Very thought provoking, thank you. You have me thinking that, unless we are coaching the top executives in an organization, then we have to understand the limitations of each model and cherry-pick the practices (not processes) that fit within that organization, or somehow focus what we teach around achieving what is important in that culture. Looking back this gives me new insights into why many adoptions didn't stick and to why some processes are more effective than others in different contexts (cough... SAFe) :D
Include and transend!!!! love this video. Finally, I am pleased to see Integral and spiral dynamics incorporated in Agile, and explain organizational structures.
Agree with other comments. The overview is really really helpful. Would like to hear more on integration of Lean and Agile into Amber organization. It was touched very briefly. Thanks!
Okay, that is one perspective. How do we now factor in key elements of the larger picture such as the unit of the scale of success and the fact that the system is driven by folks who seek their personal interest. For instance, ESG pushes the personal interest of a few. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss this. It's not easy to solve.
I find it particularly questionable that the “advice process” ( @5:45 ), i.e. the seeking of an OK from your potentially affected colleagues before you carry out an action based on your decision, agrees with a profit dependent organization like a real company. Imagine I’d like to take Friday off. Your (affected) colleagues may very well agree that would be a good idea, keeping in mind that it will be their turn next Friday. Either the moral standard of all individuals will have to be outstanding, which I find to be a naïve presumption, or the organization cannot be dependent on the self-generation of resources, which will thus have to be feed to the organization from an external, partly or fully result decoupled, source. The idea that humans have evolved to a state where the greater good of the organization takes full precedence over the individual has little support in evolutionary theory and biology, in which I believe various forms of parallel hierarchies still serve as powerful engines for individual, as well as collective, progress.
In my reading Laloux is calling more for the exploration and adoption of new ways of working over being prescriptive that any one method applies to everyone. You might like the video 'Self organising in practice'. The Martin group are very transparent about how they work in the video and also provide a diagram that shows when specifically they rely on the advice process ua-cam.com/video/8nY7VrJOyig/v-deo.html&feature=emb_title. Interested in if this provides you with further insight.
@@evolve2k Thank you for the Martin group example. I find, however, not much that differs the outlined formalized 6-people process from a small group of collaborators under the leadership of a classic boss, with the exeption of following an instructive diagram. The classic boss, if skilled and professional, will be all ears to new suggestions and implement or reject such in a way that all group members are comfortable with. Should the group turn out to have low productivity, the boss will have to take blame (and perhaps not be elected to the position of boss in the next turn). The "all-follow-TEAL-without-any-boss" process dilutes responsibility to a group or "process" rather than to an individual. If things go bad, no one is to blame but the apparently errorneous implementation of the TEAL-process, calling for more expensive consultants to make it right. Anyone who has been working in a well functioning classical group will be very sceptical to the suggestion that there is a new magic way that such a group could be formed without inspiring as well as challanging formal leaders. Personally, I would never invest (any of my own money) in a company basing its operation on a process-diagram, rather than taking advantage of a few skilled bosses that knows how to get things done while simultaneously keeping people happy. Imagine a flight control tower in which decision-making is done in accordance with TEAL. Often you need to act fast with a risk of being wrong. You would, however, not act at all if it wasn't for your own ass being in the heat as a result of passivity. How is this addressed in the vertical no-boss TEAL-process?
It's not about getting the OK from everyone affected but hearing the stakeholder and regardless of what they say making a decision what you personally thinks is best (having evaluated the gained information)
Hi Veronika, you are right that for the global survey, it's 13%. The U.S. survey is consistently around 30%. I fell into the common American error of focusing on the U.S., my apologies!
Ok, so this is good food for thought. But it is bothering me. The author states that fear, chaos and superiority of power is at the core of society. Then police and government emerge to keep the wolves in check. I think this follows the way how popular movies like to describe it, but not in line with empirical results in anthropology or sociology. So I would be very cautious to use this as a mindset for to construct an organizational system on it. Better look out for some alternatives. Even Max Weber, grandfather of sociology, provided more than one alternative for system design.
sure: The original work is "Economy and Society". Pretty dry stuff, I read it when I was on standby duty during my studies. You find a quick summary on Wikipedia ("organizational theory"). Anthropologists and psychologists (e.g. Freud in "Totem and Taboo") have also examined early societies, and found that the ability to shape mindsets and beliefs is more powerful than brawn. This partly explains why we, homo sapiens, are still here, while the much stronger Neanderthal man is not.
Actually I've picked up the book. The book is about evolution of different organizational patterns in human history. And he discusses the contexts that each of these came up as a solution. He is suggesting that we are evolving different ways of dealing with our life.
