Pawel Brodzinski on Leadership in Technology

Whatever it takes to lead a team, build a product, and run a business

Tag: AI

Would You Pay to Have Your Resume Read?
As a job applicant, would you pay to make sure someone reads your application?

Here’s a sad reality for many people applying for a job:
- Their competitors (i.e., other candidates) use AI tools to mass apply.
- As a result, hiring companies are flooded with applications, and sifting through all of them is impractical.
- What follows is that hiring companies defer to other AI tools to filter out the vast majority of applications (often as much as 95%+).
- The recruitment game becomes one of prompting one AI agent to pass through the filters of another AI agent.
Realities of Job Seekers A.D. 2025

Imagine that there is a job that you really want to get. It doesn’t even matter why. It may be because you know that the company is great, or the job profile matches your dreams perfectly, or you perceive the experience you’d get there as unique, or whatever. You just want in.

But hey, since all those other people are using AI tools to spam the hiring company’s application form, your submission will disappear in that flood.

It’s even worse than that. If you hand-craft your application to show your genuine care for the job, it’s almost certain that you’ll be rejected. After all, your original story will be written to a hiring manager (a human), but it’s never going to get there in the first place. It will be rejected by an automated AI tool (a bot) precisely because it’s non-conformist.

Such a resume doesn’t match the most common patterns. There aren’t many similar examples in the AI model’s training data. It’s not common enough.

If you want your application to get past the AI filter, you kinda have to play the game everyone else does. Optimize for what a bot wants. And it’s impractical to do it by hand. Just hire another AI agent to do it for you.

Except that you’ve defeated the purpose that way. First, you aren’t more likely to get through. Second, even in the case that you do, the hiring manager will see another similar, bland-but-professional resume. You will not stand out.

Most importantly, you will not carry over your care about that job.

Recruitment in the AI Era Is Irrevocably Broken

The story above neatly pictures how broken the recruitment has become. What’s more, there’s no going back.

You can pretend it’s 2020 and send your manually-crafted CV, but you’re going to lose to people auto-submitting thousands of AI-generated resumes. Oh, and said resumes will be automatically tweaked to better match a job description, with no human effort whatsoever.

A resume doesn’t work as a token of information exchanged between two humans (a hiring manager and a candidate) anymore.

The career of a resume is over. At least the one that we know. If anything, a CV becomes a token exchanged between two AI agents, neither of which is programmed by the actual candidate.

No matter how hard we try, there’s no coming back. We can’t make resumes unbroken again. Even if we aspirationally tried to restore the original meaning of a CV, there will always be a rogue player who will exploit that trust by mass-applying with generated stuff. And since that will give them a short-term advantage, others will follow suit.

Winning the Game by Not Playing It Altogether

It’s ironic how both sides of this equation—recruiters and candidates alike—are losing in the new setup. Candidates have it harder to show their care about specific jobs. Companies give up on the best matches because they employ a bot to reject 95% of applicants. And yet, no one can change the rules anymore.

So, is conforming to the new state of things the only option?

Image from the WarGames movie

In the classic movie WarGames, the AI, which is trying to “win” the nuclear war, eventually learns that it always ends in mutual assured destruction. The only winning move, thus, is not to play at all.

It’s the same with recruitment. If the current system forces us to mass-produce thousands and thousands of resumes that no one will ever read, we’re just adding noise to the system. The winning move? Not to play.

But wait, if you want to change jobs, how are you supposed not to play the game? If you never apply, you never get that dream job of yours. Or a better one than you have now.

Trust Networks as Antidote to AI Slop

In recruitment, as much as in any other area, we will defer to trust networks to circumvent the noise. The more toxic AI slop is in the feed, the less we trust the feed altogether, and the more we rely on human-to-human connections.

One side of relying on trust networks is that companies increasingly go for employee referrals rather than traditional open recruitment processes. That doesn’t solve the other part of the equation, though. What if I am a candidate and want that specific job?

Do the same. Build a connection with someone at that company. We live in an interconnected world, and there are still places where a genuine message will stand out. They may attend local meetups, be active on LinkedIn, maybe publish a blog or a Substack, or engage in some other professional activities. If you care, you will figure that out. Get to know people first, and only then apply.

Does it seem like a lot of effort? That’s precisely the point. It shows how much you care.

Very recently, we made our first hire in almost two years. We didn’t even open a recruitment process. There was this guy who stayed in contact after we talked a few years back. And then, eventually, it was a good time for him and a good time for us. A win-win.

The point is: he made the effort to reconnect. He made it easy for us to remember.

This could only happen because we’ve built the human connection beforehand. We were two parts of the same trust network.

Would You Pay To Put Your Resume at a Hiring Manager’s Desk?

I admit, relying on trust networks is a lot of effort. And it takes time. Both would make the approach impractical at times. So what if there were a shortcut?

That brings me back to my original question. As a candidate applying for a job, would you pay to skip the AI line? Would you pay to ensure that your application is read by a human?

Note, your resume would still go through regular scrutiny. It’s just you’d know a human would do it, not a black-box AI agent.

There’s an interesting balance here. Make it too cheap, say $0.02, and it changes nothing. People would still be mass-applying all the same, so no one would take that seriously. Make it too expensive, say $200, and it’s probably not a good return on investment for a candidate. After all, no one would hire such a candidate or even rate them any better. A hiring manager would just read and assess the resume as if it passed the AI filters.

What’s in it for a candidate? It’s an open avenue to show genuine care. Since the applicant knows they’re not going through AI, they are free to optimize their application for a human reader. Hell, they actually are encouraged to go the extra mile with their application.

What’s in it for a hiring company? I reckon it wouldn’t make sense for a candidate to pay for mass applying, so they’d do that only for jobs they actually care about. So the hiring company gets a token of care along with a resume. Recruiters can still assess skills the way they do, but before committing any effort in interviews, they clearly know which candidates consider the position a great match.

So, would you pay to guarantee your resume is reviewed by a hiring manager? If so, how much?

Here’s a little experiment that’s in the spirit of the post. This link here is a token of human effort behind the post.
웃https://okhuman.com/CuC1uw
December 5, 2025
Trust Networks as Antidote to AI Slop

This week, AWS went down, along with a quarter of the internet. It’s funny how much we rely on cloud infrastructure even for services that should natively work offline.

That is, “funny” as long as you’re not a customer of said services trying to do something important to you. I know how frustrating it was when Grammarly stopped correcting my writing during the outage, even if it’s anything but a critical service to me.

While AWS engineers were busy trying to get the services back online, the internet was busy mocking Amazon. Elon Musk’s tweet got turbo-popular, quickly getting several million pageviews and sparking buzz from Reddit to serious pundits.

