Turning Stuff Around

A blog about the grit, grind, and occasional glory of turnarounds.

Category: Personal Reflections

Posts covering personal musings and philosophical thoughts.

  • The Rise of the One-Person Value Factory

    in

    The Rise of the One-Person Value Factory

    For years, companies have tried to solve the same organizational problem: how do you reduce friction, remove bureaucracy, and get valuable work into the hands of customers faster?

    Amazon had the two-pizza team: no team should be so large that two pizzas could not feed it. Then came the idea of single-threaded teams: one team, one mission, one leader, one clear problem to solve. Netflix and others pushed versions of pods, squads, and cross-functional cells.

    The names differ, but the intent is the same: smaller teams have fewer handoffs, fewer dependencies, and less room for responsibility to disappear into the group. Companies keep trying to create smaller units of execution because big organizations naturally create drag. Anyone who has worked inside a large company knows how this happens. Product sits in one place. Engineering sits somewhere else. Data has its own queue. Legal needs to review. Marketing needs a brief. Finance needs a business case. Leadership needs alignment. By the time an idea becomes something a customer can actually touch, half the energy has leaked out of the system.

    AI changes the shape of this problem.

    AI makes existing teams more productive. That is true, but it is probably the least interesting part. The bigger shift is that AI allows one capable person to do work that previously required a small team. One person can research a market, analyze customer feedback, draft a product concept, build a prototype, test it, review results, and iterate. Not perfectly. Not always. Not in every domain. But well enough and often enough, that the unit of value creation inside companies is going to shrink again: From department, to team, to squad, to pod, and now, in some cases, to one person.

    This is the rise of the One-Person Value Factory.

    By that, I do not mean a freelancer inside the company. I also do not mean a heroic individual bypassing the organization, or someone doing ten jobs badly. A One-Person Value Factory is a person with enough context, judgment, tools, and authority to take a problem from insight to shipped value with minimal dependency on the machinery around them (the key phrase being shipped value).

    AI is going to create a lot of activity that looks like progress: More documents, more analysis, more dashboards, more content. But none of that matters unless it reaches a customer, improves the business, removes friction, saves money, creates revenue, or changes behavior. The One-Person Value Factory is not measured by how much it produces. It is measured by how quickly it turns ambiguity into useful output.

    That has real implications for organizational design. The old model assumes that execution requires coordination across specialties. The One-Person Value Factory model will increasingly assume that execution starts with autonomous value creators, supported by specialists only when needed. Instead of assembling a team around every idea, companies will ask a different question: can one strong operator take this far enough before we involve the machine?

    This is where management will need to change. Managers will not just allocate people to projects. They will need to decide where autonomy is safe, where synchronization is necessary, and where control is slowing the company down. And this is where the hard part begins.

    AI reduces production friction. It does not remove organizational friction. In fact, it may make synchronization harder. If ten people can each move five times faster, the organization does not automatically become fifty times faster. It may simply become ten fast-moving parts creating confusion in parallel. That confusion can show up as duplicate work, inconsistent customer messages, conflicting experiments, brand drift, security gaps, compliance risk, and customizations that do not add up to company progress. The bottleneck will move: It used to be production, increasingly, it will be synchronization.

    I believe this to be the next organizational challenge. How do you let One-Person Value Factories move fast without turning the company into a bag of disconnected experiments? You certainly don’t slow them down. The answer is to be much clearer on the few things that must be synchronized. Strategy must be synchronized, so people know which problems matter. Standards must be synchronized, so people understand the guardrails around architecture, quality, risk, data, compliance, and brand. Customer experience must be synchronized, so the company does not feel like a collection of unrelated products.

    But the work itself should not be over-synchronized. In my opinion, this is where many companies will get it wrong. They will see the risk of AI-enabled autonomy and respond with committees, approval flows, and more governance. They will take a technology that can compress weeks into days and wrap it in a process that turns days back into weeks, if not months. They will take the Lamborghini and hitch it to a horse-drawn carriage.


    We are living through an era where time has become even less neutral. Decisions require movement before everyone is comfortable. They require fast diagnosis, fast action, fast feedback, and fast correction. You do not get to wait until the structure is perfect. You need traction while the structure is still messy. That makes the One-Person Value Factory especially powerful.

    The question becomes: who in the organization can be trusted to own a problem end to end?

    Those people will become disproportionately valuable. Not because they “know how to use AI.” That will become table stakes. They will be valuable because they combine business judgment, customer understanding, execution discipline, and enough technical fluency to move without constant translation.

    The organizational question is no longer only “how do we build better teams?” It is also “how do we design a company where one person can create meaningful value without being trapped by the machinery around them?”

    That is not a small shift.

    The company of the future may still have teams, pods, functions, and leaders. But the atomic unit of progress will get smaller. And in many cases, it will be one person with context, judgment, AI leverage, and permission to move.

    That is the One-Person Value Factory: not a person doing everything, but a person able to move value through the system before the system slows it down.

    Tags:

    Share this post:

  • The “Work-From-Where?” Conundrum

    in

    The “Work-From-Where?” Conundrum

    The ongoing debate over remote work versus in-office has grown louder recently, with major corporations mandating a full-time return to office. Amazon, for example, is mandating a full-time return to the office starting in January, citing the benefits of in-person collaboration. Conversely, many employees and organizations advocate for the benefits of remote work, which offers access to a broader talent pool for employers, and flexibility, autonomy, and improved work-life balance for team members.

