practice?
I recently came across this video of Elon Musk where he states:
"Everyone is a chief engineer; this is extremely important in that everyone must understand how, broadly speaking, all the systems in the vehicle work."
In other words, everyone views themselves as the leader responsible for the entire rocket. He says, "The product errors reflect the organizational errors", meaning that if, at the organizational level, there isn't a culture of everyone broadly understanding each system in the rocket, you will see this error manifest itself at the product level in the form of subsystem optimization.
But, what is subsystem optimization? Why is it a bad thing? And how does that relate to organizational error?
It's helpful to define terms here. Subsystem optimization refers to improving individual parts or subsystems of a larger system without considering how these changes will impact the overall performance. Subsystem optimization results in resources being allocated to low-priority items that have diminishing returns compared to higher-priority items.
Organizational error refers to error that arises from a defect in the operating system, or culture, of a company. Some examples of organizational error look like:
Failure to align objectives with execution
Subsystem optimization
Bureaucracy and lack of agility
Poor communication
Resistance to feedback or change
Ignoring first principles thinking
While we are not all rocket scientists building rockets to take us to the stars, this idea of organizational error is something that exists in all companies.
Striking the balance
What the correct depth of understanding is that constitutes a "broad understanding." How much should each individual understand what others are doing? It can't be 100% because then nothing would get done, and everyone would spend so much time communicating that forward progress would grind to a halt. On the other hand, it can't be zero, because then you won't be aligned and unable to cover for one another.
What is the right balance? How much should other people understand about you and your department? And how much should you understand about what others are doing?
The perfect balance looks different for every organization. But I think a great place to start is an understanding of the
goals,
priorities, and
challenges
faced by each department.
Throughout my career, I've often found myself in a place where I could not clearly articulate these things for myself and my own department. It's easy to get caught up in the day and day grind and skip the work of defining and communicating to others your goals, priorities, and challenges so they can support you and align their priorities with yours.
Closing
When you view yourself as the chief engineer, the leader responsible for the entire thing, you:
1. take ownership of your ability to communicate what you are doing and
2. take ownership of understanding of what others are doing.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The cost of investing this time into communication to prevent organizational error is far less than the time required to fix those errors once they manifest themselves.