Reid Hoffman has this bit in Blitzscaling that has stuck with me. It’s an idea much deeper than he gives space to—maybe worth an entire book. It can help us understand common pathologies in organizations, and when spoken out loud, can help remedy them. The gist of the idea is:
That said, I think the idea of an organisation which was a balance of types would itself be a mistake (and to some extent an impossibility).
Many organisations have a relatively narrow focus/defined type - for example a VC firm with a bunch of 'police' in leadership and decision making would be a very bad VC firm. And for larger enterprises who are trying to stack S-curves they need to operate essentially as a production line of innovating->scaling->monetising->retiring, which is almost like having three separate organisations (or constantly founding new businesses).
On the impossibility front there are a limited number of seats at the top (and at the very top conventionally just one) so having a career path to the top only makes sense to the extent that someone is aligned with the 'type' of organisation - and substantially their proximity to how the business makes money (sales v marketing v ops v tech).
Pure speculation but is your underlying concern stagnation and (part of) your solution to increase the status of innovators (spies)?
Nice. Another lens:
Marines: Founders / founding teams
Army: Private Equity
Police: Corporate types
The whole approach to 'types' doesn't really sit well with me (https://productdelivery.substack.com/p/weekly-reading-notes-207)
That said, I think the idea of an organisation which was a balance of types would itself be a mistake (and to some extent an impossibility).
Many organisations have a relatively narrow focus/defined type - for example a VC firm with a bunch of 'police' in leadership and decision making would be a very bad VC firm. And for larger enterprises who are trying to stack S-curves they need to operate essentially as a production line of innovating->scaling->monetising->retiring, which is almost like having three separate organisations (or constantly founding new businesses).
On the impossibility front there are a limited number of seats at the top (and at the very top conventionally just one) so having a career path to the top only makes sense to the extent that someone is aligned with the 'type' of organisation - and substantially their proximity to how the business makes money (sales v marketing v ops v tech).
Pure speculation but is your underlying concern stagnation and (part of) your solution to increase the status of innovators (spies)?