Admittedly, it was spot on. No wonder it spread like wildfire. I got it as a meme, like an hour later, from a colleague. It would fit well with some of my snarky comments about AI, wouldn’t it?

However, before joining the mocking crowd, I tried to look up the source.

Don’t Trust Random Tweets

Finding the article used as a screenshot was easy enough. It was a CNBC piece on Matt Garman. Except the title didn’t say anything about how much AI-generated code AWS pushes to production.

Fair enough. Media are known to A/B test their titles to see which gets the most clicks. So I read the article, hoping to find a relevant reference. Nope. Nothing. Nil.

The article, as the title clearly suggests, is about something completely different.

I tried to google up the exact phrase. It returned only a Redit/X trail of the original “You don’t say” retort. Googling exact quotes from the CNBC article did return several links that republished the piece, but all used the original title, not the one from the smartass comment. It didn’t seem CNBC had been A/B testing the headline.

By that point, I was like, compare these two pictures. Find five differences (the bottom one is the legitimate screenshot).

Top picture from the tweet Elon Musk shared. Bottom from the actual CNBC article.

So yes, jokes on you, jokers.

Except no one cares, really. Everyone laughed, and few, if anyone, cared to check the source. Few, if anyone, cared to utter “sorry.”

Trustworthiness as the New Currency

I received Musk’s tweet as a meme from my colleagues. It went through at least two of them before landing in my Slack channel. They passed it with good intent. I mean, why would you double-check a screenshot from an article?

It’s a friggin’ screenshot, after all.

Except it’s not.

This story showcases the challenge we’re facing in the AI era. We have to raise our guard regarding what we trust. We increasingly have to assume that whatever we receive is not genuine.

It may be a meme, and we’ll have a laugh and move on. Whatever. It won’t hurt Matt Garman’s bonus. It won’t have a dent in Elon Musk’s trustworthiness (even if there were such a thing).

It may be a resume, though. A business offer. A networking invitation, recommendation, technical article, website, etc. It’s just so easy to generate any of these.

What’s more, a randomly chosen bit on the internet is already more likely to be AI-generated than created by a human. Statistically speaking, there’s a flip-of-a-coin chance that this article has been generated by an LLM.

It wasn’t, no worries. Trust me.

Well, if you know me, I probably didn’t need to ask you for a leap of faith in the originality of my writing. The reason is trustworthiness. That’s the currency we exchange here. You trust I wouldn’t throw AI slop at you.

If you landed here from a random place on the internet, well, you can’t know. That is, unless you got here via a share from someone whom you trust (at least a bit) and you extend the courtesy.

Trust in Business Dealings

The same pattern works in any professional situation. And, sadly, it is as much affected by the AI-generated flood as blogs/newsletters/articles.

When a company receives an application for an open position, it can’t know whether a candidate even applied for the job. It might have been an AI agent working on behalf of someone mass-applying to thousands of companies.

While we’re still beating a dead horse of resume-based recruitment, it’s beyond recovery. Hiring wasn’t healthy to start with, but with AI, we utterly broke it.

A way out? If someone you know (or someone known by someone you know) applies, you kinda trust it’s genuine. You will trust not only the act of applying but, most likely, extend it to the candidate’s self-assessment.

Trust is a universal hack to work around the flood of AI slop.

Outreach in a professional context? Same story. Cold outreach was broken before LLMs, but now we almost have to assume that it’s all AI agents hunting for gullible. But if someone you know made the connection, you’d listen.

Networking? Same thing. You can’t know whether a comment, post, or networking request was written by a human or a bot. OK, sometimes it’s almost obvious, but there’s a huge gray zone. In someone you trust does the intro, though? A different game.

The pattern is the same. Trust is like an antidote to all those things broken by AI slop.

Don’t We Care About Quality?

Let me get back to the stuff we read online for a moment. One argument that pops up in this context is that all we should care about is quality. It’s either good enough or not. If it is, why should we care who or what wrote it?

Fair enough. As long as consuming a bit of content is all we care about.

If I consider interacting with content in any way, it’s a different game.

With AI capabilities, we can generate almost infinitely more writing, art, music, etc. than what humans create. Some of it will be good enough, sure. I mean, ultimately, most of what humans create is mediocre, too. The bar is not that high.

There’s only one problem. We might have more stuff to consume, but we don’t have any more attention than we had.

Now, the big question. Would you rather interact with a human or a bot? If the former, then you may want to optimize the choice of what you consume accordingly.

Engageability of our creations will be an increasingly important factor. And it won’t be only a function of what kind of call to action a consumer feels after reading a piece, but also whether they trust there’s a human being on the other side.

It’s trust, again.

Trust Networks as the New Operating System

Relying solely on what we personally trust would be impractical. There are only so many people I have met and learned to trust to a reasonable degree.

Limiting my options to hiring only among them, reading only what they create, doing business only with them, etc., would be plain stupid. So how do we balance our necessarily limited trust circle with the realities of untrustworthiness boosted by AI capabilities?

Elementary. Trust networks.

If I trust Jose, and Jose trusts Martin, then I extend my trust to Martin. If our connection works and I learn that Martin trusts James, then I trust James, too. And then I extend that to James’ acquaintances, as well. And yes, that’s an actual trust chain that worked for me.

By the same token, if you trust me with my writing, you can assume that I don’t link shit in my posts. Sure, I won’t guarantee that I have never ever linked anything AI-generated. Yet I check the links and definitely don’t share AI slop intentionally.

If such a thing happened, it would have been like Musk’s “you don’t say” meme I received—passed by my colleagues with good intent.

The degree to which such a trust network spans depends on how reliably a node has worked so far. A strong connection would reinforce its subnetwork, while a failing (no longer trustworthy) node would weaken its connections.

Strong nodes would allow further connections, while weak ones would atrophy. It is essentially a case of a fitness landscape.

New Solutions Will Rely on Trust Networks

The changes we’ve made to our landscape with AI are irreversible. In one discussion I’ve had, someone suggested a no-AI subinternet.

It’s not feasible. Even if there were a way to reliably validate an internet user as a human (there isn’t), nothing would stop evil actors from copypasting AI slop semi-manually anyway.

In other words, we will have to navigate this information dumpster for the time being. To do that, we will rely on our trust networks.

Whatever new recruitment solution eventually emerges, it will employ extended trust networks. That’s what small business owners in a physical world already do. They reach out to their staff and acquaintances and ask whether they know anyone suitable for an open position.

Content creation and consumption are already evolving toward increasingly closed connections (paywalled content, Substacks, etc.), where we consciously choose what we read and from whom. Oh, and of course, the publishing platforms actively push recommendation engines.

Business connections? Same story. We will evolve to care even more about warm intros and in-person meetings.

Eventually, large parts of the internet will be an irradiated area where bots create for bots, while we will be building shelters of trustworthiness, where genuine human connection will be the currency.

