In 2005, David Foster Wallace gave a commencement address at Kenyon College, opening with a parable:
“There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually, one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?’”
Over the past several weeks, I’ve been digging into themes around organizational structure, resistance to change, and the obstacles to transformation. I started with Larman's Laws, then moved to Conway's Law, and most recently covered Ken Schwaber’s article "Scrum is Hard and Disruptive." Each one echoes variations on a similar theme. Now, it’s time to examine how these ideas align—and reveal the core barriers to meaningful change.
-
Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior
Larman’s Laws emphasize that organizations are fundamentally set up to preserve the status quo, especially when it comes to structure. They argue that resistance to change is a serious barrier to adopting Agile practices. According to Larman, middle management often resists changes that might reduce their influence. So, attempts to implement Agile without restructuring the underlying system tend to result in superficial change at best.
Commentary: Larman’s Laws highlight that structure is central to an organization’s resistance to innovation—a theme that resurfaces in Conway’s Law and the Scrum article, where structure protects power and limits transformation. -
Conway’s Law
Conway’s Law famously states that “organizations which design systems… are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.” In other words, an organization’s internal communication setup will shape the design and efficiency of its systems. When departments work in silos, they often produce fragmented systems that mirror these communication barriers.
Commentary: Similar to Larman’s Laws, Conway’s Law shows that structure defines outcomes. Whether it’s technical systems or Agile processes, success hinges on whether the organization’s structure supports collaborative, cross-functional communication. -
"Scrum is Hard and Disruptive"
Ken Schwaber’s "Scrum is Hard and Disruptive" argues that Scrum is far more than a productivity tool; it’s a deeply disruptive force that brings to light entrenched organizational dysfunctions. Scrum forces organizations to confront inefficiencies in communication, decision-making. As a result, resistance is inevitable, especially from middle management, whose roles and authority are often challenged by Agile’s push for self-managing teams and transparency.
Commentary: Like Larman’s Laws and Conway’s Law, Schwaber’s article drives home that real change requires structural change. Without addressing communication pathways, Scrum implementations are likely to be resisted or watered down, limiting their potential impact.
At the heart of these three ideas is a recognition that organizational structure and communication pathways are the core obstacles to change. Larman’s Laws show organisations are ... "implicitly optimized to avoid changing the status quo." Conway’s Law illustrates how these structures shape outcomes, and Schwaber’s article reveals how disruption exposes the need for structural reform.
The trouble with water
Foster Wallace's parable was to point out "that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about."
The unspoken thread connecting all these ideas is people. It’s people who make the decisions, control the funding, direct the flow of information, and shape the organization’s culture. But it isn’t just anyone; it’s a select few who hold this influence. In a word, it’s power.
Next week, I’ll bring these concepts together to introduce Kane’s Law, exploring how structure and power combine to shape an organization’s behavior, resilience, and capacity for change.