The dilemma
SoulCode prized autonomy. Speed followed in pockets, drift in others. Teams didn’t share the same edges: outcomes were broad, decision rights fuzzy, dependencies invisible. Autonomy felt empowering until priorities collided and rework spiked.
What was fractured
Direction
“Build the best X” read inspiring and vague. Teams filled blanks differently.
Degrees of freedom
No shared view of what could be changed without approval.
Decision rights
Who decides vs. who inputs lived in people’s heads, not in the plan.
Dependencies
Interfaces were tribal knowledge; cross-team changes broke silently.
Risk budget
No agreed failure budget, so teams either froze or overreached.
Quinn’s playbook: Make autonomy legible
Outcome guardrails
Write the goal as 2–3 measurable outcomes, with “non-goals” and quality bars.
Decision canvas (DR+I+E)
Decider, Recommenders, Inputs, Escalation path. One page, public.
Failure budgets
Pre-agree error rates / rollback windows so speed doesn’t gamble stability.
Interface contracts
Document the seams: inputs/outputs, SLAs, change windows, test hooks.
Autonomy heatmap
Quarterly grid: team × autonomy dimension (outcomes, tech, timing, scope). Red = drag; green = run.
Shadow escalations off
If a choice hits defined guardrails, escalate once, together, with receipts.
Why it matters now
Autonomy without edges looks fast until the rework bill arrives. Clear guardrails and interfaces let small teams run long—without collateral drift.
The shift at SoulCode
Within one cycle, decision time dropped, duplicate work fell, and “surprise” escalations cooled. Teams reported higher ownership and fewer cross-team flare-ups. Speed rose because choices had boundaries.
Leadership takeaways
Ownership needs edges.
Interfaces are first-class.
Speed is a policy, not a mood.
Teaser for Episode 26: The Interface Pact
Quinn reduces cross-team friction with living contracts at the seams.
.png)