Like hunters-gatherers. Like we did for millennia.

October 22, 2025
We Will Not Trust Autonomous AI Agents Anytime Soon
OpenAI and Stripe announced what they call the Agentic Commerce Protocol (ACP for short). The idea behind it is to enable AI agents to make purchases autonomously.

It’s not hard to guess that the response from smartass merchants would come almost immediately.

As much fun as we can make of those attempts to make a quick buck, the whole situation is way more interesting if we look beyond the technical and security aspects.

Shallow Perception of Autonomous AI Agents

What drew popular interest to the Stripe & OpenAI announcement was an intended outcome and its edge cases. “The AI agent will now be able to make purchases on our behalf.”
- What if it makes a bad purchase?
- How would it react to black hat players trying to trick it?
- What guardrails will we have when we deploy it?
All these questions are intriguing, but I think we can generalize them to a game of cat and mouse. Rogue players will prey on models’ deficiencies (either design flaws or naive implementations) while AI companies will patch the issues. Inevitably, the good folks will be playing the catch-up game here.

I’m not overly optimistic about the accumulated outcome of those games. So far, we haven’t yet seen a model whose guardrails haven’t been overcome in days (or hours).

However, unless one is a black hat hacker or plans to release their credit-card-wielding AI bots out in the wild soon, these concerns are only mildly interesting. That is, unless we look at it from an organizational culture point of view.

“Autonomous” Is the Clue in Autonomous AI Agents

When we see the phrase “Autonomous AI Agent,” we tend to focus on the AI part or the agent part. But the actual culprit is autonomy.

Autonomy in the context of organizational culture is a theme in my writing and teaching. I go as far as to argue that distributing autonomy throughout all organizational levels is a crucial management transformation of the 21st century.

And yet we can’t consider autonomy as a standalone concept. I often refer to a model of codependencies that we need to introduce to increase autonomy levels in an organization.

The least we need to have in place before we introduce autonomy are:
- Transparency. We can’t let people make decisions without relevant data to inform them, or decisions will be plain wrong.
- Technical excellence. Independence in acting requires the capabilities to perform these acts competently.
- Alignment. Unless we align everyone’s efforts, more autonomy only means more pull toward opposing directions.
- Explicit boundaries. We need to understand the limits within which we can act autonomously. Otherwise, we’d be both overwhelmed with possibilities and petrified by potential consequences.
- Care. Without intrinsic, genuine care about the outcomes of our decisions and actions, it’s just flailing around (and without purpose, let me add).
Remove either, and autonomy won’t deliver the outcomes you expect. Interestingly, when we consider autonomy from the vantage point of AI agents rather than organizational culture, the view is not that different.

Limitations of AI Agents

We can look at how autonomous agents would fare against our list of autonomy prerequisites.

Transparency

Transparency is a concept external to an agent, be it a team member or an AI bot. The question is about how much transparency the system around the agent can provide. In the case of AI, one part is available data, and the other part is context engineering. The latter is crucial for an AI agent to understand how to prioritize its actions.

With some prompt-engineering-fu, taking care of this part shouldn’t be much of a problem.

Technical Excellence

We overwhelmingly focus on AI’s technical excellence. The discourse is about AI capabilities, and we invest effort into improving the reliability of technical solutions. While we shouldn’t expect hallucinations and weird errors to go away entirely, we don’t strive for perfection. In the vast majority of applications, good enough is, well, enough.

Alignment

Alignment is where things become tricky. With AI, it falls to context engineering. In theory, we give an AI agent enough context of what we want and what we value, and it acts accordingly. If only.

The problem with alignment is that it relies on abstract concepts and a lot of implicit and/or tacit knowledge. When we say we want company revenues to grow twice, we implicitly understand that we don’t plan to break the law to get there.

That is, unless you’re Volkswagen. Or Wells Fargo. Or… Anyway, you get the point. We play within a broad body of knowledge of social norms, laws, and rules. No boss routinely adds “And, oh by the way, don’t break a law while you’re on it!” when they assign a task to their subordinates.

AI agents would need all those details spoon-fed to them as the context. That’s an impossible task by itself. We simply don’t consciously realize all the norms we follow. Thus, we can’t code them.

And even if we could, AI will still fail the alignment test. The models in their current state, by design, don’t have a world model. They can’t.

Alignment, in turn, is all about having a world model and a lens through which we filter it. It’s all about determining whether new situations, opportunities, and options fit the abstract desired outcome.

Thus, that’s where AI models, as they currently stand, will consistently fall short.

Explicit Boundaries

Explicit boundaries are all about AI guardrails. It will be a never-ending game of cat and mouse between people deploying their autonomous AI agents and villains trying to break bots’ safety measures and trick them into doing something stupid.

It will be both about overcoming guardrails and exploiting imprecisions in the context given to the agents. There won’t be a shortage of scam stories, but that part is at least manageable for AI vendors.

Care

If there’s an autonomy prerequisite that AI agents are truly ill-suited to, it’s care.

AI doesn’t have a concept of what care, agency, accountability, or responsibility are. Literally, it couldn’t care less whether an outcome of its actions is advantageous or not, helpful or harmful, expected or random.

If I act carelessly at work, I won’t have that job much longer. AI? Nah. Whatever. Even the famous story about the Anthropic model blackmailing an engineer to avoid being turned off is not an actual signal of the model caring for itself. These are just echoes of what people would do if they were to be “turned off”.

AI Autonomy Deficit

We can make an AI agent act autonomously. By the same token, we can tell people in an organization to do whatever the hell they want. However, if we do that in isolation, we shouldn’t expect any sensible outcome. In neither of the cases.

If we consider how far we can extend autonomy to an AI agent from a sociotechnical perspective, we don’t look at an overly rosy picture.

There are fundamental limitations in how far we can ensure an AI agent’s alignment. And we can’t make them care. As a result, we can’t expect them to act reasonably on our behalf in a broad context.

It absolutely doesn’t limit specific and narrow applications where autonomy will be limited by design. Ideally, those limitations will not be internal AI-agent guardrails but externally controlled constraints.

Think of handing an AI agent your credit card to buy office supplies, but setting a very modest limit on the card, so that the model doesn’t go rogue and buy a new printer instead of a toner cartridge.

It almost feels like handing our kids pocket money. It’s small enough that if they spend it in, well, not necessarily the wisest way, it’s still OK.

Pocket-money-level commercial AI agents don’t really sound like the revolution we’ve been promised.

Trust as Proxy Measure of Autonomy

We can consider the combination of transparency, technical excellence, alignment, explicit boundaries, and care as prerequisites for autonomy.

They are, however, equally indispensable elements of trust. We could then consider trust as our measuring stick. The more we trust any given solution, the more autonomously we’ll allow it to act.