Excellent job of summarizing his thesis. Analytical vs empirical : Of Laloux's work, I understand that he has done an empirical assessment of what is, rather than an uderstanding of why is what is. He starts and ends with living organisms, but does not asks himself why is that. Why is ... : Between the two lie invalid constructs of a believing Humanity ... in verticalism invented by inventors of religions. Outside of thoughts-limitations that religions are, there exists the understanding of horizontalism, the client-server paradigm. The docile moron submission to Her imperial verticalized Majesty ( designated as head-on-hearth by god-universal-head ), conditionned by religions, could not subsists forever in an ever knowledge bulding Humanity. Thus, the evolving paradigm towards the before-moronization state.
Great observation :-). The different value memes/worldviews would define it differently. However, when I used the term, I was thinking about the two bottom levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs: Physiological, Safety, and Security. More people have their needs for food, water, shelter, and clothing met than ever before. And more people have safety and security from real threats than ever before (see Pinker's book "The Better Angels of our Nature").
Nice video but I have mainly two problems with it: First, there's no such thing as "agile practices". There Agile manifesto does NOT propose any practices, quite the opposite ("people and interactions over processes and tools"). Second, there's no mention of the PO role in the agile manifesto. The Product Owner is a role proposed by the Scrum framework. We shouldn't endorse the confusion between Scrum and Agile, they have nothing to do with each other. In the conclusion, the video (or perhaps the author of the book? I haven't read it) mentions that teal organizations "don't need agile practices, for example, having a single PO". When in doubt, agilemanifesto.org/
Fantastic video! Great overview. Crisp, concise, clear! Very helpful for several situations and processes I'm in. Thank you.
This is one of the best summaries I have ever seen regarding the vertical . development of organizations. Great job!
Thanks JP! I'm glad the summary of Laloux's book was useful.
This video should be viral.
Very thought provoking, thank you. You have me thinking that, unless we are coaching the top executives in an organization, then we have to understand the limitations of each model and cherry-pick the practices (not processes) that fit within that organization, or somehow focus what we teach around achieving what is important in that culture.
Looking back this gives me new insights into why many adoptions didn't stick and to why some processes are more effective than others in different contexts (cough... SAFe) :D
Include and transend!!!! love this video. Finally, I am pleased to see Integral and spiral dynamics incorporated in Agile, and explain organizational structures.
Mooie en simpele weergave van organisatie-ontwikkeling in de loop der tijd!
Mooi en gevaarlijk tegelijkertijd. Het insinueert lineaire progressie.
Das was uns und unsere Kinder in den zukünftigen Arbeitswelten beschäftigen wird. Modellhaft und anschaulich erklärt.
Danke!
love the video, thank you so much for spending some time on sharing this good knowledge to people out here!
jeremy nathanael you are welcome!
Agree with other comments. The overview is really really helpful. Would like to hear more on integration of Lean and Agile into Amber organization. It was touched very briefly. Thanks!
Great vision!
Next : How can we transform our yellow organisaton into teal
It is amazing, precise and perfect overview. so summarized and clear!
Many thanks for sharing this vision!
Okay, that is one perspective. How do we now factor in key elements of the larger picture such as the unit of the scale of success and the fact that the system is driven by folks who seek their personal interest. For instance, ESG pushes the personal interest of a few. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss this. It's not easy to solve.
Buenísimo enfoque y muy abarcativo de lo que hoy sucede en nuestro país. Gracias por compartirlo
Amazing work Peter! Thanks!
Those who know Spiral Dynamics will certainly detect parallels....
Very much, it's a clear lineage: Spiral Dynamics (Beck/Cowan) -> Ken Wilbur's color modification -> Laloux's application to organizations.
Une très belle cartographie et une vision porteuse!
I find it particularly questionable that the “advice process” ( @5:45 ), i.e. the seeking of an OK from your potentially affected colleagues before you carry out an action based on your decision, agrees with a profit dependent organization like a real company. Imagine I’d like to take Friday off. Your (affected) colleagues may very well agree that would be a good idea, keeping in mind that it will be their turn next Friday. Either the moral standard of all individuals will have to be outstanding, which I find to be a naïve presumption, or the organization cannot be dependent on the self-generation of resources, which will thus have to be feed to the organization from an external, partly or fully result decoupled, source. The idea that humans have evolved to a state where the greater good of the organization takes full precedence over the individual has little support in evolutionary theory and biology, in which I believe various forms of parallel hierarchies still serve as powerful engines for individual, as well as collective, progress.
In my reading Laloux is calling more for the exploration and adoption of new ways of working over being prescriptive that any one method applies to everyone. You might like the video 'Self organising in practice'. The Martin group are very transparent about how they work in the video and also provide a diagram that shows when specifically they rely on the advice process ua-cam.com/video/8nY7VrJOyig/v-deo.html&feature=emb_title. Interested in if this provides you with further insight.
@@evolve2k Thank you for the Martin group example. I find, however, not much that differs the outlined formalized 6-people process from a small group of collaborators under the leadership of a classic boss, with the exeption of following an instructive diagram. The classic boss, if skilled and professional, will be all ears to new suggestions and implement or reject such in a way that all group members are comfortable with. Should the group turn out to have low productivity, the boss will have to take blame (and perhaps not be elected to the position of boss in the next turn).
