« Back to home

Loonshots, Shadow Warriors, and Why Structure Beats Vibes

I just finished listening to Safi Bahcall’s Loonshots (thank you Libby) because friends kept telling me it was fantastic, and was fundamental to how they think about the innovation we’re all striving towards. They weren’t kidding. The book gave me language for dynamics I’d been managing by intuition, especially during my time with the Shadow Warriors, and showed me how they might maintain success indefinitely.

Bush–Vail Rules and the Artist/Soldier Divide

The Bush–Vail rules hit hard (https://www.infermuse.com/how-to-nurture-loonshots/). They basically say: safeguard your artists (loonshot teams), empower your soldiers (scale teams), and don’t mash them into one bureaucracy. That maps almost perfectly onto how I saw the Shadow Warriors vs. the acquisition command I was embedded in. The Shadow Warriors are artists building weird prototypes, and the acquisition folks are concentrated on keeping the lights on by getting the basics out into the field. I’d sensed mixing those two groups too tightly was dangerous, but Bahcall gave me the structural argument I’d been missing. On the acquisition side I regularly campaigned for less oversight, but the book reminded me there’s a point where “less bureaucracy” can undercut quality (although we can cut a ton of bureaucracy before we reach that point, currently).

Seeing My Own History in P-Type vs. S-Type

Bahcall’s distinction between P-type and S-type loonshots forced me to reframe the work my teams tackled. P-type loonshots are radically new, the type of thing that makes someone say “that’ll never work”. S-types are shifts in strategy or systems, rewiring how something existing gets done. In hindsight, the Shadow Warriors were juggling both: some projects were deep bets for generating small revolutions, others were about generating progressive wins for customers. At the time I sensed the difference, but I didn’t separate these projects sufficiently. I lumped them together too often in my thinking, but the book made me realize those streams need different guardrails, incentives, and staffing. I gave the P-type folks plenty of runway, but I could have defended their risk-taking more explicitly, and helped others on my team understand the importance of letting them run too. I also see that if the acquisition side is not structured to support loonshots (the program offices I saw are far from that), then any P-type innovation is completely doomed.

Control Parameters: We Mostly Got Them Right

Bahcall talks about control parameters: the levers (incentives, org design, phase separation) that push groups toward or away from innovation. Looking back, we accidentally tuned a lot of those in our favor: reporting chains setup to protect the innovators, custom success metrics, a “protected” sandbox. Seeing that model laid out gives me confidence that if I land in a less innovative org, my first instinct should be to fix the structure, not just preach culture.

Five Laws: Persistence and Curiosity

The “Five Laws of Loonshots” (https://www.bahcall.com/five-laws-of-loonshots/) didn’t all resonate equally, but two felt eerily familiar:

  • Three deaths / false fails. - I haven’t watched an idea survive precisely three formal cancellations… But I have lived through head-on setbacks that required stubborn persistence. Bahcall’s framing justifies that stubbornness: good ideas often look dead before they aren’t.

  • Listen to the suck with curiosity. - A mentor introduced me to a similar idea a few years ago, and Arbinger’s Outward Mindset made it even more explicit: see people as humans with needs and wants, and seek to understand them through genuine curiosity. Bahcall puts that same idea inside the innovation process: if you are told your prototype sucks, listen carefully to why. It seems to me that it’s similar to design thinking’s need for empathy.

Structure vs. Culture, and the Gardener Mindset

One of the book’s quiet insights is that innovative structure precedes innovative culture. At the 90th, I lucked into a structure that gave the Shadow Warriors room to breathe. It let me focus on cultivating culture (psychological safety, experimentation) because the org chart already encouraged innovation. If I ever find myself in a calcified bureaucracy that thinks it can be innovative, I’ll know to fight for structural change first.

That dovetails with Bahcall’s “gardener, not Moses” analogy. As a leader of innovative teams I cannot act like a prophet delivering commandments by selecting winners and losers… Instead I must setup incentives and consequences whereby the winners and losers show themselves. Like a gardener I must set the conditions, remove weeds, and let unexpected hybrids grow. It’s the same principle agile teams live by when they put customers in the loop: create feedback-rich environments where ideas can sprout, pivot, or die without ego getting in the way.

Takeaways I’m Carrying Forward

  1. Name the work and loonshot type early - Is this a team of artists or soldiers - and is that what I need for this job? Is this a P or S bet? Differentiate staffing, metrics, and cadence accordingly.
  2. Keep artists and soldiers close, but not fused - Collaboration is good, forced assimilation kills both sides.
  3. Protect control parameters - Incentives, reporting lines, funding gates - these are the knobs that decide whether innovation scales or suffocates.
  4. Teach people to treat criticism as intel - “Listen to the suck with curiosity” isn’t just a catchy phrase, it’s how you learn what your stakeholders actually need.
  5. Teach people to lead like gardeners - Remove barriers, nurture diverse bets, and resist the urge to script outcomes.

Loonshots gave me vocabulary for instincts I’ve carried. More importantly, it reminded me that great innovations rarely emerge from lone geniuses, they emerge from systems designed to let them survive their awkward adolescence.