Coordination Over Chaos: Leonardo Freixas on Scaling Pitfalls

In a recent LinkedIn post, Leonardo Freixas discusses a common organizational pitfall: scaling the wrong way, leading to a lack of coordination rather than increased capacity. Freixas uses a compelling analogy to illustrate his point, comparing a company’s approach to problem-solving with a children’s football game.

The ‘100 Children vs. 3 Professionals’ Analogy

Freixas begins by setting up a scenario that highlights a critical difference in strategy. He writes:

100 children lost to 3 professional footballers.
Not because they lacked effort.

They had plenty of that.

The core of the issue, as Freixas explains, isn’t a deficit in effort but a fundamental problem with coordination. In the analogy, the 100 children all chase the ball simultaneously, creating chaos. In contrast, the three professionals maintain their positions, allowing them to manage the situation more effectively. This leads Freixas to draw a parallel with corporate environments:

Coordination as a Key Constraint in Business Scaling

Freixas argues that when companies encounter a problem, the immediate reaction is often for everyone to jump in, regardless of role or responsibility. This can lead to a situation where multiple individuals are attempting to solve the same issue, creating redundancy and inefficiency. As Leonardo Freixas notes, this is a failure of coordination, not effort.

He elaborates on this point:

The constraint isn’t effort.
It’s coordination.

More people don’t create capacity when they’re all solving the same problem.
They create noise.

According to Freixas, the addition of more people to a problem that lacks clear ownership and coordination doesn’t necessarily increase output or efficiency. Instead, it can lead to confusion, duplicated work, and a general slowdown in progress. This ‘noise,’ as he terms it, distracts from effective problem-solving.

Establishing Ownership Before the ‘Ball Moves’

The key takeaway from Freixas’s analysis is the importance of establishing clear roles and responsibilities before a problem arises or a new initiative begins. He suggests that the professionals in his analogy succeeded because their ownership was defined prior to the game’s start.

Freixas concludes his post with this observation:

3 beat 100 because ownership was established before the ball moved.

In essence, Freixas is advocating for a proactive approach to organizational design and problem-solving. By ensuring that roles are clearly defined and that individuals understand their specific contributions, companies can avoid the pitfalls of chaotic scaling and instead build a more coordinated and effective operational structure. This focus on clarity and defined ownership, he suggests, is crucial for sustainable growth and efficient problem resolution.