Homeostasis With a Bigger Headcount
We're good at adding structure. We're less good at asking whether what we've added still fits.
I cancelled a sprint review this week. Not because end-of-sprint reporting doesn't matter — it does — but because the format that worked well across three teams didn't translate to nine, and my first attempt to scale it didn't quite land. Better to stop, take the feedback, and redesign it properly than keep running something that isn't serving the teams it's supposed to serve. That's not failure. That's the process working.
The books I've been reading sharpened this. Range argues that breadth is what helps you find the right domain — wicked environments reward people who can draw on multiple frames. But Peak's answer is: once you've found the right thing, just showing up isn't enough. Deliberate practice — specific, feedback-rich, operating at the edge of current ability — is the only mechanism that builds real expertise. The same logic applies to how teams work. Running the same ceremony format across nine teams that you ran across three isn't scaling. It's homeostasis with a bigger headcount.
The in-person Show and Tell at Canary Wharf pointed the other direction. Twenty people in the room, noticeably better energy than remote — but the agenda filled late and we ran out of time, so the presentations got squeezed and the conversations around them got squeezed harder. Those gap conversations are rather the point of bringing people together in person. So we're extending from 45 minutes to an hour and pushing for earlier agenda submissions. More margin for the thing that actually matters.
Scaling is the wider thread. Structure will settle whether you design it or not. The question is whether it settles usefully.
Linked notes
Lesson learned
What worked at three teams won't automatically work at nine. Scaling a process means redesigning it, not just running more of the same — and taking the feedback early is faster than discovering it later.