Tag: Organizations

  • The Multipliers of Clarity: How Some People Multiply Business Value

    The Multipliers of Clarity: How Some People Multiply Business Value

    You’ve probably worked with someone like this. They don’t say much in meetings. They’re rarely in a rush. They don’t fight for credit. And yet, when they’re around, everything just seems to work.

    Projects that used to drag start moving. Conversations feel clearer. Teams find rhythm again. No one can quite explain it — but with them in the mix, the system somehow aligns. It’s not charisma or luck. It’s a way of seeing.

    And before you ask — no, there’s no research paper to prove this. It’s something you notice only after years of watching projects rise and fall. Some people don’t just improve things — they multiply them.

    The People Who See the System

    Every workplace has its visible stars — the quick thinkers, the confident presenters, the ones who light up dashboards. But alongside them exist a few who see differently.

    They understand how things connect. They can sense where friction will appear and quietly smooth it out. They see how one rushed decision in design can create two weeks of rework downstream. They notice when incentives in one team silently create conflict in another.

    And to be clear — they don’t all look the same. Some are loud and visible, others are calm and understated. Some lead teams, others lead thinking. This isn’t about personality. It’s about pattern awareness — the ability to step back, connect dots, and act early.

    They might not always fit traditional molds, but they’re far from outsiders. In fact, they’re often right in the center of things — just focused on how the whole system works, not only their piece of it.

    While most people focus on doing more, these people focus on removing what doesn’t need to be done at all. That’s how they multiply productivity — not through more effort, but through better alignment.

    The Compound Effect of Curiosity

    These people rarely start out as the best performers. What sets them apart is how they learn — slowly, broadly, and constantly. They read across worlds — psychology, mathematics, strategy, philosophy, even fiction. Not to collect facts, but to understand how different systems work and fail.

    Over time, this learning compounds. They start to see patterns that repeat everywhere — in behavior, markets, organizations, even themselves. That steady accumulation of insight slowly turns into foresight.

    What looks like instinct from the outside is actually years of absorbed learning — tested quietly, remembered deeply, and cross-applied intuitively. It’s not hearsay. It’s curiosity that has matured into clarity. And when they speak, it sounds like wisdom — not because they’re preaching, but because they’ve lived the pattern before. They don’t theorize. They recall. This is how constant curiosity becomes practical foresight, and reflection turns into something that feels like intuition.

    Their real gift is anticipation. They sense friction before others feel it. They might quietly adjust a timeline, realign two people before tension surfaces, or tweak a process that’s about to break under pressure. Problems don’t reach them — because they’ve already met them halfway.

    When they’re around, everything feels smoother. But that ease isn’t luck — it’s invisible work, built on pattern recognition and foresight. The fires they prevent never make it into reports. Their impact is hard to measure, but impossible to replace.

    A Different Rhythm, a Deeper Impact

    These people don’t always operate at the same tempo as everyone else. They pause where others rush. They ask questions that momentarily slow the room — but those same questions prevent weeks of rework later.

    They think out loud, explore broadly, and sometimes look like they’re moving slower — but they’re seeing further. In a world that prizes speed, they invest in understanding.

    Their process takes longer to show results, but those results last. What looks like detours become shortcuts later. They’re not inefficient — they’re building clarity that compounds. Their curiosity matures over time into a kind of calm precision.

    How to Recognize Them

    You won’t find them through dashboards or quarterly reviews. You notice them in conversation. They make complex things sound simple — not by dumbing them down, but by getting to the root of what matters. Or they connect dots so far apart that you need a moment to catch up.

    They ask questions that stop the room — the kind that shift the discussion from “how” to “why.” They bring energy that steadies, not noise that distracts. And when they’re empowered, the whole organization starts to move with more coherence, calm, and confidence.

    The Edge That Endures

    Tools and technologies will keep changing — mobile, cloud, AI, and everything that follows. But the people who can see systems early will always stay relevant. When tools change, they learn them. When complexity grows, they simplify it. When the environment shifts, they reframe it until it makes sense again.

    The long time they’ve spent learning and crafting their thoughts stays with them for life. It becomes part of their lens — a quiet foundation that doesn’t age, even when everything else changes.

    They bridge what most people separate — logic and empathy, data and meaning, motion and direction. As AI handles execution, these people become even more vital. Because tools can speed up action, but only humans can see the whole system and guide it forward.

    A Closing Thought

    We talk about productivity as if it’s about doing more. But the kind that truly scales comes from people who help everyone do better.

