The world in turquoise tones. Reality or fantasy. Organizations of the future
In continuation of the discussion of the books of Frederick Lahl “Discovering the organizations of the future” and Semler Ricardo “Maverick. The success story of the most unusual company in the world. ”
megamozg.ru/post/23000
and following the results of the discussion it is necessary to say the following.
1. The book is still necessary to read. I did it again after writing the review and maybe I will return to it more than once.
2. Many skeptics and critics expressed in my first essay of thoughts actually helped me and hopefully will help you (and therefore write a second time) to better understand the essence and meaning of new types of organizations.
First of all, I want to agree with those who noted the similarity between the principles of organizing the life of turquoise organizations and religious communities on the one hand, and the communist ideology on the other.
The article I wrote in the first article was forced (due to the style of the comment on the book) a little superficially and reflected in many respects not the deep, but the external visible features of the new types of organizations. Which by themselves are so unusual that it was impossible not to write about them.
')
Now we turn to the analysis and comparisons.
The basis of organizations of turquoise type are the following three "whales":
1. Self-government based on the interaction of equal colleagues.
2. The desire to implement the integrity of the individual at work - the motto is: be at work those who you are.
3. Mandatory presence is not the purpose of the activity, but the purpose of the organization. Following the motto: understand and understand the purpose of the organization.
What is the difference from turquoise organizations of religious communities?
Well, firstly, in itself, the concept of religious communities is rather vague. There are, let's say, religious sects headed not even with a boss, but with their own “god” and, accordingly, with their own internal autocratic or hierarchical organization of dominance. Secondly, in cases where there is a closeness of organizational structures, there will be one fundamental difference. It is for the purpose of existence.
In the case of religious communities (but not sects aimed at creating the welfare of their leader), the goal is to organize religious knowledge of the world and of oneself. This noble and perhaps even necessary goal.
Turquoise organizations have goals and they are different than in religious communities. No goal, too, can be knowledge if it is any scientific organization. But it will be scientific, not religious knowledge.
In other cases, the goals may be, for example, to work in such a way that our clients need our services less (this is the goal of the existence of a medical nursing company in the Netherlands that serves patients at home. The better they work, the less their patients get and this is the meaning of their existence).
Now compare the turquoise models with the communist ideology.
Note that the ideology of turquoise models really has much in common with the communist ideology. But there are a few significant differences.
First: turquoise models are not only ideology (as in communist theories), they are also organizational methods for creating and operating organizations. This is also a concrete working practice.
The second difference is also for purposes. In turquoise organizations, there is necessarily a goal for the organization. Now answer without thinking - what is the purpose of the existence of communism? No, communism itself is of course a goal, but what is the goal of the existence of communism?
It is impossible to assume that the goal is from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs, or the achievement of equality, fraternity, justice. These are not goals, but means. But for the sake of equality? For the sake of equality? What for all the needs?
I found only one goal of the existence of communism, set out in the manifesto of the Communist Party - "... the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all." But it is a little non-specific and this goal is difficult to be guided in practice.
No wonder that many fantasy worlds of the future, where the world of communism is described, are boredom. Heroes have no high goals there. All feats are made out of boredom. Those. Communism was and for many remains the goal. But he does not have the clearest leading goal. As indeed there is no worthy goal and capitalism.
( which, by the way, puts the next question on the agenda - we, Russia, need a purpose that unites us - but this is already beyond the scope of this discussion) .
Thus, for the purposes of our comparison (and only for them, we will not overly generalize) communism is primarily an ideology that does not describe the specific organizational principles of the structure and society as a whole and its individual cells. And turquoise models just (with a similar ideology) describe precisely the organizational principles.
Finally, turquoise organizations can be both large and small, but communism in a single organization is no longer communism, but only a commune, which can be built on turquoise principles. The circle is closed.
At the same time, in some more distant future, it would also be wrong to oppose the organization of society through turquoise management models and religious self-knowledge and communist ideals. I believe they are somewhere ahead, will come closer to each other. But it is ahead, not right now.
Another important objection to the introduction of turquoise models can be expressed in words
- where do you take such a people, so that you want to take liberties and take responsibility for yourself.
Or more rudely it may sound like this:
- There has always been and will be a gray faceless mass that does not want to take responsibility, and always makes decisions only in its own favor.
I still do not see a more serious argument against these objections except for the advice to carefully read the proposed books. Since there are described several real-life examples when a turquoise organization was created from that “people” that is.
Well, for example:
Non-profit organization Buurtzorg, the Netherlands, medical home nursing. Exists since 2006. By 2013, its number had grown from the initial 10 to 700 employees, it took over about half of the medical patronage market in the Netherlands, always working with profit, despite the costs associated with growth.
