I think the way we think about this kind of work sometimes leads to a "single-box theory": That whatever we need to do, as an organization, can fit into a singl

I think the way we think about this kind of work sometimes leads to a "single-box theory": That whatever we need to do, as an organization, can fit into a single thought-box. We all need to "think like a reliability engineer", or "think like a developer", or "think like a marketer". That every job should be a system of squads, interlinked within squads, interlinked within squads, interlinked within one BU. But this can get a little over-complicated, and still not quite specific enough. You adopt these 4 practical strategies, and what do you get? Blind adherence to a rule. Empty formalism. Following the letter and not the spirit. And the reason is, all of this shit is hard! It's complicated and requires deep knowledge. Asking a random person to do a thing they don't really understand well isn't going to result in overall better outcomes. I think the answer is perhaps the hardest one: we need better education. We need an actual school where people go to learn about every facet of everyone else's job in a tech shop. If everyone has the deep knowledge of how each other's jobs work, what their considerations are, and what needs to get done when, we don't have to struggle putting processes in place to constrain the eventual chaos of competing priorities and unknown procedures. Put simply: we all need to skill up.