Many CTOs treat velocity as an execution problem. Hire better, process better, align better. But they actually have a shape problem. A significant portion of your friction isn’t caused by what your team does. It’s baked into who they are and how they’re arranged. You can’t fix your way out of inherent structure friction by working harder. You have to realize it first.
A Second Organizational Law
Conway’s Law tells us that systems mirror the communication structures of the orgs that build them. This is its lesser-known cousin: org structure and the people within it directly constrain what velocity, quality, and scope of solutions the org is capable of perceiving as possible. It’s not just about architecture. It’s about what gets proposed, what gets approved, and what gets built.
A common manifestation of this is the nano-team problem. Fragment your org into small teams, and you don’t get agility, but get coordination tax that compounds silently. Nobody slows down deliberately. The structure just inherently caps your speed and agility.
Another is a story I recently heard about, with a VPE whose mental model demanded enterprise-grade solutions from day one. That mindset was baked into his lens of the world, even when he was explicitly told not to do that. He quoted a quarter for work that shipped in under a month once he was moved aside. The drag wasn’t incompetence. It was a worldview embedded in the org. When the worldview left, so did the friction.
The Water You Swim In
Structural friction masquerades as technical debt, team immaturity, or market complexity. It’s invisible because it shapes what questions get asked, not just what answers get given. If you’ve never worked differently, you’re not likely to notice the issues. Looking from the inside, it’s very hard to tell.
However, this is something that outsiders often notice, even though they might not be able to name it. That’s why many CEOs walk around with the nagging feeling that their CTO is not cutting it.
What To Do With This
First, you can start with the defensive application to handle whatever issues you’ve already got, knowing you’re in it. Name the friction. If you have coordination overhead, put it on the table explicitly. Teams that are aware of their structural tendencies can consciously push back against them. Fewer approval hops, more async decisions, proactive communication norms. Awareness doesn’t eliminate the drag, but it stops it from being invisible.
However, what I like working with my clients on is pushing towards the offensive application of this law. Designing the org with it in mind. Structure isn’t neutral. When designing teams, you’re also designing what becomes easy and what becomes hard. Intentional squad design can make your strategic priorities the path of least resistance, and make scope creep or off-strategy work structurally awkward. Use the law to steer, not just to explain.
Your org structure is already making decisions for you. The only question is whether they work in your favor or not.