Social Inflection Points
There are inflection points in the growth of teams and organisations where behaviour changes very quickly. Interestingly these transition points happen around military sub-unit sizes. The military is a great place to looks for clues on how to navigate these phase transitions.
Organisational size phase transition points
Section
In the Royal Marines the section is the basic unit. It’s made up of a commander and 2nd in command and 6 other men with various specialisations. 8 men in total who operate as a singe cohesive unit (but can also split down into two fire teams.
Troop (platoon in the army)
The next unit size is the?troop. It’s made up of 3 sections, troop commander and sergeant, signaller and any attached units. The troop deploys its sections to complete missions. This is the first time we start to see the need for coordinating the efforts of smaller sub-units to achieve larger and more complex objectives.
Company
A company is pretty much where you have a self sustainable unit. It’s roughly 3 troops plus larger HQ element and attached capabilities dependent on mission. Company missions can be larger and more sustained, as well as being more complex.
A commando unit is made up of 3 fighting companies, plus supporting specialisations of signals, motor transport, heavy weapons etc etc.
Fractals
The way teams and people are organised in the military is fractal
Fractals are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos.
What’s even more interesting is that the process of coordinating across these different unit sizes shares the same structure.
The orders and planning process for a mission that a section would take on is exactly the same in structure as a company operation. The company operation is divided up and the same process is then used at troop and section level to build a complete picture of?WHAT?everyone needs to do and more importantly?WHY.
Now let’s compare these to a growing tech company.
You start with your founding team. You’re optimising for speed of learning and experimentation. You get things done as fast as possible, having (and needing) very little structure. You’re a section.
Fast forward past product market fit. You know what you’re building now (hopefully). Your sections are now your cross functional teams. You’re taking on longer running, more strategic pieces of work and coordinating multiple streams of work and competing priorities.
This is your first?inflection point. This is where you start needing structure and consistency, but not at the expense of being able to get things done and ship. This is also where the seeds of success or dysfunction for scaling up start to be sown.
The next inflection point is when you’re trying to get to?company?size. You need a correspondingly larger leadership and HQ element. This is also the point where communications needs to be a lot more?disciplined?and?structured.
Scaling badly
Trying to scale an organisation without having done the work of establishing structure and communications practices is painful. It feels like banging your head against the wall constantly!
The default seems to be that this is left too late and companies attempt to bolt it on when things start to become uncomfortable. They might do this by hiring someone with experience, but it’s always tricky trying to retrofit culture that worked elsewhere. A great example of this is the spotify model. It’s a description of a set of practices that evolved in a particular context. There are certainly some useful fundamental principles that underpin it and it will work well?with adaptation?in many places
What tends to happen is that practices and systems evolve haphazardly and are not given the attention required to change and adapt as the company grows. This tends to hit just when you want to accelerate and scale. Signs of this are:
Scaling well
Culture is an emergent property of the constraints applied to a group of people. It evolves with the organisation, and one of the most important jobs of a leader is to ensure that this process is nurtured and guided. The only way to do that is to create space around the work for reflection and improvement. Very often that mean leveraging systems to create that space.
Lead like a gardener
A gardener creates an environment that encourages growth. An environment full of light and nourishment. An environment with sufficient space for stretching and expanding. Leadership, and gardening, are all about creating positive change. -?Gen. Stan McChrystal
The military has evolved a communications structure that balances operations (execution) with improvement (reflection) really well. It’s the orders and debrief process where operations are planned and learned from.
Most businesses should be putting a lot more attention into evolving their own emergent internal structures.
One wonders how 'spy-handlers' operate in this context, as the 'section model' has the basic (bottom rung) soldier as it's start point, while a low level spy-handler will still have communication below the base-line. The upper ranks (in the military) are expected to be able to reach across two levels up and down so as to ensure strength in depth. This is often overlooked or totally ignored or even rejected in the commercial world with the usual lack of winners, or losers, and lots of 'petty hitlers' all over the place. The organisational culture is more than just the number of reportees.
Story-teller, thinker and creative
4 年Thanks Ben Ford, enjoyed it. You could probably weave in Wardley Mapping and Pioneer, Settler, Town Planner here also https://www.map-camp.com/ https://blog.gardeviance.org/2015/03/on-pioneers-settlers-town-planners-and.html
Multi-disciplinary innovation
4 年A very good article.? I think there is also a category of micro business where self-employed people work in pairs.? This is a way of countering the isolation that can come with working alone and also can be a reflection of synergy in which the ups and downs of one of the pair can be balanced by the other person, and vice versa.? The pair can often give a much better coverage of skills than the one person.? Not sure if there is a military analogy.