The iron law of bureaucracy happens because humans have a finite amount of time to spend doing things. Those dedicated to bureaucratic politics spend their time doing that, so they excel at that, while those dedicated to doing the work have no time for bureaucratic politics.
It's related to why companies with great marketing and fund raising but mediocre or off-the-shelf technology often win over companies with deeper and better tech that's really innovative. Innovation and polishing takes work that subtracts from the time available for fund raising and marketing.
Great insight—thanks for sharing. It strikes me that bureaucracy is inherently self-perpetuating- once established, it rewards compliance over creativity, steadily shifting the culture until innovation becomes the exception rather than the rule.
Perhaps the real challenge isn't balancing innovation and marketing—it's creating a culture that genuinely rewards bold ideas and meaningful risk-taking.
> [Bureaucracy] rewards compliance over creativity
Imho, this is the wrong takeaway from parent's point.
Bureaucracy rewards many things that are actual work and take time. (Networking, politicking, min/max'ing OKRs)
Creativity and innovation are rarely part of the list, because by definition they're less tangible and riskier.
A couple effective methods I've seen to fight the overall trend are (a) instill a culture where people succeed but processes fail (if a risky bet fails then the process goes under the spotlight, not the person) and (b) tie rewards to results that are less min/maxable (10x vs +5%).
It seems most organizations naturally become more risk-averse as they age and grow since the business becomes more well-defined over time and there is more to lose from risky ventures. The culture has to reward meaningful risk-taking even when that risk-taking results in a loss, which can cause issues when people see the guy who lost a bunch of money getting a bonus for trying (not to mention the perverse incentives it may create).
It's related to why companies with great marketing and fund raising but mediocre or off-the-shelf technology often win over companies with deeper and better tech that's really innovative. Innovation and polishing takes work that subtracts from the time available for fund raising and marketing.