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.
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.
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.”
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.
The Law
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There’s one example that stands out. It’s not a Silicon Valley story.
The Hammer in Qingdao
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.
Zhang started with a sledgehammer. He gathered the workers, lined up seventy-six defective refrigerators on the factory floor, and had them destroyed. “We can destroy the defective products ourselves,” he reportedly said, “or the market will destroy us.”
That moment is the founding myth of what became Haier, today one of the largest appliance manufacturers in the world. But the hammer is not actually the interesting part of the story. Plenty of leaders have done dramatic things to signal a culture change. The interesting part is what Zhang did decades later, when Haier was already winning.
By the early 2010s, Haier was a global juggernaut. It had grown into appliances, electronics, and international markets, and would later acquire GE Appliances in 2016. But Zhang was watching the environment shift faster than his company could respond. Mobile internet. E-commerce. The Internet of Things. Customers expected personalization that traditional manufacturing couldn’t provide. He saw, correctly, that a 1980s organizational design, even a successful one, could not handle a 2010s environment. The variety of the world was outpacing the variety of the firm.
So he did something almost no public company CEO has ever done.
He eliminated middle management. Not trimmed it. Eliminated it. According to a 2021 McKinsey Quarterly interview with Zhang himself, Haier removed an intermediate layer of more than 12,000 employees. The HR department went from 860 people to 11, replaced by a shared services platform.
In place of that hierarchy, Haier reorganized into roughly 4,000 self-managing microenterprises, each typically about ten people, each with its own profit-and-loss responsibility, each connected directly to user value. The model is called Rendanheyi, which roughly translates to the integration of employee value and user value. Microenterprises form themselves voluntarily around opportunities. They live or die based on whether they can create value for actual customers. If they can’t attract sufficient capital and revenue, they get dissolved, the way a startup runs out of runway.
If you read this through Ashby’s lens, what Zhang did is unmistakable. He didn’t add controls. He multiplied the variety of the system. Four thousand small teams can sense and respond to four thousand different signals from the market simultaneously. A central HQ with twelve thousand middle managers can sense, optimistically, a few dozen. The Haier of 2010 had the wrong shape for the world it was operating in. The Haier of 2020 had a shape that mirrored the variety of the market itself.
The numbers tell the story. Revenue from Haier Smart Home, the company’s listed home-appliance business, grew more than 18 percent annually from 2015 onward, topping 209 billion renminbi, roughly 32 billion US dollars, in 2020. According to the London Business School case on Haier’s transformation, growth accelerated rather than slowing as the company decentralized. When COVID hit, the GE Appliances unit Haier had acquired and converted to the microenterprise model posted double-digit revenue and profit growth, while most of its US peers contracted.
Zhang himself says other companies struggle to copy this. Adopting the model, in his words, requires giving up powers that most leaders simply will not give up: decision-making, hiring and firing, and setting compensation, all delegated entirely to the microenterprises themselves. One CEO he spoke with asked how he could possibly control his employees without those three powers. Zhang’s answer was that giving up that control is the model. Most leaders hear that and quietly close the case study.
Most of Us Don’t Need a Hammer
You don’t have to dynamite your org chart to apply Ashby’s Law. The point of the Haier story is not the specific structure. It’s the underlying question, which any leader can ask honestly without firing 12,000 people: does my organization’s internal variety match the variety of the environment it operates in?
If the answer is no, you have two options. You can attenuate the environment, meaning narrow your scope, focus on fewer customer segments, simplify the SKU set, or limit the markets you serve. Or you can amplify your variety, meaning decentralize decisions, add sensing channels, shorten feedback loops, and increase the diversity of perspectives in your decision rooms.
Both are legitimate. Pretending you don’t have to choose is what leads to the failures.
In practical terms, for product leaders, this means a few things. Push decisions down to the level closest to the relevant signal. If a PM has to escalate two layers to ship a copy change, the signal is decaying before it can be acted on. Hire for difference, not just credentials, because variety in people produces variety in responses. Run multiple smaller bets instead of one big one, because each bet is a different state your company can occupy. Instrument what your users actually do, not what your dashboards say they should be doing. Latency in feedback loops is variety lost.
And design your org to mirror the variety of customer problems you’re trying to solve, not the variety of internal political constituencies you’re trying to keep happy.
The Reckoning
Don’t ask whether your organization is complicated enough. That’s the wrong question. Complicated isn’t the goal. Variety is.
The right question is this. When your environment throws a problem you didn’t anticipate, who in your organization is positioned to recognize it and respond before it becomes a crisis? If the honest answer is the executive team in the next quarterly review, you have an Ashby problem. The signal is going to be a quarter old by the time anyone with authority sees it, and another quarter old by the time anyone responds.
Sit with that this week. Not as a thought experiment, as an audit. Pick three things that have surprised you in the last quarter. Customer behavior, a competitor move, a regulatory shift, a hiring miss, anything that you didn’t see coming. Now trace, honestly, who in your organization saw each one first. How long it took for that signal to reach a decision-maker. And how much of the original information survived the trip.
That gap, between what your environment is generating and what your organization can actually absorb, is the gap Ashby was talking about. It’s also the gap your competitors are living in, hoping you don’t close.
The hammer is optional. The reckoning is not.
What you describe resonates with me; organisations are embedded in tradition and culture. Having the guts to say, we need a new lens is a big deal. https://www.corporate-rebels.com