    They turn curiosity into foresight, reflection into quiet wisdom, and learning into momentum that compounds across the system. They make work smoother, smarter, lighter — not because it’s easy, but because they’ve understood the structure beneath it.

    Every organization has them — visible or quiet, new or seasoned. Spot them. Empower them. Then watch your productivity, energy, and delivery zoom upward.

    Because when you nurture the people who see systems early, you don’t just multiply results — you multiply understanding, flow, and business value that lasts.

  • The Systems We Work In

    The Systems We Work In

    Layoffs in Strong Companies

    In recent years, many companies have announced large rounds of layoffs, sometimes while still reporting strong financial results. For employees, this can be confusing — if the organization is not in crisis, why must people lose their jobs? For leaders, the explanation often comes down to discipline, restructuring, or preparing for uncertain times. Both views exist, both carry their own logic, and both leave questions behind.

    When Loyalty Feels Like Baggage

    From an employee’s perspective, the experience feels deeply personal.
    If times are difficult, why am I asked to face them alone instead of with the team I was part of? When did I become baggage to the organization I contributed to? If my role had become less relevant, why was I not trained earlier, when I was still inside the system?

    These questions are not about entitlement but about continuity. They reflect a belief that the collective should carry individuals through difficult times, just as individuals contribute when times are good.

    Loyalty feels different when it is not returned.

    Decisions Framed as Survival

    From the organization’s perspective, the answers sound different. A company is not designed to guarantee roles indefinitely — it is built to sustain the organization as a whole. When functions lose relevance, or when growth projections shift, leaders feel pressure to respond quickly. Redeployment or retraining may be possible in some cases, but not always at the speed markets demand. In this view, difficult choices about individuals are framed as necessary for the survival of the larger group.

    The Incentives Behind the Actions

    Beyond leaders and employees lies the system itself — the set of incentives and rules that guide how organizations behave. This system often rewards speed, efficiency, and visible action more than patience or loyalty.

    Financial markets tend to applaud cost reductions. Analysts interpret layoffs as discipline, a signal that leadership is willing to act decisively. Boards measure success through quarterly earnings and margins, which rarely capture the value of culture, trust, or long-term skill building. Governments, depending on context, may provide safety nets or remain hands-off, but in either case the boundaries of action are set outside the control of individuals.

    In such a design, our behavior is shaped less by personal values and more by the incentives around us. A leader may believe in shared sacrifice, but if delaying layoffs leads to investor pressure and falling stock value, the space to act differently narrows. An employee may believe that loyalty secures belonging, but if the system defines relevance in terms of financial contribution, that loyalty holds limited weight.

    The result is a cycle: growth slows, analysts downgrade, boards push for action, companies announce cuts, stock prices rise, executives are rewarded, and employees absorb the disruption. No single actor sets this chain in motion, but each of us plays our part within it.

    The machine moves, even when no one wants to push it.

    The Visibility of Leadership Choices

    Layoffs are often framed as difficult but necessary — yet the financial impact rarely falls evenly. Employees lose their jobs, while executives often retain their compensation or even receive rewards for cost-cutting. From the outside, this creates a visible contrast between those who carry the immediate loss and those who continue to lead.

    Leaders operate under constant pressure from boards, markets, and investors to act quickly and maintain confidence. Their pay structures, often set long in advance, are designed to signal continuity and control, not indifference. Cutting their own compensation may have little financial effect but can introduce new risks — unsettling markets or creating uncertainty when steadiness is most needed.

    Both perspectives hold their own truth. For employees, the absence of shared sacrifice can feel like distance. For leaders, stability can feel like duty.

    The same decision can look firm from one side and detached from another. And perhaps that’s the nature of leadership — to be seen differently, depending on where one stands.

    Layoffs as Human Events

    Layoffs also bring an emotional weight that goes beyond numbers. For those leaving, the stress is immediate — financial uncertainty, disruption of routine, and the sense of identity tied to work suddenly cut off. For those who remain, there is survivor’s guilt, anxiety about the future, and reduced trust in the stability of their own roles. Even leaders, though often viewed as distant decision-makers, carry pressure of a different kind: knowing that their choices affect lives, while also being measured against unforgiving financial targets.

    This stress reminds us that layoffs are not only structural adjustments. They are human events that touch us all in different ways.

    The impact lingers long after financial charts move on. Culture changes quietly, long before balance sheets notice.

    Employees, Organizations, and the Larger Ecosystem

    A common expectation is that working for a well-regarded company provides security. Yet even the best companies cannot guarantee permanent jobs. What they can offer are opportunities for learning, growth, and contribution. Here, responsibility does not end with the organization. Employees also carry a role: to remain skillful, to adapt as industries change, and to build their own safety nets — financial, professional, and social. This shift in perspective moves the focus from job security to career resilience.

    Organizations, for their part, exist primarily to create value and profits. Jobs are not their final purpose, but one of the ways in which they achieve outcomes. The best organizations try to balance this profit orientation with humanity — by creating learning opportunities, supporting transitions, and avoiding unnecessary harm. Still, their actions are shaped by wider dynamics: market cycles, investor expectations, and competitive pressures. Even with good intentions, no company can offer stability to every individual.

    But when we step back, we see that both employees and organizations contribute to the larger ecosystem. Employees carry their skills and values across roles and companies, strengthening society as a whole. Organizations generate opportunities and progress while pursuing profits. The system does not remove responsibility from either side. But it does set the boundaries within which all of us must act.

    Speed with Humanity

    If layoffs remain a tool companies reach for, the question becomes how to manage them in ways that do less damage to trust and culture. Certain policies can provide balance while still allowing organizations to act quickly.

    Not everyone may agree with these approaches, and my own thoughts may evolve with time. But today, when I reflect on what could bring some balance, these steps feel like a better way forward:

    • Continue health benefits for up to a year
    • Extend access to learning resources even after departure
    • Facilitate job transitions by connecting departing employees to new opportunities
    • Reduce workweeks temporarily or allow voluntary salary cuts before job losses
    • Link executive rewards directly to workforce stability

    These measures are not meant to dilute urgency. Speed, adaptability, and financial recovery remain critical to organizational survival. The intent is not to make decisions slower, but to make them fairer — to design responses that act quickly without eroding trust. When empathy outweighs efficiency, execution falters; when efficiency ignores empathy, culture weakens. The true balance lies between the two.

    Living Inside the System We Built

    Layoffs illustrate the tension between loyalty and efficiency, between individual expectations and systemic rules. Employees, leaders, investors, and governments all play their roles, yet the system often shapes behavior more than any one person’s intent.

    The question is less about blame and more about balance — how to preserve efficiency without losing humanity, and how to distribute opportunities so more people can flourish.

    Tulsidas ji wrote:
    दया धर्म का मूल है, पाप मूल अभिमान।
    तुलसी दया न छोड़िये, जब लग घट में प्राण॥

    Meaning: Compassion is the root of righteousness; pride is the root of wrongdoing.

    In today’s context, it reminds us that empathy belongs to everyone — to employees facing loss, to leaders making difficult choices, and to stakeholders carrying expectations of growth.

    Each sees the system from a different distance, yet all are bound by it. Empathy, in the end, is not sentiment but understanding — the ability to see another’s position without surrendering your own.

    And perhaps that is enough — not to remove the tension, but to live with it consciously. Because in the end, we all live inside the system we have built.

    Disclaimer:- This piece is not about any single company or moment — only about the shared systems we all live and work within.

  • Engineering Managers: Navigating Complexity and Challenges

    Engineering Managers: Navigating Complexity and Challenges

    Engineering Managers (EMs) operate at the intersection of strategy, execution, and culture. Their role is multifaceted, demanding constant negotiation between high-level organizational goals and granular operational realities. To fully grasp the complexity of this role, we’ll examine it through the lens of Prof. Aswath Damodaran’s Classical Firm Structure, which highlights inherent trust deficits and competing priorities in organizations.

    EMs bridge the gap between diverse stakeholders — ranging from HR and product teams to customers and CTOs. This article unpacks the EM’s role across four critical segments: Leadership and Strategy, Internal Teams, External Stakeholders, and Cross-Functional Relationships. Along the way, we’ll identify blind spots, explore challenges, and offer practical insights to navigate this high-stakes role.

    The Classical Firm Structure and the EM’s Role

    Prof. Damodaran’s theory of the classical firm emphasizes the concept of a trust deficit, stemming from the conflicting priorities of various stakeholders. Shareholders and the Board of Directors seek to maximize wealth, driving growth and profitability. Customers demand reliable, high-quality products and services at a fair price. Governments and regulators focus on compliance with laws, regulations, and ethical standards. Banks and investors expect sound financial management to secure returns and ensure repayment.