I don’t expect people to trust commercial AI agents to great extent any time soon. It’s not because an AI agent buying groceries is an intrinsically bad idea, especially for those of us who don’t fancy that part of our lives.

It’s because we don’t necessarily trust such solutions. Issues with alignment and care explain both why this is the case and why those problems won’t go away anytime soon.

Meanwhile, do expect some hilarious stories about AI agents being tricked into doing patently stupid things, and some people losing significant money over that.
October 16, 2025
AI Has Broken Hiring
Late in 2023, at Lunar, we were preparing a recruitment process for software development internships (yup, we somehow hadn’t jumped on the “you don’t need inexperienced developers anymore” bandwagon). However, ChatGPT-generated job applications were already a concern.

Historically, we asked for small code samples as part of job applications. The goal was to filter those who knew the basics from those who just aspired to become developers eventually. Granted, it wasn’t a cheat-proof, but that wasn’t the goal.

It was enough to tell the basics:
- Was it more toward a naive solution or more toward the optimal end of scale?
- Were there tests, and if so, what kind of them?
- What about readability?
Sure, you could ask a developer friend to write it down for you, but you’d eventually show a lack of competence at the later stages. Heck, we even had a candidate asking for a solution at a discussion group. But these were fairly rare cases.

Recruitment in the AI Era

So it’s late 2023, and we know the trick won’t work anymore. ChatGPT can generate a reasonable answer to any such challenge. Eventually, we decide against any coding task and simply ask to share a public GitHub repo. Little do we know, we’re way deeper in hiring in the AI era rabbit hole than we could have ever dreamed.

Sure, we understand that people will feed ChatGPT with our job ad and have it generate output. After all, as always, we provide a great deal of context about what we want to see in the applications. That makes LLM’s job easier.

We state explicitly that we seek genuine answers, and we’ll discard those blatantly generated with ChatGPT. Also, no LLM is an expert in who the candidate is, right? No LLM is an expert in me.

We’re a small company. Till that point, our record was around 90 applications for the internships. Typically, it was maybe half of that. This time, we receive almost 600.

Despite all our communication, most of them were generated by ChatGPT.

AI as the First Filter

OK, it’s no surprise. Instead of creating thoughtful and thorough answers to 4-5 questions, each taking at least a couple of paragraphs, now we can just feed an AI model of our choice, and it will produce as much text as anyone needs.

Companies response? Let’s use the same models to tell which resumes we should even read. Otherwise, it’s just too many of them.

And yes, in our case, I read each and every one of those 600 applications. Well, at least the parts. If the first paragraph has “AI-generated” painted all over it, and the question literally asked you not to generate your answers, then my job was done. I didn’t need to continue.

By the way, the next time I will do the same. However, we are oddballs. It’s now the norm for the first filter to be an AI model that decides whether to pass an application on to a human being.

In other words, the candidates generate applications with AI to pass through an AI filter.

Do you see the irony?

Just wait till someone starts putting hidden prompts in their resumes. Oh, wait, someone has definitely tried that already. I mean, if the researchers do that in a much more serious context, applicants trying their luck is an obvious bet.

Hiring Noise

Now, extrapolate that and ask: What does the endgame look like? More and more noise.

Let’s just wait till we have AI agents that automatically apply to jobs on our behalf with no human action needed whatsoever. Oh, who am I fooling? There already are plenty of startups pursuing this path.

The promise is that you will be able to send hundreds of applications in one click. That’s great! You increase your chances! Or do you?

Even if you do, it will only work for a very short time. Then everyone else will start doing the same, and suddenly every hiring company is flooded with tons upon tons of applications.

What will they do? Yup, you guessed it. They’ll pay another AI startup to automate this job away. Most likely, they already have.

We can easily increase the number of CVs flying over the internet by a factor of 10x or 100x. We still have only 1x of attention from hiring managers.

The AI Era Hiring Game

The early stages of recruitment will increasingly be like two AI models playing chess (while neither having an actual model of what a chess game is). One will try to outplay the other.

An agent playing on a candidate’s behalf will try to write an application that will pass the filters of a hiring company’s agent. The latter, in turn, will attempt to filter out as many applications as possible while still keeping a few relevant ones.

Funnily enough, I’m guessing that what will make you pass through the AI filter will not necessarily be the same things that would make you pass when a human being reads your resume.

LLMs optimize for the most likely output. So “standing out” isn’t necessarily the optimal strategy.

I remember when an applicant drew a comic book for us as their application. It sure caught our attention. I bet an AI model would dismiss it. Oh, and yes, she ended up being a fabulous candidate, and we hired her.

Which doesn’t mean drawing a comic book guarantees you a job at Lunar, of course.

If we were to believe startups operating in the recruitment niche, these days, hiring is just a game of volume. Send and/or process more resumes, and you’ll find your perfect match.

What Is a Perfect Match?

I’ve been recruiting for more than two decades. I’ve made my share of great hires. I’ve made a lot of mistakes, too. Most importantly, though, I’ve made oh, so many good enough hires who have ultimately turned out to be excellent later on.

It doesn’t matter how extensive your hiring procedures are. After a week of close collaboration, you will know about the new hire more than you could have learned throughout the whole recruitment process.

Applying for a job is like submitting an abstract for a conference’s call for proposals. A great talk description doesn’t mean that the session itself will be great. It just means it is a good abstract. And that the person who submitted it is probably good at writing abstracts. It tells little about what kind of speaker they are.

By the same token, a great resume is just that. A great resume.

What we’re doing in recruitment with AI is we set almost the whole limelight on the applications. It becomes a game of writing and analyzing CVs.

Last time I checked, no company was trying to find a person who was great at writing resumes (or more precisely: getting an AI model to generate a resume that another AI model would like).

Renaissance of Good Old Coding Interviews

It’s no surprise that physical coding interviews are gaining popularity again. Increasingly, using the AI tooling of choice will be allowed and encouraged during those. Ultimately, that’s how developers work every day.

After all, these interactions were never about knowing the answer. OK, they should never have been about the answer. They should have been about how a candidate thinks, iterates their way to a better solution, and when they deem it good enough. They should have been about working together with another professional. About all those intangibles that we don’t see unless we have an actual experience of working together.

We will see more of those. And there will be more of those happening on-site, not remotely. As a hiring person, I want to understand what part of someone’s train of thought is their creativity and what came as copypasta from ChatGPT (or Claude Code, or whatever).

There’s no shortage of code-generation capabilities. We still don’t have a substitute for judgment, though.

Why Is Hiring Broken?

So far, so good, you could say. We return to proven tools and focus on what really matters.

Yup. That is as long as we’ve cut through the noise. Next time we open internships at Lunar (and we will), I expect more than a thousand applications. Sure, many will be crap, but there will be plenty of work to figure out which will not. The effort needed to navigate the noise grows exponentially.