Or FAVI - plant in France, the automotive industry. He grew from 80 employees in 1980 to 500 in 2013. Salaries are above the industry average. Never had mass layoffs, despite all the past crises, which over the years was not enough.
However, the danger is that when creating a turquoise organization you give people autonomy and the power to make decisions, but they will not take full responsibility for the common goal, there really is such a danger. And the same Frederick Lalu writes directly about her and gives some advice on how to avoid such a danger.
You can certainly wait until most people rise to a new turquoise level of consciousness (and this is the level of consciousness too, and not just the organizational structure), well, you can create new organizations on new principles and they in turn will change people and their consciousness.
In our world, everything is interconnected. Yes, new types of organizations really need people with a new level of consciousness. But where do they come from if we do not create conditions (and create organizations) that lead to changes in the level of consciousness?
It should also be said about two relative shortcomings of the book by Frederick Lal.
1. Insufficient attention is paid to the interaction of turquoise models with the former types of organizations (Sergey Trushkin paid attention to this). However, it is important to clearly emphasize that a new type of organization cannot exist on its own in proud loneliness. It is still important, qualitatively new, but a kind of superstructure above the former types of organization. These former types of organizations do not disappear and will not disappear altogether, but will remain a “niche product” for individual applications. For example, when there is a fire in a building, we must return and quickly return without any “internal consultation” to one of the previous management models.
It is unlikely that turquoise models will be applicable to the army, although for example the municipal police - why not.
2. The role of the leader of the organization is not fully disclosed. It is not enough for the head of the organization to initiate the process of change or the process of creating a new organization of turquoise type. It is not enough to give up the power of coercion.
In an organization, including any organization of a turquoise type, there must always be a leader. But not the leader who is subject to even with joy and voluntarily. And the leader who leads and rallies the organization, doing without coercion. Those. not only employees need to rise to a new level of consciousness, but the leader will also need to move to a higher level. And by the way, in the described real examples such leaders, as I understand, always exist.
A few more relatively minor comments and clarifications to the concepts of turquoise models.
Take the statement - there is no boss. However, it would be more accurate to say otherwise - there are a lot of bosses. For each employee - the rest of his team - his bosses in relation to the obligations that he himself assumed.
Another statement is that there are no middle managers. Yes, they really are not. But management as a type of activity (understood as identifying and eliminating inconsistencies) does not disappear - either the teams themselves or specialized teams serving other teams are mainly involved.
Or such a question - why in turquoise models nothing is said about process management? And the answer is this - because instead of business process management processes there are several universal basic procedures for organizing all other processes. This is primarily:
decision-making procedures through internal counseling and
- procedures for identifying and eliminating conflicts.
There is also one incorrect analogy, which sometimes appears when meeting with turquoise models and it complicates their correct perception. They are viewed as a kind of return from a hierarchical structure to a flat organization model. But this is not true and this is why.
First, turquoise models are not exhausted only by flat structures. They (flat structures) are applicable primarily for organizations with short production cycles. Already the ochlocracy with its intersecting circles is not completely flat. And there are organizations with long production cycles — something else needs to be done there — not entirely flat.
Secondly, in fact, the hierarchy does not completely disappear, it is transformed from a hierarchy of subordination to other types of hierarchies - hierarchies of knowledge, competence, experience. Those. there are new dimensions in which the hierarchy is distributed.
Another such remark. Why actually it is possible and necessary to say that turquoise models are qualitatively new formations.
First of all, because if earlier all other types of organizations were based on a particular distribution of power and responsibility from top to bottom, then in the turquoise model both power and responsibility are distributed from bottom to top. This is what leads to a restructuring of consciousness and to the fact that people switch from external to internal motivation.
In conclusion, I will give a list of questions that, in my opinion, should be the subject of further discussions (after we finally understand that this is not just another utopia that cannot be in life, but working systems).
1. What else could be the practical interest of the IT community in turquoise models.
I think that since turquoise organizations necessarily have some internal information network for sharing information and facilitating internal consultation and conflict resolution procedures, one of the tenets is that there can be no information that would be inaccessible to all employees organizations - the best solution for these tasks may be a corporate social network.
2. What techniques, what techniques are better to use, so that when introducing the concepts of turquoise models, their development gradually tightened the level of consciousness of workers, and the rate of implementation did not overtake the excessively actual level of consciousness.
3. Is it possible and how exactly to implement the principles of turquoise models in organizations with a long and wide production cycle. Well, for example, can this be implemented in a bank? I personally doubt it yet.
