Building an Operating System for Evolving Organizations: The Case of Outcome
In 2022, a small group of operators who had lived through the growing pains of scale at Spotify, Riot Games, and Meta decided to start again from first principles. They had seen too many times how a company that began fast and full of energy would slow to a crawl as it grew.
Decisions that once took days stretched into months. Teams duplicated work or blocked each other. Slack channels filled with noise instead of clarity. Leaders responded with sweeping reorganizations that consumed time and money but rarely addressed the root causes.
This blog post is part of 80+ case studies of progressive organizations we created for the ZeroDX awards 2025. These organizations embody the principles of RenDanHeYi in their work structures:
Zero Distance to customer: Decision what to build is based on insights from the marketplace
Autonomy: Small teams with full decision-making autonomy enable speed in execution
Shared Rewards: Everyone in the micro-enterprise participates in its financial success.
Outcome was born out of the conviction that the problem was not people, but the system itself. Modern organizations still operated with the assumptions of a factory age: rigid hierarchies, static job descriptions, and quarterly plans designed for predictable environments. Yet knowledge work was messy and interdependent, shaped by shifting priorities and constant collaboration across boundaries. The team behind Outcome believed companies did not need new boxes on a chart; they needed a way to evolve continuously.
The company’s mission is simple but ambitious: to make organizations better as they get bigger. Its product, TeamOS, is designed as the first operating system for continuous organizational transformation. TeamOS makes the invisible patterns of work visible. It shows where friction accumulates, how dependencies slow down delivery, and where alignment is breaking down.
More importantly, it gives teams the agency to act on this information themselves, turning evolution into a shared, everyday practice rather than a top-down program.
Outcome runs its own company as a living demonstration of this approach. With just six to eight people, it organizes work in small autonomous teams of fewer than six, each with a captain responsible for clarity and progress. Leadership exists not to direct, but to set the stage by providing vision, culture, and rhythm. Decisions are pushed as close to the work as possible.
Information is written down, shared openly, and treated as a resource that belongs to everyone. Mistakes are not feared; they are treated as the raw material of progress.
Compensation follows the same logic of fairness and ownership. Salaries are transparent and tied to mastery rather than titles. Stock options are offered so that every employee is a shareholder in the company’s future, with additionalrecognition given to those who joined at the earliest and riskiest stage. Benefits are designed to provide the right conditions for autonomy: the right tools, flexible time off, and space to build a productive environment anywhere in the world.
The result is a rhythm that feels light yet intentional. Teams set quarterly goals and sprint plans, review progressmonthly, and share updates weekly. Meetings are kept to a minimum, replaced by written context that ensures everyone stays connected without unnecessary interruptions.
Culture is grounded in virtues such as chasing customer love, simplifying complexity, and thinking like scientists.
The philosophy echoes closely the principles of the RenDanHeYi model. Both begin with the belief that people do notresist change but resist being changed. Both reject hierarchical control in favor of autonomy supported by clear accountability. Outcome, like RenDanHeYi, shifts ownership to the edges of the organization, giving teams responsibility for their own outcomes and the tools to manage interdependence. Where RenDanHeYi speaks of micro-enterprises with their own profit and loss, TeamOS builds the infrastructure for any team to become a unit that learns, adapts, and contributes visibly to the whole.
Transparency, another cornerstone of RenDanHeYi, is deeply embedded in Outcome’s way of working. All strategy documents, product decisions, and progress updates are available to everyone, removing the opacity that often slows down traditional organizations. Similarly, RenDanHeYi’s principle of zero distance to the user is mirrored in Outcome’s approach: every team member, from engineers to product leads, engages directly with customers, co-developing features and responding immediately to feedback.
Even the cultural dimension shows strong parallels. RenDanHeYi emphasizes entrepreneurial spirit and value creation. Outcome enshrines this in its own culture of experimentation, where small, reversible decisions are encouraged, and every employee has the authority to propose and test solutions. Both models treat the organizationas an ecosystem rather than a machine: adaptive, interdependent, and evolving through feedback loops.
Outcome is still young, but its vision has already attracted backing from Andreessen Horowitz and trust from companies like Supercell. For the founders, the ambition is not only to help organizations avoid the pain of reorganization but to offer them a path where growth becomes an advantage. In this view, the company itself is theproduct, and through TeamOS, the product becomes stronger with scale rather than weaker.
The story of Outcome illustrates how the ideas behind RenDanHeYi can be expressed in new forms. By focusing on visibility, decentralized change, and team-led evolution, Outcome has translated principles first tested inmanufacturing into the reality of fast-moving technology firms. It shows that when people are given ownership, clarity, and the right system, complexity does not have to be a tax. It can be the very source of resilience and advantage.