Under the banner of “we are improving recruitment,” we actually did a disservice to both parties that play the hiring game. Candidates complain that they send lots and lots of resumes, and they don’t even get any responses anymore. Hiring companies have to deal with a snowballing wave of applications, which means that finding a great match is nearly impossible.

That much for good intentions and improvements.

All it took was to remove the effort required to prepare an individual job application. The marginal cost of thinking of and typing those five answers in a form is gone, and thus we can spray our resumes everywhere with one click of a mouse.

Thank you, AI, for breaking the hiring for us.

(And yes, I know it’s all us, not AI.)
August 28, 2025
Fundamental Flaw of Hustle Culture
It’s all over the news. AI companies force their engineers to permanent crunch mode. Expectation for working long hours is like a badge of honor in Lovable job ads. Google defined a 60-hour work week (at the office) as a productivity sweet spot.

But in the spirit of one-upmanship, everyone was beaten by Scott Wu, Cognition CEO. He announced 6-day work at the office, 80-hour weeks as the new norm.

“We don’t believe in work-life balance—building the future of software engineering is a mission we all care so deeply about that we couldn’t possibly separate the two”
Scott Wu, Cognition CEO

You see? All it takes to suck twice as many hours from every engineer is to stop believing in work-life balance. Voila!

Why All the Hustle?

The visible reasons for all that hustle are obvious. Everyone understands that, at the end of the day, there will only be a very few winners of the AI race.

They will get rich. Everyone else will go bust.

To make things worse, the bubble has been pumped to its limits. If you want to get a prediction that AGI is just around the corner, there’s no shortage of optimists.

However, notably, after GPT-5’s lackluster premiere, Sam Altman mentioned that AGI is not a very useful term. Whoa! That’s new! One would wonder what might have triggered such a twist in the official messaging.

Anyway, seemingly, the rest of the AI crowd is yet to catch up. The extreme hustle culture they install in their companies clearly suggests that they believe AGI is around the corner.

Otherwise, how would we explain 60/70/80-hour workweeks?

I mean, these are smart people. They do realize such work is not sustainable, right? Right?

Cynicism

OK, I’m not naive. There’s a ton of cynicism behind the hustle culture. The top leaders do it because everyone else does it, too. So they can get away with it. And people fall for this trap.

Given all the hype, it’s easy to promise mountains of gold to everyone. If. You. Hustle. Just. A. Little. Bit. More.

People will rationalize it by asking themselves a question: Am I fine coping with that toil for a couple of years and then walk away with $10M?

Seems like an acceptable tradeoff, doesn’t it? CEOs of AI companies prey on that.

However, I believe that they know the correct question should be: Am I fine shortening my life for 1-2 years because of the toil when someone dangles $10M in front of me?

The answers to these questions might be different. But if you expect prominent AI figures suggesting such an alternative vantage point, well, don’t hold your breath.

They will cynically exploit the opportunity even if it improves their odds of succeeding only marginally. After all, everyone else is doing the same.

The Cost of Extreme Hustle Culture

What’s fascinating is that it’s a herd behavior. No one seems to stop and validate whether hustle culture even works. Not even companies historically known to be data-driven, like Google.

It’s as if a simple linear approximation was all they could conceive: twice as many hours, twice as much work done.

Any team lead with even meager experience would disagree. It’s kinda obvious that the last hour of continuous work would be less productive than the first, when we’ve been well-rested.

So, how about adding a few more hours each day? And then replacing one rest day with another workday?

If you need to spell it out for you, here it is. It means more mistakes, more rework, more context switching tax. And even more toil. Which generates rework of the rework. A vicious cycle.

At some point, and rather quickly, each additional hour has diminishing returns. Then, at some point, each additional hour has a negative return, i.e., it decreases the total output delivered.

If you wonder why Henry Ford introduced a 5-day, 40-hour workweek in 1926, while keeping a 6-day pay, it’s not because he was an altruist. He wanted better overall productivity. And, surprise, surprise, he got what he wanted.

Economics of Crunch Mode

Sure, a factory floor in 1926 is an entirely different environment from an engineering office a century later. Yet Ford’s was hardly the only such experiment.

Across many examples, it’s extremely hard to find any argument that supports the hustle culture.

“We have omitted from this list countless other studies that have shown [dcreased productivity] across the board in a great number of fields. Furthermore, although they may exist, we have not been able to find any studies showing that extended overtime (i.e., more than 50 hours of work per week for months on end) yielded higher total output in any field.”

Note, it’s about total output, not output per hour.

Now, when dozens of research papers from different contexts tell the same thing, I tend to listen. So when it comes to the most recent trend for crunch mode in AI startups, there are two potential explanations.
1. Extreme hustle culture and extended crunch don’t work. Thus, AI startups are harming themselves.
2. AI startups are so completely different that they operate under a different set of rules.
Because they surely employ human beings similar to you and me.

At a risk of oversimplifying matters, these companies do software engineering. A fancy and cutting-edge flavor, I give them that, but software engineering nonetheless. They are not that different.

Well, put two and two together.

Data-Driven? Data-Driven My Arse

If either of them, celebrity CEOs, had actually looked at the data, they might have realized that they’re harming their businesses.

Of course, they’re harming their people, too. Yet I wouldn’t expect enough empathy or reflection from Sam Altmans of this world to make it a viable point in a discussion.

If they want cutting-edge and speed, they’d be better off going against the tide and sticking to healthy work conditions. Ultimately, these companies have no shortage of investment money, and if AGI is, indeed, just months ahead, they could burn through some of those dollars by hiring more.

Even more so, given that raising funds for these startups is easier than ever. These days, you don’t even need to tell what you’re working on, let alone release anything, to get billions. That is, given that you properly market your idea as AI.

That is true, of course, only unless AGI is not even remotely close and the AI startups CEOs know it all along (but won’t say, as then it would be harder to attract investors’ dollars).

Extended Crunch Mode Story

There are industries known for crunch mode (I’m looking at you, game dev), and there’s no shortage of stories about how extended hustle was behind well-known disasters.

I had a chance to listen to a creative director from CD Projekt RED speaking about their engineering culture just weeks before the launch of Cyberpunk 2077. During Q&A, inevitably, he was asked whether they would release on an announced date (which had already been moved a couple of times).

“There’s no other option,” was his answer.

We know how it ended. “Buggy as hell” was the reviewers’ consensus. The game was pulled from sale on PlayStation. And shareholders filed a class action lawsuit over the share price drop. A hell of a launch party, if you ask me.

CD Projekt RED has extended crunch mode to thank for all that fun stuff. In an interesting twist, after they dropped the hustle and started working in a more sustainable way, they were able to recover from the initial disaster.