Congratulations to all who have read this New Year 2016!
I wish everyone more mutual understanding!
megamozg.ru/post/23000
and following the results of the discussion it is necessary to say the following.
1. The book is still necessary to read. I did it again after writing the review and maybe I will return to it more than once.
2. Many skeptics and critics expressed in my first essay of thoughts actually helped me and hopefully will help you (and therefore write a second time) to better understand the essence and meaning of new types of organizations.
First of all, I want to agree with those who noted the similarity between the principles of organizing the life of turquoise organizations and religious communities on the one hand, and the communist ideology on the other.
The article I wrote in the first article was forced (due to the style of the comment on the book) a little superficially and reflected in many respects not the deep, but the external visible features of the new types of organizations. Which by themselves are so unusual that it was impossible not to write about them.
')
Now we turn to the analysis and comparisons.
The basis of organizations of turquoise type are the following three "whales":
1. Self-government based on the interaction of equal colleagues.
2. The desire to implement the integrity of the individual at work - the motto is: be at work those who you are.
3. Mandatory presence is not the purpose of the activity, but the purpose of the organization. Following the motto: understand and understand the purpose of the organization.
What is the difference from turquoise organizations of religious communities?
Well, firstly, in itself, the concept of religious communities is rather vague. There are, let's say, religious sects headed not even with a boss, but with their own “god” and, accordingly, with their own internal autocratic or hierarchical organization of dominance. Secondly, in cases where there is a closeness of organizational structures, there will be one fundamental difference. It is for the purpose of existence.
In the case of religious communities (but not sects aimed at creating the welfare of their leader), the goal is to organize religious knowledge of the world and of oneself. This noble and perhaps even necessary goal.
Turquoise organizations have goals and they are different than in religious communities. No goal, too, can be knowledge if it is any scientific organization. But it will be scientific, not religious knowledge.
In other cases, the goals may be, for example, to work in such a way that our clients need our services less (this is the goal of the existence of a medical nursing company in the Netherlands that serves patients at home. The better they work, the less their patients get and this is the meaning of their existence).
Now compare the turquoise models with the communist ideology.
Note that the ideology of turquoise models really has much in common with the communist ideology. But there are a few significant differences.
First: turquoise models are not only ideology (as in communist theories), they are also organizational methods for creating and operating organizations. This is also a concrete working practice.
The second difference is also for purposes. In turquoise organizations, there is necessarily a goal for the organization. Now answer without thinking - what is the purpose of the existence of communism? No, communism itself is of course a goal, but what is the goal of the existence of communism?
It is impossible to assume that the goal is from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs, or the achievement of equality, fraternity, justice. These are not goals, but means. But for the sake of equality? For the sake of equality? What for all the needs?
I found only one goal of the existence of communism, set out in the manifesto of the Communist Party - "... the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all." But it is a little non-specific and this goal is difficult to be guided in practice.
No wonder that many fantasy worlds of the future, where the world of communism is described, are boredom. Heroes have no high goals there. All feats are made out of boredom. Those. Communism was and for many remains the goal. But he does not have the clearest leading goal. As indeed there is no worthy goal and capitalism.
( which, by the way, puts the next question on the agenda - we, Russia, need a purpose that unites us - but this is already beyond the scope of this discussion) .
Thus, for the purposes of our comparison (and only for them, we will not overly generalize) communism is primarily an ideology that does not describe the specific organizational principles of the structure and society as a whole and its individual cells. And turquoise models just (with a similar ideology) describe precisely the organizational principles.
Finally, turquoise organizations can be both large and small, but communism in a single organization is no longer communism, but only a commune, which can be built on turquoise principles. The circle is closed.
At the same time, in some more distant future, it would also be wrong to oppose the organization of society through turquoise management models and religious self-knowledge and communist ideals. I believe they are somewhere ahead, will come closer to each other. But it is ahead, not right now.
Another important objection to the introduction of turquoise models can be expressed in words
- where do you take such a people, so that you want to take liberties and take responsibility for yourself.
Or more rudely it may sound like this:
- There has always been and will be a gray faceless mass that does not want to take responsibility, and always makes decisions only in its own favor.
I still do not see a more serious argument against these objections except for the advice to carefully read the proposed books. Since there are described several real-life examples when a turquoise organization was created from that “people” that is.
Well, for example:
Non-profit organization Buurtzorg, the Netherlands, medical home nursing. Exists since 2006. By 2013, its number had grown from the initial 10 to 700 employees, it took over about half of the medical patronage market in the Netherlands, always working with profit, despite the costs associated with growth.
