On how organisations are built, changed, and quietly undone by their own structure.
119 essays
Asked to choose between discipline and judgement, David Harvie had just spent an hour describing his disciplines. He chose judgement anyway. On a system that worked exactly as designed, what it cost the people it promoted, and why he has rebuilt a gentler version of it.
My guest this week is David Harvie, Director of Wholesale Distribution at AUSIEX, a wholesale broker serving financial advisers and institutions, and the founder of DADBODZ, a health venture for time-poor fathers.
I can audit a model's output on leadership and must take its tax advice on faith. That asymmetry is the whole problem, and it is not psychological. The third essay in the Prior Obligations series argues that AI does not deskill the competent—it unmasks the fake.
The disruption industry treats breaking things as proof of seriousness. Edmund Burke—reformer, not reactionary—offered a corrective two centuries ago: most transformation programmes destroy more than they build. The best leaders renovate, not demolish.
Every organisation has one. Twelve boxes, each promising to reduce leadership to something measurable and trainable. The framework is everywhere—and it is wrong in a more fundamental sense than you might think.
Organisations say they hire the best people. Too often, they hire the best proxies—credentials, categories, diagnoses—and never assess the person sitting in front of them. The filing system is satisfied. The organisation is not.
Control and empowerment are often performed rather than designed. In this piece I examine how organisations drift into theatre—adding process or slogans instead of clarity—and argue for bounded empowerment: clear guardrails, explicit decision rights, and real autonomy within limits.
What happens when a movement built on autonomy becomes a system of rituals? In this episode of On the Subject of Leadership, I speak with Martin Kearns—one of the
Standardisation and innovation are not competing choices but a polarity. In article four of this series I show how over-rotating to either creates failure, and how leaders can design systems, signals, and guardrails that allow both to coexist and scale.
The recurring fight between governance and autonomy is rarely a problem to solve. It is a polarity to manage. Left unexamined, organisations swing between freedom and control. The task is to design rhythms, guardrails, and signals that keep both working together.
Polarity mapping turns vague “both/and” thinking into a disciplined method. When leaders can map the upsides and downsides of competing poles, identify early warning signs, and design actions that sustain the benefits of each without tipping into failure, they build stronger organisations.
Some tensions are problems to solve. Others are polarities to manage. Polarity mapping is a disciplined way to navigate interdependent opposites without collapsing into false choices, compromise, or managerial relativism.
Durable advantage is built less on intensity than on cadence, habit, and protected attention. If you want to design routines that stick, reduce attention residue, limit false work, and turn standards into rhythms—read on.
Hard work isn’t one thing. In part one of this series I map three forms leaders confuse—Outthinking, Pure Effort, and Opportunistic positioning—and shows when each helps (and harms). Part two tackles Consistency and Focus, and how to make them compound.
Flat organisations are usually presented as a philosophy. More often they are a headcount. The literature on networked teams and post-hierarchical work is written, almost without exception, from firms