Instead of over-analyzing and philosophizing about process improvements, simply force the team to increase its cadence and ship faster. This discomfort forces quicker, more natural problem-solving, causing many underlying inefficiencies to self-correct without needing a formal change initiative.
Related Insights
CEO Dylan Field combats organizational slowness by interrogating project timelines. He seeks to understand the underlying assumptions and separate actual work from "well-intentionally added" padding. This forces teams to reason from first principles and justify the true time required, preventing unnecessary delays.
To fix a failing process like cash collections, the CEO should hold a daily 8 a.m. meeting with the team. By repeatedly asking a direct question like, "Where's my money?", you force the rapid resolution of small, overlooked blockers and create an unscalable but effective communication channel.
The founders resolve the tension between speed and quality by being "obsessive." They move fast by iterating constantly, but also relentlessly go back and refine existing work. Speed is about the pace of iteration and a commitment to delight, not about shipping once and moving on.
To avoid stifling teams with bureaucracy, leaders should provide slightly less structure than seems necessary. This approach, described as "give ground grudgingly," forces teams to think actively and prevents the feeling of "walking in the muck" that comes from excessive process. It's a sign of a healthy system when people feel they need a bit more structure, not less.
To move beyond static playbooks, treat your team's ways of working (e.g., meetings, frameworks) as a product. Define the problem they solve, for whom, and what success looks like. This approach allows for public reflection and iterative improvement based on whether the process is achieving its goal.
When a critical process like cash collection fails, use a tactic from Intel's Andy Grove: a daily 8 a.m. meeting where the CEO directly asks, "Where's my money?" This intense, unscalable focus rapidly uncovers and resolves the small, systemic blockers that are derailing the entire process.
True agility isn't just about sprints; it's psychological. By breaking massive projects into minimal viable products (MVPs) or small features, the team creates a steady stream of "quick wins." This builds a sense of progress and happiness—a "dopamine type of reward"—that keeps the wheel of innovation turning and prevents teams from getting bogged down.
Chess.com's goal of 1,000 experiments isn't about the number. It’s a forcing function to expose systemic blockers and drive conversations about what's truly needed to increase velocity, like no-code tools and empowering non-product teams to test ideas.
To gauge if an engineering team can move faster, listen for specific 'smells.' Constant complaints about broken builds, flaky tests, overly long processes for provisioning environments, and high friction when switching projects are clear signals of significant, addressable bottlenecks.
The misconception that discovery slows down delivery is dangerous. Like stretching before a race prevents injury, proper, time-boxed discovery prevents building the wrong thing. This avoids costly code rewrites and iterative launches that miss the mark, ultimately speeding up the delivery of a successful product.