Or FAVI - plant in France, the automotive industry. He grew from 80 employees in 1980 to 500 in 2013. Salaries are above the industry average. Never had mass layoffs, despite all the past crises, which over the years was not enough.
However, the danger is that when creating a turquoise organization you give people autonomy and the power to make decisions, but they will not take full responsibility for the common goal, there really is such a danger. And the same Frederick Lalu writes directly about her and gives some advice on how to avoid such a danger.
You can certainly wait until most people rise to a new turquoise level of consciousness (and this is the level of consciousness too, and not just the organizational structure), well, you can create new organizations on new principles and they in turn will change people and their consciousness.
In our world, everything is interconnected. Yes, new types of organizations really need people with a new level of consciousness. But where do they come from if we do not create conditions (and create organizations) that lead to changes in the level of consciousness?
It should also be said about two relative shortcomings of the book by Frederick Lal.
1. Insufficient attention is paid to the interaction of turquoise models with the former types of organizations (Sergey Trushkin paid attention to this). However, it is important to clearly emphasize that a new type of organization cannot exist on its own in proud loneliness. It is still important, qualitatively new, but a kind of superstructure above the former types of organization. These former types of organizations do not disappear and will not disappear altogether, but will remain a “niche product” for individual applications. For example, when there is a fire in a building, we must return and quickly return without any “internal consultation” to one of the previous management models.
It is unlikely that turquoise models will be applicable to the army, although for example the municipal police - why not.
2. The role of the leader of the organization is not fully disclosed. It is not enough for the head of the organization to initiate the process of change or the process of creating a new organization of turquoise type. It is not enough to give up the power of coercion.
In an organization, including any organization of a turquoise type, there must always be a leader. But not the leader who is subject to even with joy and voluntarily. And the leader who leads and rallies the organization, doing without coercion. Those. not only employees need to rise to a new level of consciousness, but the leader will also need to move to a higher level. And by the way, in the described real examples such leaders, as I understand, always exist.
A few more relatively minor comments and clarifications to the concepts of turquoise models.
Take the statement - there is no boss. However, it would be more accurate to say otherwise - there are a lot of bosses. For each employee - the rest of his team - his bosses in relation to the obligations that he himself assumed.
Another statement is that there are no middle managers. Yes, they really are not. But management as a type of activity (understood as identifying and eliminating inconsistencies) does not disappear - either the teams themselves or specialized teams serving other teams are mainly involved.
Or such a question - why in turquoise models nothing is said about process management? And the answer is this - because instead of business process management processes there are several universal basic procedures for organizing all other processes. This is primarily:
decision-making procedures through internal counseling and
- procedures for identifying and eliminating conflicts.
There is also one incorrect analogy, which sometimes appears when meeting with turquoise models and it complicates their correct perception. They are viewed as a kind of return from a hierarchical structure to a flat organization model. But this is not true and this is why.
First, turquoise models are not exhausted only by flat structures. They (flat structures) are applicable primarily for organizations with short production cycles. Already the ochlocracy with its intersecting circles is not completely flat. And there are organizations with long production cycles — something else needs to be done there — not entirely flat.
Secondly, in fact, the hierarchy does not completely disappear, it is transformed from a hierarchy of subordination to other types of hierarchies - hierarchies of knowledge, competence, experience. Those. there are new dimensions in which the hierarchy is distributed.
Another such remark. Why actually it is possible and necessary to say that turquoise models are qualitatively new formations.
First of all, because if earlier all other types of organizations were based on a particular distribution of power and responsibility from top to bottom, then in the turquoise model both power and responsibility are distributed from bottom to top. This is what leads to a restructuring of consciousness and to the fact that people switch from external to internal motivation.
In conclusion, I will give a list of questions that, in my opinion, should be the subject of further discussions (after we finally understand that this is not just another utopia that cannot be in life, but working systems).
1. What else could be the practical interest of the IT community in turquoise models.
I think that since turquoise organizations necessarily have some internal information network for sharing information and facilitating internal consultation and conflict resolution procedures, one of the tenets is that there can be no information that would be inaccessible to all employees organizations - the best solution for these tasks may be a corporate social network.
2. What techniques, what techniques are better to use, so that when introducing the concepts of turquoise models, their development gradually tightened the level of consciousness of workers, and the rate of implementation did not overtake the excessively actual level of consciousness.
3. Is it possible and how exactly to implement the principles of turquoise models in organizations with a long and wide production cycle. Well, for example, can this be implemented in a bank? I personally doubt it yet.
Congratulations to all who have read this New Year 2016!
I wish everyone more mutual understanding!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/297670/
All Articles