A wiki to inspire next-
generation organizations
Strategy

From Home

Review (Brooks Tanner)

Structure

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Visually appealing, well laid out, logical subheadings
  • Concise and to the point
  • Focused on the topic in question

Rating: 5 Stars

Comments:

Well laid out Concise On topic Reformat footnotes?

Quality of Writing

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Coherent and logical flow throughout article
  • Written in a neutral and non judgmental tone
  • Well written - straightforward English and short sentences

Rating: 5 Stars

Comments:

Meets all criteria above. Only improvement might be to expand slightly on the “In Practice” examples.

Summary

5 Stars overall

Excellent overall


Review (Ken Everett)

Structure

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Visually appealing, well laid out, logical subheadings
  • Concise and to the point
  • Focused on the topic in question'

Rating: 4+ Stars

Comments: Conforms to the model.

Quality of Writing

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Coherent and logical flow throughout article
  • Written in a neutral and non judgmental tone
  • Well written - straightforward English and short sentences'

Rating: 4+ Stars

Comments: 8 words/sentence, average, helps readability. Frederic has suggested expanding the “In Practice” examples. I agree.


Summary

4+ Stars overall

Needs a final ‘polish’, only.


Review (Charlie Efford)

Structure

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Visually appealing, well laid out, logical subheadings
  • Concise and to the point
  • Focused on the topic in question

Rating: 3 Stars

Comments: The article is structured around the standard headings. Some good points are made. This is probably a difficult article to write and the article drifts away from the subject often.

Quality of Writing

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Coherent and logical flow throughout article
  • Written in a neutral and non judgmental tone
  • Well written - straightforward English and short sentences

Rating: 3 Stars

Comments: The logic and flow of the article was generally OK. There was very little if any judgmental comments (good on this point) The quality of English was not Ok. I felt that arguments could have been made more succinctly. There are quite a few typos and grammatical errors.

Summary

3 Stars overall

The article was reasonably well structured and made some good points. It needs a rewrite to simplify the English, clarify some of the points being made and to make it more concise


Review (Ana Moreno)

Structure

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Visually appealing, well laid out, logical subheadings
  • Concise and to the point
  • Focused on the topic in question

Rating: 2 Stars

Comments:

Initial definition pending. Important to make a link with purpose and with strategy from previous stages (the epigraph of strategy as an organic process  is close to be the definition)

Strategy is really important in orange – green organizations, a clear message of “what happens” with strategy in teal is relevant, and not fully covered now.

Link with change-management (or no need of change-management) could be interesting.

New FAQ?: Does strategy exit in teal organization or purpose and self-management cover the function?

Quality of Writing

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Coherent and logical flow throughout article
  • Written in a neutral and non judgmental tone
  • Well written - straightforward English and short sentences

Rating: 3 Stars

Comments:

Purpose and strategy historical perspective could be quite similar.

Summary

2 Stars overall

Review (Mathias Holmgren)

Structure

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Visually appealing, well laid out, logical subheadings
  • Concise and to the point
  • Focused on the topic in question

Rating: 3 Stars

Comments:

Some book references are missing (embedded in article text). Some sections could be more focused on strategy (would be 4 start otherwise).

Quality of Writing

What we strive for (reminder):

  • Coherent and logical flow throughout article
  • Written in a neutral and non judgmental tone
  • Well written - straightforward English and short sentences

Rating: 2 Stars

Comments:

Historical perspective of Red strategy feels “off”. To me, it does not do enough to explain WHY Red operates as it does in relation to strategy. Also, it is also rings false to me that Red does not develop goals beyond survival. For example, Red is very pleasure and immediate reward driven.

From Amber strategy “members prefer to remain self-contained and autonomous”. Remove "autonomous", as that is hardly a signifying amber trait.

On misconceptions on modern military and Amber:

Today’s modern military is VERY far from using an Amber-only mindset. This is consistently misrepresented by most articles in the wiki and needs to be fixed. There is a formal chain of command. And yes, the self discipline and collective discipline, the willpower, determination and taking action with no delay that are critical to Red are practiced and ritually cultivated - because without that, soldiers are guaranteed to die at first chaos/crisis (indecisiveness kills, as the soldier saying goes). But when it comes to modern military doctrine it is highly developed in how military strategy is created. Field operations use team based planning with structured reviews before commitment. Orders are given in the exact opposite paradigm of Amber thinking, that is with as much intent as possible and as little details as possible. There is no arm-chair/ivory tower strategy or leadership, all decision making is based on “go-see-for-yourself”-field-based-leadership (Green - very similar to Lean/goto-gemba).

Green strategy also feels a bit “off”. IME, Green still retains power over strategy at the top but wants to phrase strategy a lot more in terms of purpose and benefit for users. It also believes in delivering on strategy through explicit values and the culture of the organization. Green then trusts the people in the organization to deliver on that strategy and there is also often some feedback on strategy from "the trenches" to the top.

Teal stage strategy text feels lacking. The phrase “power is diffused” even seems wrong and misleading to me, as there is absolutely no nerfing of power in Teal Orgs. Rather total power is distributed into the org. Power is also arguably increased, since personal power is not constrained by org chart boxes or narrow job titles/lack of wholeness. Every person has full access to personal power, constrained only by the organization's purpose, defined roles and team/inter-organizational tensions.

Principles and practices, strategy as an organic process

The first paragraph on traditional strategy could move to the historical perspective (not teal).

Workable solutions ... section is well written :)

Internal communication is ok, perhaps could be simplified.

Possible new sub-section: How the feedback mechanisms (i.e. sense and respond) so pervasive in Teal organizations facilitate impact on strategy - all throughout the organization. When everybody is a value-add-employee (no managers), then everybody has day-to-day first hand experience of strategy execution, and thus has some level of first hand experience of how the current strategy is working and possibly how it can be improved. Contrast that with one of the the major anti-patterns of current contemporary organizations - the “disconnected manager”, who with top-level-power makes arm-chair strategy decisions that may not be working, but because they never go-see for themselves, does not know that there is a disconnect between the 10.000 meter view and actual reality. Feedback to the manager is way too weak, low and filtered through chain-of-command. The contrast to Teal orgs is strong here.

Link to the three breakthroughs

Self-management link text feels a bit weak. Too much rhetoric, not clear enough link to strategy.

Wholeness text does not make the link to strategy clear. Needs to be rewritten or removed (if there is no clear link, then it should just say that the link between wholeness and strategy is indirect - if that is indeed the case).

On evolutionary purpose link: “It is clearly understood by all.”

FAQ

The one FAQ answer is excellent.

In practice examples

Example texts are minimal and probably need some fleshing out with more details.


Summary

2 Stars overall

Comments: This article has some major issues. Historical section needs a lot of work as most of the stages are misrepresented and somewhat misleading. Teal Principles and practices has content that should be moved to the historical section. Link to the three breakthroughs section is especially weak. FAQ is strong point, but in practice examples could use some fleshing out.