The role shows up mostly in its absence. What it is, the problems it meets, and how to build just enough structure to run well and still bend.

Every organization has one person who keeps the whole place from tripping over itself, and almost nobody can say what they do. Ask a sales, finance, or product leader what they do and you get a clean answer in a few words. Ask two operations people and you get two long answers that barely overlap.

I’ve built this up over three earlier pieces, one layer at a time. When Do You Need a Fractional COO? started with the role itself, the organizational grout you notice mostly when it fails, and how a founder can tell when they need it. Why Operations Leadership Roles Are Hard to Define laid out the three scales the job runs at. The Operational Friction That Shapeshifts got into how to read the friction you meet, and why the hardest kind refuses to sit still. This piece pulls the three into one shape.

Start with a definition that holds at any size and in any industry:

Operations leadership is the work of keeping friction from building up within or between the parts of an organization, and the craft of knowing how much structure to add, and where, so the organization runs well today without seizing up tomorrow.

Everything else follows from that sentence.

These are not your mama’s operations

One more thing before we jump into the meat of the discussion. Operations are traditionally described as a process or set of activities to get repeatable work accomplished to a cadence, performance standards and to meet expected service levels. That is a tactical working description that covers specific, stable conditions. Lovely when an organization has that luxury, but not the fast-paced, fluid, evolving world we live in today.

Rather, these times call for far more sophisticated and strategic operations architecture that meet the operating environment in which we find ourselves. This article describes the type of operational leadership that meets the challenges of our current world, translates the changing needs of the organization in execution, and operates at multiple scales to meet complex and often conflicting demands.

The role with a mission that hides

Good operations show up as the absence of complaints. When decisions land, work connects to strategy, and disruptions get absorbed, nobody in the building says a word about operations. The seat produces the absence of friction, and absence is hard to point at. When leadership is paying close attention to operations, something is already wrong.
Picture grout. Nobody tours a house and admires the grout. It fills the gaps between the tiles and holds the wall together, and the day it fails, the pretty tiles start sliding off one at a time. Operations is the grout.
That is also why the role reads as systemic rather than functional. You carry a working knowledge of every function, product, revenue, talent, finance, governance, enough to see whether each performs and where the space between two of them leaks friction that neither can see from the inside. You are the expert in none of them. You know enough in each to see how the pieces have to fit.

Friction, and how to read it

Before you fix anything, one question decides your whole approach: can you locate this friction, or does it shapeshift?

A located problem sits in one place you can pin down and isolate. Two teams whose handoff keeps dropping the ball. A form that asks for information nobody reads. Fix the broken piece and it stays fixed, because the cause was right where you looked.
A problem that shapeshifts behaves differently. You resolve it in one place, and it reappears two teams over wearing a different face. That is the tell. The cause was never in a part. It lived in how the parts work together, and you cannot pin down an interaction the way you pin down a broken step.

Get that diagnosis wrong and you solve the wrong problem well: a systemic problem met with a local fix that holds for a few weeks and then unravels, or a local problem met with a company-wide program that wastes everyone’s time.
The work runs at three scales, and naming them helps.

  • Optimize clears friction you manage as you find it, one conversation at a time. These activities are likely tactical, immediate to short-term efforts that have narrow to isolated performance and change impacts.
  • Transform rebuilds what a big change demands, a program you scaffold on purpose and take down after. These activities are strategic and/or tactical efforts, spanning months to occasionally years, that have broad functional to organizational performance and change impacts requiring a structural framework to deliver.
  • Adapt builds the standing capacity to absorb the next disruption without a heroic scramble. These activities are strategic, governance oriented, built quickly but maturing potentially for years, that have long horizon implications with broad organizational stakeholder and performance impacts.

Most operations leaders are deeply familiar with the first two. The third tends to get piecemeal attention at best. It is a systemic governance solution that yields outsized real-world results.

If you want to know where to look for the friction, watch the seams between key organizational activities. Most operational pain concentrates at the boundaries, where a handoff translates one thing into another and something gets lost. Engineering finishes a design; the supply chain cannot buy from it and needs the same product described in its own terms. Nothing inside either team is broken. The pain sits in the seam neither team owns.

How much to build

The third scale raises a question the first two never force: how much structure do you build, and where? Build too little and the system buckles under load. Build too much and it seizes up when the ground moves.

Think of three cities. Boston grew by accretion, cowpaths hardening into streets that cannot move, and it navigates terribly the moment the environment shifts. San Francisco dropped a rigid grid over its hills, efficient until the terrain changed and the grid sent you straight up a slope. Singapore keeps a fixed spine, the rail beneath it, and rebuilds the neighborhoods above continuously, holding what earns permanence and keeping the rest provisional.

Singapore is the target for the ‘Adapt’ efforts, and the discipline that gets you there is easy to say and hard to deliver: pour concrete only where the wall will stay put. Build the lightest structure that does the job, watch which parts of the work turn out stable, and codify only where permanence earns its cost. The instinct, facing more chaos, is to add more control. That instinct runs backward. Only variety absorbs variety, and heavy-process narrows the range of responses that volatility demands.

Why it is one system

The three threads answer one problem. Strategy and execution do not naturally stay connected. They grew up in different worlds, speak different languages, and nothing ties them together on its own as conditions change. The distance between what leadership decides and what the organization builds is structural. It is a gap that opens on its own unless something is built to hold the two sides together.

For a long time that gap was survivable, because disruption arrived years apart. A company could absorb the drift, mount a heroic transformation to close it, then rest until the next one. That rhythm is gone. Nearly every operations leader I’ve spoken with over the past nine months describes navigating several disruptions in a single year. Run the heroic model against that pace, and you burn out your best people closing the same gap over and over.

The organizations that stay ahead treat recovery as routine, built into how they operate rather than summoned each time the ground moves. That is Adapt, and it is lighter than it sounds. I’ve built and run this governance structure myself, end-to-end, as one of multiple responsibilities. Once built, it was a part-time gig.

When ChatGPT crossed ten million users, the freshly minted strategy we had created at Google Search went obsolete almost overnight. There was no scramble, because the structure was already standing: clear decision rights, status everyone trusted, planning rhythms the team had run for years. A rebuild that normally takes six months took six weeks. Fourteen weeks from threat to LLM deployment, with no heroics.

That is the whole point of a well-built operating system. Most weeks it is invisible, grout again, holding the parts together and noticed only when it is missing. Then the ground moves, and the organization that built it is still standing while the one that ran on heroics scrambles to assemble a response it should have had in place.

The ground floor

This is the plain version: what the operations role is, how friction behaves, and how much structure to build around it. The Operating Edge is the full architecture built on that floor, the foundations and the integrating capabilities worked out in the detail it takes to stand them up.

I wrote all of this because I kept watching capable organizations lose ground they did not need to lose. The alternative is buildable, for organizations of any size with light touch and limited resources. The rest of the work is learning how.

Sarah Marshall is the Founder and CEO of Operations Architect and author of The Operating Edge: Building an Organization that Thrives in Disruption.

Catch up on the foundational arc

Take it further

References

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.


Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.


#OperationsLeadership #OrganizationalDesign #SystemsThinking #ChangeManagement #TheOperatingEdge #OperationsArchitect

Tags: