Only Variety Beats Variety - by Mike Fisher
Fish Food for Thought
SubscribeSign in
Only Variety Beats Variety<br>Why your org chart is losing to your environment
Mike Fisher<br>Jun 10, 2026
13
Share
A Boeing 737 has roughly two hundred controls, switches, and indicators in its cockpit. A child’s tricycle has three points of input: two pedals and a handlebar. Both work because the controls match the complexity of what they’re trying to do. Put the tricycle’s three controls on a 737 and you’d kill everyone on board. Put the 737’s instrumentation on the tricycle and even most adults wouldn’t be able to ride it.<br>This sounds obvious until you realize most companies are doing some version of the second mistake every day. They’re trying to fly a 737 with tricycle controls.<br>There’s a name for why this fails. It’s been around since 1956, it’s foundational to how complex systems behave, and most leaders have never heard of it. Or if they have, they’ve filed it under “interesting theory” rather than “thing that explains why my last reorg didn’t work.”<br>The law is simple, the implications are not, and the implications are exactly what every product leader running a real company now needs to think about.<br>The Law<br>In 1956, a British psychiatrist and cybernetician named W. Ross Ashby published An Introduction to Cybernetics. Buried in it is what later became known as the Law of Requisite Variety, sometimes called the First Law of Cybernetics. The core idea is that every system has a property called variety, which is just the number of distinguishable states it can occupy. A light switch has a variety of two: on and off. A modern smart home with dimmers, schedules, scenes, voice control, and presence detection has variety in the millions.<br>Ashby’s law, in its plainest form, says this: for a system to remain stable in the face of disturbances, the controller must possess at least as much variety as the environment it’s trying to regulate. The slogan version, popularized later by management cybernetician Stafford Beer, is that only variety can absorb variety.<br>Translate that to business language. If your environment can throw a thousand kinds of problems at you, and your organization has thirty kinds of responses, you will lose. Not maybe. Eventually. The math is the math.<br>The contrarian implication, which Ashby himself flagged, is that complex situations do not call for centralized power. They call for distributed capability. In Ashby’s own words, the law disposes of the myth that extraordinarily complex situations demand the concentration of extraordinary powers in a central entity. The myth of the all-seeing CEO who can personally manage complexity through sheer force of intellect is, by Ashby’s framing, just that. A myth.
Why This Matters Right Now<br>Take a hard look at the environment a modern product leader is operating in. AI capabilities shifting on a quarterly basis. Customer expectations rebuilt by every new consumer app they touch. Regulatory regimes multiplying, from the EU AI Act to the patchwork of state privacy laws. Talent markets fluctuating with macro conditions and remote work norms. Competitors emerging from adjacent industries you weren’t watching.<br>That is a high-variety environment by any reasonable definition. The instinct in most companies, when confronted with that kind of turbulence, is to add more control. More approval layers. More dashboards. Tighter roadmap governance. A new VP of Strategy. A central PMO with a quarterly review process and a thirty-tab spreadsheet.<br>Ashby would tell you this is exactly backwards. Adding centralized control reduces internal variety while the environment is gaining it. The gap widens, not closes. You feel more in control because you can see more reports, but the system is actually less able to respond to the world it lives in.<br>This connects to a law I’ve written about before: Conway’s Law, which says that organizations design systems that mirror their communication structures. If your org has low variety, your product will have low variety. You cannot out-feature a competitor whose structure lets them understand problems your structure can’t even see. The shape of your team is the shape of your software, and the shape of your software is the shape of the customer experience.<br>So what does it look like when a leader actually takes this seriously? When they don’t just acknowledge that the environment is complex, but redesign the company so it can match that complexity?<br>There’s one example that stands out. It’s not a Silicon Valley story.<br>The Hammer in Qingdao<br>In the autumn of 1984, a young manager named Zhang Ruimin was sent to take over a near-bankrupt refrigerator factory in Qingdao, China. The factory was producing garbage. Worker morale was nonexistent. The company had defaulted on debts. Most managers in his position would have started with a strategy retreat.<br>Zhang started with a sledgehammer. He gathered the workers, lined up seventy-six defective refrigerators...