Unsustainability of Hustle Culture

The camel’s back is already broken, but I’ll add one more straw anyway.

People will burn out working under such a regime. Some of them will last months, some quarters, some may even last years. But break they will.

Again, I don’t expect empathy from the celebrity CEOs, but the consideration of their bottom lines is what they’re paid for, isn’t it? So, what’s the cost of replacing an expert engineer specialized in AI? Given the outrageous poaching offers we see, it’s absurdly high.

And I don’t even mention all the time lost before a company manages to hire a replacement. Yes, precisely the time that seems to be precious enough to make CEOs force their engineering teams to toil for 6 days and 80 hours a week.

It. Is. Not. Sustainable.

Never has been. Never will be.

If similar topics are interesting, I cover anything related to early-stage product development (and, inevitably, AI) on the Pre-Pre-Seed Substack.
August 14, 2025
The Most Underestimated Factor in Estimation
We were preparing yet another estimate. It was a greenfield product, nothing too fancy. We used our default approach, grouped work into epic stories, and used historical data to produce a coarse-grained time estimate per epic.

We ended up with a 12-20 week bracket. Unsurprisingly, our initial hip shot would probably be close to that.

The whole process took maybe half an hour. Maybe less.

Then we fell into an AI rabbit hole. Should our estimate be lower since we will generate a good part of the code?

AI in Early-Stage Product Development

We could discuss the actual impact of AI tools in established and complex code bases. Even more interestingly, we could discuss our perceptions.

Yet, for a greenfield project and not-very-complex functionality, generating swaths of code should be easy enough.

After all, it seems that’s what cutting-edge startups do these days (emphasis mine):

The ability for AI to subsidize an otherwise heavy workload has allowed these companies to build with fewer people. For about a quarter of the current YC startups, 95% of their code was written by AI, Tan said.

Garry Tan is the CEO of Y Combinator, so most definitely a highly influential figure in the startup world. And probably quite knowledgeable of what YC startups do, let me add.

If that’s what the best do, we should follow suit, right? That’s why we got back to our initial estimate and tried to assess how much we can shave off of it, thanks to the technology.

It’s Not About Coding Speed

A lot of the early-stage work we do at Lunar Logic has already shifted to the new paradigm. The code is generated. Developers’ jobs have evolved. It’s code-review-heavy and typing-light. That is, unless you count prompting.

Yet, it’s possible to generate entire features, heck, entire apps with AI tools. So we should be faster, right? Right?

One good discussion later, we decided to stick with the original estimate nonetheless. The gist of it? It was never about coding pace.

Yes, you can generate a lot of code with a single prompt, and with enough preparations, you can make its quality decent. But AI is not doing the discovery part for you. It does not validate whether what you’re building works.

It won’t take care of the whole back-and-forth with the client whose vision is most definitely somewhat different from what they’re going to get. And even if they were able to scope their dream precisely, the First Rule of Product Development applies.

It’s a completely different experience to imagine a product and to actually interact with it. No wonder people change their minds once they roll up their sleeves and start using the thing.

The Core Cost of Product Development

After building (partially or entirely) some 200 software products at Lunar, we have enough reference points to see patterns. Here’s one.

What’s the number one reason for the increased effort needed to complete the work? Communication.

Communication and its quality.
- Insufficient clarity before starting a task triggers rework down the line.
- Waiting for feedback increases context switching and thus makes the team inefficient.
- Inadequate knowledge of the business context results in building the wrong thing.
- Lack of focus in communication is a direct waste of everyone’s time.
Should I go on? Because I totally could.

In practice, I’ve seen efforts where poor communication added as much as 100% to the workload. It went down to all the rework and inefficiencies triggered by a lack of clarity.

When such a thing happens, we might have been wrong about the actual number of features or the size of some of them, and it wouldn’t have mattered. At all. Any such mistake would be covered many times by the bad communication overhead. And then some.

AI Does Nothing to the Quality of Communication

Before we move further, a disclaimer: I understand that there are many AI tools designed around human-to-human communication.

A “helpful” Slack AI conversation summary

While there’s still work to catch up with regular technical conversations between developers, things like meeting summaries can be useful. Although I’d love to see usage data, how many of these summaries are read? Like, ever.

The communication I write about is a different beast, though. It’s not notetaking. It’s attentive listening, creative friction, and collective intelligence. It’s experience cross-pollination.

With that, AI is of little to no use. And yet, this is the critical aspect of any effective software project.

What’s more, there’s little you can know about the quality of communication before the collaboration starts. Sure, you get early signs. But you know what it really is once you start working together.

Start Small

One of the reasons why I’m a huge fan of starting collaboration with something small—like a couple of weeks kind of small—is that we learn what communication will look like.

It’s a small risk for our clients, too. After all, how much can you spend on a couple of people working for two weeks?

Once we’re past that initial rite of passage, we know how to treat any later estimates. Should we assume there’s going to be a significant communication tax? Or rather, we could shave some time here and there because we all will be rowing in the same direction.

One of our most recent clients is a case in point. Throughout the early commitment, he actively managed stakeholders on his end to avoid adding new ideas to the initial scope. He helped us keep things simple and defer improvements till we get more feedback from the actual use.

The result? Our estimate turned out to be wrong. We wrapped up the originally planned work when we were around 75% of the budget mark.

Communication quality (or lack thereof), as much as it can add a lot of work, can remove some, too. That’s why it’s the most underestimated factor in estimation (pun intended).

A post on estimation is always a chance to share our evergreen: no bullshit estimation cards. After a dozen years, I still hear how they get appreciated by teams.

If you like what you read and you’d like to keep track of new stuff, you can subscribe on the main page.
I’m also active on Bluesky and LinkedIn too, with shorter updates.
I also run the Pre-Pre-Seed Substack, where I focus on early-stage product development (and, inevitably, AI).
August 1, 2025
The Renaissance of Full-Stack Developers

I’m old enough to remember the times when we didn’t use a label for full-stack developers because, well, all developers were full-stack.

In the 1990s, we still saw examples of products developed single-handedly (both in professional domains and entertainment), and some major successes required as little as an equivalent of a single Scrum team.

What followed was that software engineering had to be quite a holistic discipline. You wanted to store the data? Learning databases had to be your thing. You wanted to exploit the advantages of the internet boom? Web servers, hosting, and deployment were on your to-do list.

It was an essentially “whatever it takes” attitude. Whatever bit of technology a product needed to run, developers were picking it up.

Specialization in Software Engineering

The next few decades were all about increasing specialization. The increasingly dominant position of web applications fueled the rise of javascript, which, in turn, created front-end as a separate role.

Suddenly, we had front-end and back-end developers. And, of course, full-stack developers as a reference point to differentiate from. The latter has quickly become a topic of memes.

