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)?