The "all-follow-TEAL-without-any-boss" process dilutes responsibility to a group or "process" rather than to an individual. If things go bad, no one is to blame but the apparently errorneous implementation of the TEAL-process, calling for more expensive consultants to make it right.
Anyone who has been working in a well functioning classical group will be very sceptical to the suggestion that there is a new magic way that such a group could be formed without inspiring as well as challanging formal leaders. Personally, I would never invest (any of my own money) in a company basing its operation on a process-diagram, rather than taking advantage of a few skilled bosses that knows how to get things done while simultaneously keeping people happy. Imagine a flight control tower in which decision-making is done in accordance with TEAL. Often you need to act fast with a risk of being wrong. You would, however, not act at all if it wasn't for your own ass being in the heat as a result of passivity. How is this addressed in the vertical no-boss TEAL-process?
It's not about getting the OK from everyone affected but hearing the stakeholder and regardless of what they say making a decision what you personally thinks is best (having evaluated the gained information)
Thank you - very helpful and pragmatic!
I believe the Gallup engagement is 13% not 30% (that is also what is mentioned in Laloux's own presentation)
Hi Veronika, you are right that for the global survey, it's 13%. The U.S. survey is consistently around 30%. I fell into the common American error of focusing on the U.S., my apologies!
13% is the worldwide score. USA scored high with 30%
Thanks for this contribution. Very useful.
Wow that’s a really great video, solid knowledge, thanks!
Only people that have never worked in a healthy agile environment would belive this make belive vision.
really? how so?
Great summary. Thanks.
brilliant and so helpful. Thank you.
Can I somehow get this amazing image of circle with organisation's colors?
Excelente!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome summary. Thanks
Ok, so this is good food for thought. But it is bothering me. The author states that fear, chaos and superiority of power is at the core of society. Then police and government emerge to keep the wolves in check. I think this follows the way how popular movies like to describe it, but not in line with empirical results in anthropology or sociology. So I would be very cautious to use this as a mindset for to construct an organizational system on it. Better look out for some alternatives. Even Max Weber, grandfather of sociology, provided more than one alternative for system design.
Nice to read your comment, can you please provide sources to your recommendation to works by Max Weber?
sure: The original work is "Economy and Society". Pretty dry stuff, I read it when I was on standby duty during my studies. You find a quick summary on Wikipedia ("organizational theory"). Anthropologists and psychologists (e.g. Freud in "Totem and Taboo") have also examined early societies, and found that the ability to shape mindsets and beliefs is more powerful than brawn. This partly explains why we, homo sapiens, are still here, while the much stronger Neanderthal man is not.
Actually I've picked up the book. The book is about evolution of different organizational patterns in human history. And he discusses the contexts that each of these came up as a solution. He is suggesting that we are evolving different ways of dealing with our life.
how can we transform our yellow governments into teal?
Excellent job of summarizing his thesis.
Analytical vs empirical :
Of Laloux's work, I understand that he has done an empirical assessment of what is, rather than an uderstanding of why is what is.
He starts and ends with living organisms, but does not asks himself why is that.
Why is ... : Between the two lie invalid constructs of a believing Humanity ... in verticalism invented by inventors of religions.
Outside of thoughts-limitations that religions are, there exists the understanding of horizontalism, the client-server paradigm.
The docile moron submission to Her imperial verticalized Majesty ( designated as head-on-hearth by god-universal-head ), conditionned by religions, could not subsists forever in an ever knowledge bulding Humanity.
Thus, the evolving paradigm towards the before-moronization state.
Thanks!
Sorry but companies haven't achieved orange level yet
define prosperity
Great observation :-). The different value memes/worldviews would define it differently. However, when I used the term, I was thinking about the two bottom levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs: Physiological, Safety, and Security. More people have their needs for food, water, shelter, and clothing met than ever before. And more people have safety and security from real threats than ever before (see Pinker's book "The Better Angels of our Nature").
Awful voice. I've turned the sound off and switch subtitles in. Much better experience this way. Thanks for sharing your useful info!
Very succinct. In other words Marxism by colour
something new?
* jouW organisatie
Dank voor je oplettendheid, mocht je nog meer feedback hebben, graag!, groet, Barend
This material is not based on good research. Don't screw up your organization trying to model it.
Nice video but I have mainly two problems with it: First, there's no such thing as "agile practices". There Agile manifesto does NOT propose any practices, quite the opposite ("people and interactions over processes and tools"). Second, there's no mention of the PO role in the agile manifesto. The Product Owner is a role proposed by the Scrum framework. We shouldn't endorse the confusion between Scrum and Agile, they have nothing to do with each other. In the conclusion, the video (or perhaps the author of the book? I haven't read it) mentions that teal organizations "don't need agile practices, for example, having a single PO".
When in doubt, agilemanifesto.org/