Summary
Many popular operating systems were designed for predictable, process-driven environments where standardization is key. While these frameworks excel in stable contexts, they struggle when businesses need to move quickly and adapt constantly. This post explores why flexibility is a competitive advantage and how adaptable systems support fast-moving companies without creating chaos.
INDEX
- Where traditional operating systems came from
- Why “one size fits all” breaks modern businesses
- Structure vs. rigidity: Understanding the difference
- How flexibility accelerates decisions (not slows them)
- Real example: When rigid systems hide critical insights
- What “customizable” actually means in practice
- The myth that flexibility equals chaos
- What this means for fast-moving companies
But most businesses today don’t operate in predictable manufacturing environments (they account for less than 2%.) They face rapid market shifts, distributed teams, constant technological change, and client needs that require customization. They need structure, but they also need the ability to adapt without rebuilding their entire operating system every time conditions change.
Where traditional operating systems came from
The Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS) was designed for manufacturing companies. The framework emerged from Gino Wickman’s experience working with production-focused businesses that benefited from standardized processes, predictable workflows, and consistent execution rhythms.
Similarly, Great Game of Business originated in 1983 when Jack Stack led an employee buyout of an engine remanufacturing facility from International Harvester. The system developed from the need to teach manufacturing workers how to understand business financials and drive operational performance.
These origins aren’t a weakness. Manufacturing companies thrive on repeatability. The same process should produce the same result every time. Terminology stays consistent. Meeting agendas follow set patterns. Tools remain unchanged because the work itself doesn’t fundamentally shift.
This approach works brilliantly when your business model mirrors those original use cases. But service businesses, technology companies, creative agencies, and professional services firms face different challenges.
Why “one size fits all” breaks modern businesses
Companies outside traditional manufacturing contexts deal with:
- Client relationships that require customization
- Rapidly evolving technology that changes how work gets done
- Distributed or hybrid teams with different communication needs
- Market conditions that shift quarterly, not annually
- Team structures that need to flex as the business scales
When you force these businesses into rigid frameworks, something breaks. Either the company abandons the system entirely, or teams work around it, creating shadow processes that undermine the structure you were trying to build.
The cost of rigidity isn’t theoretical. It’s measurable.
Zoom in on this story…
Kodak invented the first digital camera in 1975. Engineer Steve Sasson created a working prototype that would eventually transform photography forever. But when he showed it to management, their response was essentially to keep quiet about it. They didn’t want to cannibalize their highly profitable film business.
At the time, Kodak dominated. In 1976, the company held 90% of the U.S. film market and 85% of the camera market. By 1996, Kodak was worth over $28 billion and employed more than 140,000 people.
The company saw the digital future coming. They had the technology. They had the talent. They had the resources. What they lacked was the willingness to adapt their business model to accommodate new realities.
By January 2012, Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company that invented digital photography couldn’t survive the transition to digital photography.
The problem wasn’t that Kodak didn’t know about the future. The problem was that their entire structure was built around film. Every decision, every process, every profit model depended on the old way of doing business. When the market shifted, rigidity made adaptation impossible.
Structure vs. rigidity: Understanding the difference
Structure provides clarity. Rigidity prevents adaptation.
Structure means everyone knows how decisions get made, where information lives, and what success looks like. You have regular meeting rhythms, clear accountability, and consistent execution.
Rigidity means you can’t change anything without breaking the system. You’re forced to use terminology that doesn’t fit your culture. Your meeting agendas can’t adapt to your business stage. The tools you adopted three years ago can’t evolve as your needs change.
Companies need the former. They outgrow the latter.
How flexibility accelerates decisions (not slows them)
There’s a common misconception that flexibility creates chaos. The thinking goes: if everyone can customize their approach, you lose alignment and slow down execution.
The opposite is true.
When your operating system flexes to fit how your business actually works, adoption increases. Teams don’t fight the system because it already speaks their language and matches their workflow. Decisions move faster because you’re not forcing every choice through a framework that wasn’t built for your context.
Flexibility accelerates decision-making when it’s paired with clear principles. You customize the how, but you stay aligned on the why and the what.
Real example: When isolation hides the insights teams need most
An $80 million company was facing a crisis that threatened its entire future. The two owners had been carrying the weight alone—a $1 million loan payment deadline that could endanger everything they’d built.
Traditional business wisdom says leaders should project confidence and shield their teams from uncertainty. These owners followed that playbook perfectly. They handled the crisis privately while maintaining composure in front of their leadership team.
The isolation was crushing them.
During their first Bloom Growth offsite session with Coach Cesar Quintero, something shifted. For the first time, these owners opened up to their leadership team about the loan crisis they were facing.