Oh, and mobile developers. Them too, of course.

The user-facing part has undergone further specialization. We carved more and more stuff for design and UX roles.

Back-end? It was no different. Databases have become a separate thing. Then, with big data, we’ve got all the data science. The infrastructural part has evolved into devops.

And then it went further. A front-end developer turned into a javascript developer, and that one into a React developer.

The winning game in the job market was to become deeply specialized in something relatively narrow, then pass a ridiculous set of technical tests and land an extravagantly paid position at a big tech.

The transition wouldn’t have happened without two critical factors.

Growth of Product Teams

First, the software projects grew in size. So did the product teams. As a result, there was more space for specialized (sometimes highly specialized) roles in just about any software development team.

Sure, there have always been highly specialized roles—engineers pushing an envelope in all sorts of domains. But the overwhelming majority of software engineering is not rocket science. It’s Just Another Web App™.

However, because Just Another Web App™ became increasingly larger, it was easier to specialize. And so we did.

Technology Evolution

The second factor that played a major role was the technology.

Back in the 90s, when you picked up C as a programming language, you had to understand how to manage memory. You literally allocated blocks of RAM. In the code. Like an animal. And then, with the next generation of technology, you didn’t need to.

The same thing happened with the databases. The first time I heard an aspiring developer claim that they neither needed nor wanted to learn anything about SQL because “RoR takes care of that for me,” I was taken aback.

But it made sense. The developer started their journey late enough, so they could have chosen a technology that hid the database layer from them entirely (and, unless supervised, made an absolute disaster out of the data structures, but that’s another discussion entirely).

And don’t even get me started about front-end developers whose knowledge of back-end architecture ends at knowing how to call an API endpoint. Or back-end developers who proudly resolve CSS as Can’t Stand Styling.

Ignore my grandpa’s complaints, though. The dynamic was there, and it only reinforced the trend for specialization.

The Bootcamp Kids

As if that all weren’t enough, the IT industry, still hungry for more specialists, turned into a mass-producing machine of wannabe developers.

With such a narrow specialization, we figured it might be enough to get someone through several weeks of a coding bootcamp, and voila! We got ourselves a new developer, high five, everyone!

Yes, a developer who can do rather generic tasks in only one technology, which covers just a small bit of the whole product stack, but a developer nonetheless.

The narrow got even narrower, even if the depth didn’t get deeper at all.

AI Disruption

Enter AI, and we are told we don’t need all these inexperienced developers anymore because, well, AI will do all that work, what don’t you understand?

Seemingly, we can vibe code a product, which is a lie, but one that AI vendors will perpetuate because it’s convenient for them.

The fact is that these narrow & shallow jobs are gone. The AI models generate boilerplate code just fine, thank you very much. Sure, the higher the complexity, the worse the output. But that’s not where those shallow skill sets are of any use.

Arguably, depth doesn’t help as much either.

We need breadth.

Since an AI model can generate a working app, it necessarily touches all its layers, from infrastructure, through data, back-end, front-end, to UX, design, and what have you.

Breadth over Depth

The big challenge, though, is that AI can hallucinate all sorts of “fun” stuff. If our goal is to ensure it does not, well, we need to understand a bit of everything. Enough of everything to be able to point (prompt) the AI model in the right directions.

A highly specialized knowledge can help to make sure we’re good with one part of a product. However, if it comes in the package of complete ignorance in other areas, it’s a recipe for disaster.

The new tooling calls for a good old “anything it takes” approach.

If that weren’t enough, the capability to generate code, especially when we talk about large amounts of rather basic code, potentially enables a return to smaller teams.

The jury is still out. On the one hand, Dario Amodeis of this world would be quick to announce that we’ll soon see billion-dollar companies run by solopreneurs. On the other hand, the recent METR study suggested that experienced developers using AI tools were, in fact, slower. And that despite their perception of being faster.

In the new reality, a developer becomes more of a navigator than a coder, and this role calls for a broader skill set.

Filling the Gaps

Increased technical flexibility is both a new requirement and an opportunity. At Lunar Logic, we work extensively with early-stage founders. That type of endeavor sways toward experimentation and, on many accounts, forgives more than working on established, scaled products.

On the other hand, the cost-effectiveness is crucial. The pre-pre-seed startups aren’t known to be drowning in money.

Examining how our work evolves thanks to AI tooling, I see similar patterns. For some products, the role of design and (arguably) UX is significantly lesser than for others. Consider a back-office tool designed to support an internal team in managing a complex information flow, as a good example.

A now viable option is to generate the whole UI with a tool such as v0, focusing on usability, which is but one aspect of design/UX, and we’re good.

Is the UI as good as designed by an experienced designer? Hell, no! Is it good enough within the context, though? You betcha! The best part? A developer could have done that. Given they know a thing or two about usability, that is. That knowledge? That’s breadth again.

I could go with similar examples in other areas, like getting CSS that’s surprisingly decent (and way better than something done by a Can’t Stand Styling developer), or a database schema that’s a leapfrog ahead of what some programming languages would generate for you out of the box (I’m looking at you, Ruby on Rails).

The thing is, every developer can now easily be more independent.

Full-Stack Strikes Back

The tides have turned. We have reversed the flow in both product team dynamics and technical skills required to be effective. That, however, comes at a cost of a new demand. We need more flexibility.

It’s not without a reason why experienced developers are still in high demand. They have been around the block. They can utilize the new AI tooling as an intellectual exoskeleton to address their shortcomings (precisely because they understand their own shortcomings). Thanks to extensive experience, such developers can guide AI models to do the heavy lifting (and fix stuff when AI breaks things in the process).

That’s the archetype of a software engineer that we need for the future. Understandably, many developers are caught off guard as they were investing in a completely different path, sometimes for all the wrong reasons (like, it’s a meh job, but at least it pays great).

These days, if you don’t have a passion to learn to be a full-stack developer, it will be harder and harder to keep up.

A disclaimer: there have always been and will always be edge-case jobs that require high specialization and deep knowledge. Nothing changes on this account. It’s just that the mainstream (and thus, a bulk of “typical” jobs) is going to change.

Reinventing the Learning Curve

That, of course, creates a whole new challenge. How do we sustain the talent pool in the long run? After all, we keep hearing that “we don’t need inexperienced developers anymore.” And the argument above might be read as support for such a notion.

It’s not my intention to paint such a picture.

I’ve always been a fan of hiring interns and helping them grow, and it hasn’t changed.

You can bet that many companies will not view it in this way.

Decades back, we were capable of learning the ropes when we needed to allocate a block of memory manually each time we wanted to use it. I don’t see a reason why shouldn’t we learn good engineering now, with all the modern tools.

Sure, the way we teach software development needs to change. I don’t expect it to dumb down. It will smart up.