    Both models have pros and cons. So, what is the “right” approach? And given a turnaround situation, should a full-time work-from-office be mandated? The answer is: it depends.

    The success of any work model—remote, hybrid, or in-office—largely depends on one critical, defining factor: your organization’s culture. An organization’s culture is its DNA. It shapes how teams work, communicate, and innovate. Some cultures thrive on the energy of in-person brainstorming sessions, and the spontaneous “water cooler” chats. Others excel in an environment where flexibility reigns, and employees are trusted to deliver from wherever they’re most productive. In geographically dispersed organizations, you’ll often find micro-cultures that have their own idiosyncrasies: the team in Europe is different than the team in Latin America, and both are different than the team in Asia. Some teams prefer working from the office, while others enjoy a hybrid model.

    In a turnaround, culture becomes even more critical (though, I’d argue that culture is always critical, not just during a turnaround.) You’re not only trying to implement a work model; you’re trying to rebuild trust, create alignment, and drive collaboration and momentum. And remember, the organization you’re working to fix already has an established culture—the slate isn’t blank. In weighing the pros and cons of each model, you should consider how each approach will affect the culture (and in-turn — the bigger goals you’ve set.)

    At my company we opted for a hybrid model: three days in the office, two at home (we didn’t allow a work-from-anywhere model). And we were open to exceptions in different geographies. This worked well for both the business and the teams as we were able to align needs and requirements across our global operation. This included calling a full-time work-from-office when needed. (By the way, some teams chose themselves to work full-time in the office!)

    So what’s right for your organization? The question isn’t only about productivity—it’s about how the work model will influence, shape and evolve the organization’s culture. And, most importantly, whether that changed culture enables your goals and long-term plans. Ultimately, a successful turnaround depends on finding a model that creates a culture to help you deliver on your mission.

    Engage your team, listen to their needs, and tailor your approach accordingly. The right work model isn’t about following trends or making sweeping mandates—it’s about aligning your strategy with your people and enabling their success (which is ultimately yours).

    Tags:

    Share this post:

  • Doubt the Doubt

    in

    Doubt the Doubt

    Like in all major events, there’s a moment (actually, many moments) in every turnaround where self-doubt sneaks in. Usually uninvited. It’s that little voice in your head that whispers questions you’d rather not hear: Did I make the right call? Am I leading this team the right way? What if I’m in over my head?

    I know that voice well. It doesn’t just question your decisions—it questions you. It makes you feel like you don’t belong in your role, that everyone else’s opinion matters more, and that you’re just one mistake away from being exposed as a fraud. It can grow especially loud when the stakes are high and the path is uncertain.

    Here’s the thing I’ve come to realize: that voice of doubt? It’s not your enemy. It’s your brain’s way of trying to protect you, to keep you in your comfort zone and away from risk. And while the comfort zone is a safe place, it’s not where growth happens, it’s where the status quo is kept.

    Self-doubt forces you to reflect, to question, to reassess. And yes, it can get very uncomfortable. But here’s the thing: that discomfort means you’re pushing boundaries, stepping into new territory, and challenging yourself in ways that matter. Doubt is a sign of effort. It means you’re trying something new, taking a risk.

    The key is to doubt the doubt itself. Instead of letting it paralyze you, recognize it for what it is—a protective reflex, not a prophecy of failure. Use it as a signal to pause, reassess, and adjust if needed, but don’t let it stop you.

    Every leader I’ve seen navigate a tough turnaround has wrestled with self-doubt (myself included). The ones who succeed aren’t the ones without doubt, but the ones who move forward despite it. Their confidence comes from taking thoughtful, deliberate actions, not from the absence of doubt.

    Doubt isn’t a sign you’re failing, it’s proof you’re trying! Doubt the doubt. Keep pushing. You are probably on to something.

    Tags:

    Share this post:

  • What Turnarounds Teach You About Yourself (and Life)

    in

    What Turnarounds Teach You About Yourself (and Life)

    There’s that moment in the turnaround when you realize just how bad things really are. Maybe it’s the moment you see the numbers in red, the customers ditching, or the team losing faith. It’s that gut-punch telling you — this isn’t working! And it can feel utterly paralyzing.

    As you scramble for a solution in your head, every possible move you think of leads to a dead end. The weight of the moment can be crushing. I’ve been there. Many times.

    For me, what has helped is thinking of it as the starting gun at a marathon. I use it to signal the first step, which is often the hardest — accepting that something is very broken.

    Acceptance shifts your mindset. You’re no longer in denial mode (or worse, “sugarcoating mode”). Instead, you’re thinking creatively and constructively about the next small step towards fixing the situation. This transition is incredibly empowering. It lifts that crushing weight off your shoulders and gives you the much needed boost to start moving — to start fixing.

    Evolving your thinking in this way can teach you a lot about yourself, and how you handle crisis situations — whether in business or life. It is a reflection of your ability to stay composed and thoughtful, and demonstrates your emotional intelligence and resilience.

    Tags:

    Share this post: