--- My favourite scene in _The Martian_ is when Rich——an eccentric astrophysicist who isn't very high up at NASA——saves the day with his "crazy" idea.  Now, Rich’s character might be exaggerated for dramatic effect, but there are people like him in every organisation——creative minds who aren’t in positions of power. Listening to them is the difference between organisations that live at the bleeding edge of innovation and the ones that fade into irrelevance. What sets these organisations apart is that decision-makers know how to break the hierarchy without ruffling any feathers. What do I mean by that? You see, when you have an informal exchange of ideas directly with colleagues a few levels down, it can sometimes be misinterpreted. It may seem to the managers that their authority is being undermined or, worse, that there’s a shift in the reporting structure. At the same time, always going through the hierarchy just to avoid upsetting line managers can mean that good ideas from people at different levels never reach you.[^1] This isn't an uncommon problem. I've seen many founders and leaders struggle with it. I personally stayed at the receiving end of this problem for many years until someone introduced me to a new way: **Open communication with structured decision making.** Here's how Steven Sample describes it in his book [[The Contrarian's Guide to Leadership|The Contrarian's Guide to Leadership]]: > Under this rubric, everyone in the organisation is free to communicate directly with everyone else in the organisation, with the explicit caveat that any and all commitments, allocations, and decisions will be made strictly through the hierarchy. In simpler terms: - Everyone can communicate directly with anyone else, which is crucial for creative ideas to emerge and thrive. - But decisions are still made through the hierarchy, which empowers managers rather than undermining them. Before I started thinking this way, I recklessly prioritised good ideas over hierarchy. To my mind there was nothing more important than giving oxygen to those ideas, even if it meant pissing off some managers every now and then. I considered the friction and toxicity that came as a result to be the price of innovation. But over time, I've come around on the value of good managers. They bring organisational stability——something that's invisible when it’s present but painfully visible when it's not. It's not just a nice-to-have, but a necessary condition for good ideas to breed freely. When you prioritise short-term gains from a few ideas over the long-term health of the org, you’re essentially killing the goose for a few golden eggs. *Open communication with structured decision making* is how you keep the goose alive and fertile. [^1]: There are many ways in which the flow of ideas can be blocked as they move through the hierarchy. Sometimes, good ideas don’t make it past the managers because they fear appearing less competent than those who report to them. It's unfortunate, but can be solved by creating a safer culture for everyone. What's harder to solve are situations when managers, despite having good intentions, don't bring promising ideas to the right decision-makers. This happens because managers either lack the risk appetite to support those ideas, or the foresight to see their true potential.