Then, we’ll see a renaissance of full-stack developers.

July 18, 2025
Pivotal Role of Distributed Autonomy
I’m a massive fan of distributed autonomy. I believe that, in principle, giving people more autonomy at work is the largest organizational challenge the modern workplace faces.

Yes, the news of the day is either remote/hybrid work or the impact of AI on everyday jobs. Reinventing the organizational structures of a 21st-century corporation doesn’t belong to a broad discourse.

From both perspectives, however, distributed autonomy plays a pivotal role.

Autonomy in Remote Work

With remote work, the dependency is straightforward. Much of the work has moved from the office—where it could be physically supervised by a manager—to homes, where supervision is significantly limited.

The manager’s control is limited to the outcomes but not the actions that lead to them. For example, I can observe whether my engineers deliver features or add code to the codebase, but I don’t see when, how, and how much time they spend on activities that lead to “new features.”

Sure, some organizations would turn to digital tools to control employees’ activities. Guess what. It doesn’t work. Well, it does, but not the way they intend. Here’s what this kind of monitoring does to people:
- It reduces job satisfaction.
- It increases stress.
- It reduces productivity.
- It increases counterproductive work behaviors.
One hell of a slam dunk, really.

It’s not only the lack of control, though. It’s also the availability of help. For the vast majority of organizations, remote work creates additional communication barriers.

My leader no longer sits at the next desk. I can’t see whether it’s a good moment to interrupt them. Sure, I can drop them a DM on Slack, but they may not answer instantly. So, whenever I face one of those micro-decisions that I might have naturally delegated to my leader in the past, I may call a shot myself. It feels more convenient.

What has just happened here was me grabbing a little bit more authority. I might have had it all the time, but I didn’t use it because it was easier to ask the leader. Now, the path of least resistance is making decisions myself.

Multiply that by everyone in an organization, and suddenly, we have more distributed autonomy.

The choice is between embracing and strengthening the change or resisting it. In the latter case, well, we tax ourselves on every single front, from productivity to employees’ mental health. Not really a choice, is it?

Autonomy and AI

The emergence of AI creates another shift in the nature of work. We get a relatively powerful co-pilot that can help us with many tasks that would be difficult or arduous in the past.

Back then, we might have turned to the experts for help. Or drop the task altogether if it was non-essential.

The experts would give us a suggestion, and we’d accept it as the decision. If we abandoned the task, there would be no decision to make whatsoever.

But now, with our AI co-pilot, we have new capabilities at our fingertips. Yet it wouldn’t make any decision for us. Again, the path of least resistance is to grab some of that power, make a call, and move on.

As an example, it’s often a challenge to dig up a relevant source to link in my writing. I often remember a research paper or article covering a useful reference. But its topic or author’s name? Beats me.

Googling it was always a struggle, so I either turned to a human expert friend or gave up.

But now? LLMs are pretty decent in digging up relevant options. Still, the work of reviewing suggested sources and choosing a valuable one is on me. I now face a decision that I earlier deferred to an expert or dodged entirely.

More autonomy again.

Adhocracy

The changes coming from different directions align with a broader evolution of the nature of work. Julian Birkinshaw, in his book Fast/Forward, provides a neat big picture.

Over the past century or so, the world has evolved from the industrial, through the information, to the post-information era. Each step changes the rules of the game.

A hundred years ago, scaling was the biggest challenge, and the effective use of resources was advantageous. Thus, bureaucracy was a winning strategy.

In the second half of the 20th century, we saw the increasing value of information, and its accessibility and effective use gave us an edge. Thus, meritocracy was gaining ground.

Now, information is ubiquitous. In fact, with the help of LLMs, we can easily generate as much of it as we want. The world becomes less about who knows what. It’s about who can act upon (incomplete) data in a fast and effective manner. Thus, ad-hoc action gives an advantage.

Birkinshaw coins the term adhocracy to describe this new mode of operation.

A side note: one important part of the model is that all three modes of operation coexist. However, an organization will defer to the default mode whenever it faces uncertainty. We can’t expect a bureaucratic, hierarchical behemoth to act in an adhocratic way routinely.

The coexistence of all modes will naturally create tension. The decision can’t be made at the same time made by:
- a manager with the most positional power
- an expert with the best data and most expertise
- a line professional involved in the task hands-on
If we want to embrace adhocracy, which Birkinshaw argues is a prerequisite for organizational survival, we necessarily must move authority down the hierarchy.

We need to distribute more autonomy. Again.

Common Part

It’s not a surprise. When you go through the stories of companies successfully embracing non-orthodox management models, autonomy would be one shared part of all.

Be it a turnaround story in David Marquet’s, unsurprisingly titled, Turn the Ship Around, or Michael Abrashoff’s It’s Your Ship, pushing autonomy down the hierarchy was crucial.

And the fact that the military context would pop up so frequently in this discussion shouldn’t be a surprise. Decentralizing control was a pivotal part of the revolution of the 19th-century Prussian army. Its victory streak forced other armies to follow suit.

Yes, the corporate world, despite all its inspirations from the military lingo, takes its sweet time to adopt the truly important inventions. And yes, our views of the military tend to be rooted more in Hollywood movies than in the actual realities of these gargantuan organizations.

I often mention that we’d see more distributed autonomy in late 19th-century armies of the West than in many 21st-century corporations.

We’ll arrive at the same conclusion if we stick to management theory. Take Holacracy, Sociocracy, Teal, or whatever generates the most buzz these days. The cornerstone of each of those will be autonomy. It may go into how we design roles (Holacracy), get to the principle list (self-government in Teal), or define the decision-making process (consent in Sociocracy). But it’s always there.

When you think of it, it’s only natural. For hundreds of thousands of years, homo sapiens lived in small tribes of hunter-gatherers that were egalitarian and had very little to no hierarchy.

Even when our species started evolving into bigger societies, adopting a strong hierarchy wasn’t given and was only one of the possible ways of coordination.

I’d speculate that we are genetically predisposed to autonomy.

Reinventing Autonomy

Wherever we look, we seem to be reinventing the role of distributed autonomy. It’s critical to succeed on a battlefield. Staying relevant in business increasingly requires its presence. It sneaks along with the changes in the nature of work. We know it’s a prerequisite for engagement and motivation.

Nothing should be easier than embracing the change and giving people more power.

Sadly, it’s not the case. Power is a privilege. And as with every privilege, those in power will not give up easily. The good old bureaucracy will fight back.

More importantly still, even if we have the means to overcome the resistance, the challenge is not as easy as “Let’s just give people more autonomy.”

We need to take care of other things before we embark on this journey. But that’s the topic for another post.

This is the first part of a short series of essays on autonomy and alignment. The following part(s) will be published on the blog and linked here during the next weeks.
May 7, 2025