Thank you Andrea and Andrew for articulating something I’ve felt but struggled to name. The distinction between values, interpretations, and protocols felt like a cognitive exhale—it explains so much unnecessary friction I’ve seen in teams that otherwise want the same outcomes.
What your framework made me wonder is whether organizations underestimate how unspoken success criteria shape these operating systems. People don’t just adapt to tools and norms; they adapt to what gets rewarded quietly over time. Surfacing not just how we work, but what survival once required, might be another powerful layer of integration.
Thank you! I do think that unspoken norms are often underestimated in organisations, especially large ones where this can be unwieldy to be honest. The bigger and the more multicultural the environment, the harder this is to surface and manage. That said, some organisations actually exploit unspoken norms in bad/toxic ways, too!
That’s such an important point — especially the idea that unspoken norms can be used, not just overlooked. When expectations stay implicit, they’re no longer just cultural drift; they become a quiet form of power.
It makes me think that surfacing operating systems isn’t only about alignment, but about ethics too — deciding which inherited norms we’re willing to make explicit and which ones we should actively dismantle. Thank you for naming that risk so clearly.
An excellent example. I've found myself on the side of not saying anything until I have something thoughtful to say and internally discounting the quick "I'm on it" response as unnecessary brown nosing. Of course "I'm on it." That's the job. It's good to become aware of these differing interpretations.
“the gap is often just risk-management shaped by different realities.” This is such an apt description. Once people realize this, it opens up possibilities. Be ignorant to it or ignore it completely at your own risk.
I really like the idea of “work operating systems.”
What this shows well is that most conflicts at work aren’t actually about being fast or slow, or using the right tools. They happen because people have different hidden rules in their heads about what “good work” means — and those rules are never said out loud.
The three-layer model helps because it makes things clearer: first agree on values, then talk about how we interpret behavior, and only then set simple rules. When this is clear, people stop guessing intentions, and working together becomes much easier.
Do you find that most friction comes from missing protocols, or from deeper disagreement about what those protocols are meant to protect?
Thanks for the comment! In my experience it's usually missing protocols, so not having that integration layer that helps people bridge the gap between their default behaviours. This is quite difficult to achieve, so many organisations prefer to focus on continuous transformations, coaching and things like that. Creating a space for shared understanding is a heavier lift, especially for larger organisations, but I think it's well worth the investment!
That makes a lot of sense. I’m curious — in your experience, when organisations do manage to define stable protocols, what do those protocols ultimately anchor to? Is it shared values, leadership judgment, external constraints… or something else that gives them long-term legitimacy?
The most effective way in my experience is to build shared protocols through co-creation with the people involved. I’d say that’s the only surefire way for protocols to earn legitimacy from day 1, though they then need to be consistently reinforced through practice cemented by demonstrated impact.
So to answer your question directly I’d say shared values. But as you’d imagine there’s always leadership judgment in the mix, which is partly driven by external constraints. Still - I think the most effective lever is values!
I agree — shared values do seem to be doing a lot of the work when protocols actually hold over time.
I’m curious though: in your experience, what tends to keep those values coherent as contexts change — is it leadership judgment, explicit reinforcement mechanisms, or something else that prevents slow drift?
Thank you Andrea and Andrew for articulating something I’ve felt but struggled to name. The distinction between values, interpretations, and protocols felt like a cognitive exhale—it explains so much unnecessary friction I’ve seen in teams that otherwise want the same outcomes.
What your framework made me wonder is whether organizations underestimate how unspoken success criteria shape these operating systems. People don’t just adapt to tools and norms; they adapt to what gets rewarded quietly over time. Surfacing not just how we work, but what survival once required, might be another powerful layer of integration.
Thank you! I do think that unspoken norms are often underestimated in organisations, especially large ones where this can be unwieldy to be honest. The bigger and the more multicultural the environment, the harder this is to surface and manage. That said, some organisations actually exploit unspoken norms in bad/toxic ways, too!
That’s such an important point — especially the idea that unspoken norms can be used, not just overlooked. When expectations stay implicit, they’re no longer just cultural drift; they become a quiet form of power.
It makes me think that surfacing operating systems isn’t only about alignment, but about ethics too — deciding which inherited norms we’re willing to make explicit and which ones we should actively dismantle. Thank you for naming that risk so clearly.
An excellent example. I've found myself on the side of not saying anything until I have something thoughtful to say and internally discounting the quick "I'm on it" response as unnecessary brown nosing. Of course "I'm on it." That's the job. It's good to become aware of these differing interpretations.
I agree, it's about opening our eyes to the fact that our individual perspective is almost never the full picture.
Thanks for the mention, Andrea!
“the gap is often just risk-management shaped by different realities.” This is such an apt description. Once people realize this, it opens up possibilities. Be ignorant to it or ignore it completely at your own risk.
Great post by two of my favourites!
Thank you Jennifer. Andrea wrote all the parts that make sense and sound smart :)
😂😂😂
🤣
100% agreed! It's all about being open to seeing the world with someone else's eyes.
I really like the idea of “work operating systems.”
What this shows well is that most conflicts at work aren’t actually about being fast or slow, or using the right tools. They happen because people have different hidden rules in their heads about what “good work” means — and those rules are never said out loud.
The three-layer model helps because it makes things clearer: first agree on values, then talk about how we interpret behavior, and only then set simple rules. When this is clear, people stop guessing intentions, and working together becomes much easier.
Do you find that most friction comes from missing protocols, or from deeper disagreement about what those protocols are meant to protect?
Thanks
Thanks for the comment! In my experience it's usually missing protocols, so not having that integration layer that helps people bridge the gap between their default behaviours. This is quite difficult to achieve, so many organisations prefer to focus on continuous transformations, coaching and things like that. Creating a space for shared understanding is a heavier lift, especially for larger organisations, but I think it's well worth the investment!
That makes a lot of sense. I’m curious — in your experience, when organisations do manage to define stable protocols, what do those protocols ultimately anchor to? Is it shared values, leadership judgment, external constraints… or something else that gives them long-term legitimacy?
Thanks
The most effective way in my experience is to build shared protocols through co-creation with the people involved. I’d say that’s the only surefire way for protocols to earn legitimacy from day 1, though they then need to be consistently reinforced through practice cemented by demonstrated impact.
So to answer your question directly I’d say shared values. But as you’d imagine there’s always leadership judgment in the mix, which is partly driven by external constraints. Still - I think the most effective lever is values!
I agree — shared values do seem to be doing a lot of the work when protocols actually hold over time.
I’m curious though: in your experience, what tends to keep those values coherent as contexts change — is it leadership judgment, explicit reinforcement mechanisms, or something else that prevents slow drift?
Thanks