For most of my adult life I believed the bottleneck was ideas.
If you'd asked me ten years ago why good things don't happen — why the obvious solution sits unbuilt, why the right people never quite get in the room, why the initiative that everyone agrees is important somehow never moves — I'd have told you it was a shortage of vision. We needed better thinking. Smarter strategy. A clearer plan. So I collected ideas the way some people collect books, and I assumed that if I just found the right one, the rest would follow.
It took running several organizations at once to teach me how wrong that was.
These days I work across a handful of overlapping efforts — a nonprofit, a few ecosystems I help hold together, a small bakery I started because I wanted to make something with my hands. They sound unrelated, and on paper they are. But living inside all of them at the same time gave me an accidental experiment. I got to watch the same kind of person — capable, generous, genuinely committed — try to make things happen in completely different contexts. And the thing that determined whether anything actually shipped was almost never the quality of the idea.
It was whether the glue held.
By glue I mean the unglamorous connective work that sits between people and between organizations. The follow-up nobody owns. The translation of one group's language into another's. The quiet maintenance of trust across a gap. The person who remembers what was decided three weeks ago and makes sure it doesn't quietly die. This work has no title and shows up on no org chart, and it is, as far as I can tell, the single most decisive factor in whether brilliant people produce anything together at all.
We don't talk about it because it isn't impressive. Ideas are impressive. Launches are impressive. A founder on a stage is impressive. The glue is invisible by design — when it's working, you don't notice it; you only notice the result, which looks like the idea succeeding on its own merits. So we credit the idea and we credit the visionary, and we quietly starve the layer that actually carried the thing across.
I've watched a roomful of impressive people leave a meeting in total agreement and then go nowhere for six months — not because they were lazy or in conflict, but because no one held the space between them once the meeting ended. And I've watched a much less polished group accomplish something genuinely hard, mostly because one person refused to let a thread drop. The difference wasn't talent. It wasn't even resources. It was coordination — and coordination is a kind of labor, not a kind of luck.
Here's what surprised me most, running things in parallel: the failure mode is almost always the same, and it's almost never the obvious one.
It isn't that people disagree. Real disagreement is rare and, honestly, useful — at least you know where you stand. The far more common killer is the absence of a mechanism. Everyone agrees, everyone leaves aligned, and there is simply no machinery for turning that alignment into motion. We've built extraordinary tools for sharing information — I can see what every collaborator is doing in real time, across every project, beautifully organized — and almost nothing for actually moving together. We mistake the dashboard for the work. We confuse everyone knowing what to do with the group being able to do it.
That gap — between knowing and moving — is the thing I've become a little obsessed with. It's the most expensive problem I know of that almost nobody is funding directly. Foundations fund programs. Companies fund products. Almost no one funds the connective tissue that lets independent groups act as one without flattening into one. So it gets done off the side of someone's desk, by someone with no mandate and no budget, until that person burns out and the whole network quietly loses coherence.
I don't think the answer is more software, though I build some. I don't think it's better frameworks, though I've written my share. I've come to think the deeper answer is that we need to take the glue seriously — to name it, resource it, design for it, and stop pretending the idea was ever the hard part.
The bakery taught me this as clearly as any of the bigger work. I make mochi — soft little rice-flour cakes — and I started bringing a tin to meetings, and what I noticed is that something shifts when you hand a person something you made. A transaction becomes a relationship. A meeting becomes a table. None of that is in the strategy deck, and all of it is load-bearing. The best coordination I've ever seen was preceded by trust, and trust was preceded by somebody actually caring whether the other person was okay. The systems serve that. They can't replace it.
So that's what I'm going to write about here.
Not productivity. Not management theory. Not another framework for running your organization more efficiently. I want to write about the layer underneath all of that — how groups of people and organizations actually cohere, why so much brilliance dissipates before it becomes anything, and what it would take to treat the glue as the real work instead of an afterthought. I'll write from inside the experiments I'm running, across faith communities and tech ecosystems and funding networks and one very small bakery, and I'll be honest about what I don't know, which is a lot.
If you've ever sat in a room full of capable people who all agreed and then watched it amount to nothing — if you've ever been the one quietly holding a network together with no one noticing — this is for you. I suspect there are more of us than it seems. We're just scattered across different worlds, doing the same invisible job, and not finding each other.
That's the conversation I'm trying to start. I'd be glad to have you in it.
— John
Written June 2026. If this landed, the most useful thing you can do is send it to one person who's been stuck in the gap I described — coordination work compounds by network, not by audience.
Reply to me