Coordination in larger organizations often leads to frustrations, as many employees have experienced. Common complaints include slow decision-making, siloed work, excessive meetings, and the proliferation of redundant solutions. The core issue behind these challenges is the cost of coordination. As teams grow, the effort needed to align their work increases. This results in a preference for localized efforts over cross-organizational collaboration, which can be more taxing and time-consuming. Meetings exemplify this challenge. While they are essential for coordination, they often feel unproductive and detract from individual work time. Employees rarely receive recognition for attending meetings, yet these gatherings are vital for keeping teams aligned. As organizations expand, they tend to invest more in coordination mechanisms, such as middle management and various tools. Despite the wide range of available coordination tools—like Jira, Slack, or Google Docs—effective collaboration remains difficult. Historical attempts to eliminate management layers at companies like Google and Zappos highlight the inherent challenges of human coordination. Different companies adopt varying strategies to tackle coordination costs. Amazon employs a decentralized model, allowing teams to operate like independent startups, while Google invests heavily in centralized tools. However, issues arise when initiatives require collaboration across multiple teams or departments. Coordination becomes especially critical during incidents, where organizations may appoint dedicated incident managers to streamline communication. Chronic coordination problems persist in daily operations, making it crucial for companies to acknowledge their existence and improve their approach to meetings and collaborative work. Recognizing the value of “glue work” performed by team members is essential for enhancing organizational effectiveness.