    When applied to the Engineering Manager’s (EM) role, this model isn’t just about trust — it’s about navigating complexity. The EM’s job involves constant prioritization, balancing trade-offs, and negotiating between internal and external stakeholders. It’s a tightrope walk, requiring exceptional agility to meet these diverse demands without tipping the balance.

    Segment 1: Leadership and Strategy

    High-Level Goal: Align engineering initiatives with organizational objectives while fostering innovation and growth.

    Challenges:

    • Balancing immediate delivery timelines with long-term technical investments like architecture improvements or tech debt reduction.
    • Navigating conflicting signals from leadership — prioritizing short-term ROI while laying the groundwork for future scalability.

    Blind Spots:

    • Over-focus on metrics like velocity or uptime without considering team morale and sustainability.
    • Failure to advocate for technical initiatives in leadership discussions, leading to eventual burnout or system fragility.

    Practical Insight:

    Create a transparent roadmap that incorporates both strategic milestones and operational necessities. Use this roadmap to advocate for technical priorities while showcasing their long-term business impact.

    Segment 2: Internal Teams

    High-Level Goal: Empower teams to deliver quality software efficiently while maintaining morale and collaboration.

    Challenges:

    • Managing diverse personalities and skill sets within the team.
    • Resolving conflicts between product demands and team capacity.
    • Addressing issues like tech debt without demoralizing the team by overloading them.

    Blind Spots:

    • Misjudging the team’s capacity to adapt to rapid changes, resulting in over commitment or burnout.
    • Failing to create psychological safety, which stifles innovation and candid feedback.

    Practical Insight:

    Hold regular retrospectives focused on team health and process efficiency, not just technical output. Proactively communicate trade-offs to product stakeholders to shield teams from unnecessary pressure.

    Segment 3: External Stakeholders

    High-Level Goal: Deliver high-quality products that meet customer expectations while minimizing escalations.

    Challenges:

    • Managing SLA agreements and prioritizing escalations without derailing ongoing work.
    • Aligning customer needs with organizational capabilities and product roadmaps.

    Blind Spots:

    • Over-prioritizing escalations can create a fire-fighting culture, leaving no room for innovation.
    • Lack of visibility into evolving customer needs due to siloed communication with product teams.

    Practical Insight:

    Build strong relationships with customer success teams and encourage direct feedback loops from customers. Use this feedback to preemptively address common issues in future product releases.

    Segment 4: Cross-Functional Relationships

    High-Level Goal: Foster alignment across departments to enable seamless delivery and innovation.

    Challenges:

    • Bridging the gap between technical and non-technical stakeholders (e.g., translating engineering constraints into business terms).
    • Managing dependencies across teams, particularly during large initiatives.

    Blind Spots:

    • Assuming alignment across departments without validating it through regular check-ins or shared metrics.
    • Ignoring process bottlenecks caused by misaligned priorities.

    Practical Insight:

    Effective cross-functional collaboration relies on regular sync-ups to track progress, resolve roadblocks, and ensure transparency. A clear goal owner should align teams, document risks, and address issues promptly. Before release, a go/no-go meeting ensures alignment and readiness. The focus is on consistent communication, accountability, and proactive risk management, and frameworks like OKRs can also be used to achieve these goals.

    Blind Spots Across the Board

    Across these segments, EMs face blind spots that can hinder their effectiveness:

    1. Neglecting Culture: Overemphasizing delivery without fostering a healthy, collaborative culture.
    2. Ignoring Feedback Loops: Failing to build mechanisms for continuous feedback across teams and stakeholders.
    3. Tunnel Vision: Becoming too focused on either technical or managerial responsibilities, at the expense of the other.

    When Organizations May Not Need EMs

    Not every culture or team structure benefits from the presence of EMs. Flat, self-managed teams with strong collaborative norms may thrive without traditional EMs. For example:

    • Startups with highly autonomous developers and direct access to leadership often minimize the need for EMs.
    • Teams working on narrow, well-defined scopes may not require a formal manager.

    However, as organizations scale and complexity grows, the EM’s role becomes indispensable to manage dependencies, align priorities, and maintain momentum.

    Conclusion: The Tightrope Walk

    The role of an Engineering Manager is one of constant complexity and trade-offs. While the trust deficit described in the classical firm structure doesn’t always apply in modern organizations, the challenges of navigating competing priorities remain central to the role.

    By embracing self-awareness, building robust feedback loops, and fostering alignment across teams and stakeholders, EMs can successfully navigate this complexity. Whether in startups or enterprise environments, the EM’s ability to bridge organizational silos and deliver value is what defines their success.