The breakthrough came from what happened next. Instead of the panic or blame the owners expected, their entire team immediately aligned around one mission: do everything in their power to help make that payment on time.
The owners were overwhelmed. Their team genuinely wanted to help them succeed. By getting everyone rowing in the same direction and focusing on what mattered most, they achieved what once seemed impossible—they made the payment in just one quarter.
The team didn’t just rally. They doubled their expected sales that quarter. Everyone felt ownership they’d never experienced before. The vulnerability and openness allowed the owners to be truly seen by their people, creating unity around a common goal.
This insight only surfaced because the system prioritized relationships alongside execution. Rigid frameworks focus on accountability metrics and strategic priorities. Relationship-centered systems also examine whether leaders feel safe enough to share the burdens their teams are ready to help carry.
The owners had convinced themselves that projecting strength meant handling crises alone. The relationship tools revealed a different truth: their team’s future was tied to the business, and they wanted to share the burden because they were invested too.
What “customizable” actually means in practice
Customization sounds appealing until you realize most systems offer surface-level personalization. You can change a logo or adjust a color scheme, but the core structure stays locked.
Here’s what true customization looks like in an adaptable operating system:
Terminology that fits your culture
Call your weekly meetings “sync sessions” instead of Level 10s. Name your quarterly goals “Q-Checkpoints” instead of Rocks. Use language that already resonates with your team rather than forcing everyone to adopt new vocabulary. Some teams thrive with traditional business terminology. Others need language that reflects their culture. Your software should support both.
Meeting agendas you can adjust
Customize the time allocation, order of agenda items, and topics covered in your meetings. Different businesses need different rhythms. A creative agency’s weekly meeting doesn’t look the same as a logistics company’s. Your system should reflect that reality. The software should let you build agendas that match how your team actually works, not force everyone into identical structures.
Tools that iterate over time
Business best practices change. Technology evolves. Team dynamics shift. Your operating system should evolve with you, not stay frozen in its original form.
Bloom Growth OS™ improves quarter after quarter because the growing network of Bloom Growth Coaches—entrepreneurs turned coaches—contributes insights from real implementations. These coaches bring combined decades of business experience. When they discover helpful tools or improved approaches in their own client work, they share them with the coach community. That knowledge gets transferred back into the system, which means the methodology itself evolves.
The obvious contrast between systems that are static or evolve
Traditional systems often launch and remain static. What worked in 2005 stays unchanged in 2026, regardless of how dramatically business conditions, technology, and team expectations have shifted. You’re stuck with the original framework.
Adaptable systems recognize that business operating needs change. Technology has transformed how teams communicate and track work. Team health and relationship dynamics have become critical concerns that weren’t prioritized two decades ago. When your operating system incorporates these insights and continues evolving, you get better business practices over time rather than yesterday’s solutions.
The software itself becomes smarter too. When Bloom Growth Coaches identify features that would help their clients execute better, those insights inform software development. You benefit from the collective experience of an entire coach network, not just one person’s original vision.
The myth that flexibility equals chaos
The biggest pushback against flexible systems is fear of chaos. If everyone customizes their approach, how do you maintain alignment?
The answer: principles stay consistent, execution stays flexible.
Every company using Bloom Growth OS maintains the same core principles: clarity on priorities, accountability for outcomes, healthy team relationships, and regular execution rhythms. Those don’t change.
What changes is how each company implements those principles. The terminology they use. The meeting structures they prefer. The specific tools that fit their industry and stage.
Think of it like building codes versus architectural design. Building codes ensure structural integrity—they’re non-negotiable. But within those parameters, you can design a modern office building, a historic renovation, or a creative workspace. The principles ensure safety and function. The flexibility enables customization.
Operating systems should work the same way.
What this means for fast-moving companies
Companies that need to move quickly can’t afford to fight their operating system. They need structure that creates clarity without imposing rigidity.
If your business is evolving, your operating system should evolve with you. If your team uses specific terminology, your system should support that language. If your meeting rhythms need to flex based on business cycles, your tools should accommodate that variation.
Flexibility isn’t the absence of structure. It’s structure that adapts to serve your business rather than forcing your business to conform to a framework built for someone else’s context.
The companies that thrive in 2026 and beyond will be those that combine clear principles with adaptable execution. They’ll have operating systems that provide structure without imposing rigidity, create alignment without demanding conformity, and support growth without breaking under pressure.
When your system becomes the obstacle
Kodak saw the future and couldn’t adapt. Don’t let your operating system create the same trap. Traditional frameworks served their original contexts well, but if your business doesn’t mirror a manufacturing plant or engine remanufacturing facility, you need an approach that fits how modern businesses actually work.