๐ง๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ง๐ต๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ, ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฝ ๐ง๐ฟ๐๐๐ต: ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฉ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป > ๐ฆ๐ถ๐น๐ผ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ง๐ฎ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐
- Alison Conigliaro-Hubbard
- May 8
- 2 min read
๐ข๐ธ๐ฎ๐, ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐๐ถ๐๐ต ๐บ๐ฒ - ๐โ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฎ ๐น๐ฒ๐๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฝ ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐. ๐ง๐ฟ๐๐๐ ๐บ๐ฒ, ๐ถ๐โ๐น๐น ๐น๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ. (๐๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐บ๐ ๐ผ๐น๐ฑ ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ป๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ง ๐ด๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ธ๐.)
I was out on a walk recently, listening to a podcast when something caught my ear:
A proposal in the current U.S. administration to break FEMA (the organization that coordinates disaster recovery and response in the US) into parts that would plug into other organizations. The hosts raised an important concern - that fragmenting FEMA might make things less efficient, not more.
It immediately brought me back to my early days in networking (not the coffee and business card kind, but the IT infrastructure kind).
Back then, we used a ๐ต๐๐ฏ-๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ-๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น for storage networking:
A ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ (usually a big data center back then, but you can also think of cloud infrastructure as core these days), directing all the nodes (switches) in branch offices. It worked because that core (ideally) had visibility across the system. It could distribute policies, optimize resources, and keep the whole operation humming.
But when organizations started decentralizing those systems, something shifted.
Each branch had more local control, sure - but they also needed their own IT teams, their own processes, and their own tools.
Coordination dropped. Transparency faded. Silos grew.
And ironically? ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ ๐๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ, ๐บ๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฟ, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ.
Itโs not all that different from how we build teams.
Decentralized autonomy has its place - but without shared clarity, purpose, and connection to the center, even the most talented teams can start pulling in different directions; creating their own game plans misaligned from the organization as a whole.
๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฝ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฒ๐๐ปโ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐.
It means building the connective tissue that lets each part contribute to something greater.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐ผ๐ ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟโ๐๐ถ๐๐ต ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ๐บ.
Because when the core is strong, the whole organization moves smarter.
๐โ๐บ ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ผ๐๐: Have you ever worked in a system where the โcenterโ was missing? What happened? Iโd love to hear your perspective.

Comments