Leverage Weekly #61 - A return to “normal”

tl;dr - Organizations can have a healthy and productive baseline

I have explained how organizations are machines made of people and how they can run at different speeds. The next thought may be to wonder how to make organizations run as fast as possible. In some cases, optimal function will require an organization to operate at a particular speed — if, for instance, it is serving some customer or need that itself operates at a given speed. Given natural constraints, however, making an organization run faster is generally better and a worthy goal.

Organizations operating as quickly and efficiently as possible may seem contrary to the idea of a relaxed, livable “normal.” When one imagines astounding organizational pace, one may imagine workers rushing about, placing calls or orders frantically, running into each other’s offices, and so forth. One may not imagine a relaxed conversation at the water cooler, compensatory time off, or quarterly retreats. Indeed, many organizations with such things do, in fact, operate extremely slowly.

The goal of organization speed, however, is not achieved by making all of the parts move quickly. Rather, the parts need to move in synchronization while taking into account the fact that many of the parts are people. More than that, however, the parts need to work together to achieve the mission of the organization. An organization with slow-moving parts can often make faster progress than an organization with fast-moving parts, even if the organizations have the same mission. Slow and steady sometimes can win the race.

How, then, does one determine the appropriate pace of work inside an organization? When should teams sprint and when should they go on retreat? However one answers this question, there will be some baseline that the organization ends up returning to. Even if no plans are made and chaos is meant to reign, the fact that there are people present means that baseline will end up being defined, some state that comes to be recognized as “normal.” Defining the normal baseline within an organization is therefore an essential, especially if it is intended to move quickly.

Determining the normal pace of work in an organization is a tricky task. “Constant sprint” is not actually achievable and should not be the goal. “Near constant sprint” can be achieved, at least for a limited period. I spent about 10 years personally working at that pace, optimizing sleep, breaks, work habits, and more. This had many benefits, though in retrospect I can now see that it was unsustainable. On a personal level, I experienced serious physical symptoms of stress. On an organizational level, I was not, in fact, able to create a sustainable culture.

My approach now is much more relaxed. We have an average pace of work at Leverage, with occasional sprints and overtime, but also quarterly retreats and plenty of time off. This pace seems sustainable and provides a good baseline to return to, especially after external events, like fundraises and workshops, give us reason to push harder for a time. The main question I have is whether we are as productive as we could be. Measuring productivity for an organization is challenging: one has to look at the mission and the degree to which it is being achieved.

On one hand, there’s reason to believe Leverage is operating at an appreciable pace. It took us approximately nine months to, as far as we can see, break a bottleneck in science — the one pertaining to quantum biology. It took us another three months to help the team at the new Quantum Biology Institute get set up and recruit for their remaining positions. We’re now ready to take on new clients. One bottleneck in science per year is an amazing pace; half that would still be impressive.

The main uncertainty is about whether we succeeded and whether we’ll be able to succeed again. The uncertainty is, therefore, not about whether we should do our various work tasks more quickly, or whether we should rush around into rooms more frenetically. It’s whether we’ve set up a finely tuned machine that, managed and operated properly, will actually work on our envisioned time scales. If so, that machine will be an impressive construction; any adjustments to it should be made very carefully. If not, something is certainly wrong, which may be the normal pace of work or something else entirely.

Organizations can have a healthy and productive baseline.

Last week was the first week back after the Q2 2025 Leverage retreat. It was also the first real week of a return to “normal” after an entire year being “all in” on quantum biology. Geoff met with a few potential future collaborators. Melinda did accounting and made progress on editing the next Leverage introspection video for YouTube. Oliver began work on a sociology of science project, trying to articulate and explain the apparent dysfunction in science.

Of course, there was still work to do for the Quantum Biology Institute. Oliver helped push through some last steps on hiring for the Head of Biology (or rather, Head of Biochemistry). Melinda provided guidance on tax returns and the legal requirements for employing people in the state of California. Both Melinda and Oliver helped the QBI team design some policies, including vacation and parental leave.

The next phase for Leverage’s engagement with QBI is more of a consulting role. From its long experience thinking about and experimenting with organizational forms, Leverage has a vast pool of knowledge on the topic of how to run upstart non-profits, especially independent research institutes. The plan is to provide this knowledge, piece by piece, to the QBI team through short weekly meetings. This will be, of course, in addition to consultation on topics as requested, including the many operational and scientific questions that may arise.

With QBI now set up, Leverage’s focus is now returning to the field of quantum biology as a whole. If one bottleneck, a social one, is broken, is there another? It may be that there is an institutional bottleneck or a technical one. It may be that these are not bottlenecks, but simply normal obstacles, to be faced in the routine course of work. Gauging what remains to do in quantum biology, and taking the relevant steps, will ensure that the institute’s work has been impactful in that field.