X : How do you go about developing strategy?
Me : My first step is to ignore strategy, culture and structure. Instead I start by concentrating on doctrine (i.e. universally useful patterns or principles)
Me : My first step is to ignore strategy, culture and structure. Instead I start by concentrating on doctrine (i.e. universally useful patterns or principles)
Hence if my organisations looks like this ...
then I will take steps to make it more like this. Those steps will be context specific due to both the state of the organisation but also the implementation of principles i.e. one org's users are not the same as another though the principle of focus on user needs is identical.
The implementation of doctrine will require you to increase situational awareness which means maps, pre and post morterm analysis etc, As awareness of the landscape increases then we can start talking strategy, structure and culture. Not before.
X : So doctrine first, strategy later?
Me : Yes. If you need to define this as a strategy just call it the "not continuously punching ourselves in the face ... hard" strategy
Me : Yes. If you need to define this as a strategy just call it the "not continuously punching ourselves in the face ... hard" strategy
X : Is that how things normally operate?
Me : In business? No. The first rule generally seems to be to ignore doctrine (i.e. principles) and the issue of situational awareness and instead dive into re-organisation, cultue programs and highly intoxicated ideas of strategy.
Me : In business? No. The first rule generally seems to be to ignore doctrine (i.e. principles) and the issue of situational awareness and instead dive into re-organisation, cultue programs and highly intoxicated ideas of strategy.
X : Does that work?
Me : Re-organising the deckchairs whilst writing half mumbled gibberish after several glasses of wine ... it all depends upon whether your competitors are doing the same. So, mostly you can get away with it. Not where I'd start but ... horses for courses.
Me : Re-organising the deckchairs whilst writing half mumbled gibberish after several glasses of wine ... it all depends upon whether your competitors are doing the same. So, mostly you can get away with it. Not where I'd start but ... horses for courses.
X : I thought that meant best person for the job.
Me : Looks, it's fine to be hopeless at this stuff as long as your competitors are. It's ok if the horse is pointing the wrong way, has a leg missing or is dead as long all the other horses are the same.
Me : Looks, it's fine to be hopeless at this stuff as long as your competitors are. It's ok if the horse is pointing the wrong way, has a leg missing or is dead as long all the other horses are the same.
X : Is the doctrine the right word for this?
Me : In law, a principle is a rule that is usually followed. Doctrine is simply the collection of such principles.
X : What about values?
Me : They are different. Values are about beliefs. Unfortunately ...
Me : In law, a principle is a rule that is usually followed. Doctrine is simply the collection of such principles.
X : What about values?
Me : They are different. Values are about beliefs. Unfortunately ...
... other fields use doctrine, principles, protocols and values in slightly different ways, Hence the terms can be messy. I do try to clarify why and how I use those terms. Same with commodification vs commoditisation, again very different things.
Hence in my culture map, you'll see a separation of values, of doctrine, of behaviour etc. They're not the same but they are all components of culture.
X : Where am I on that map? Part of "Me"
Me : No. We all have a bit of "We" and "Me". What makes you "you" is that combination of collectives, of values, of behaviours, of agenecy, of control ... it's many things. But within that is a sense of "Me" and "We".
Me : No. We all have a bit of "We" and "Me". What makes you "you" is that combination of collectives, of values, of behaviours, of agenecy, of control ... it's many things. But within that is a sense of "Me" and "We".
X : Collectives?
Me : Groups you belong to ... family, church, nation, football club, company etc. They all influence us in the same way we influence them.
X : Memory?
Me : Rituals, symbols and heroes support our values / our beliefs. The values make you, not the story.
Me : Groups you belong to ... family, church, nation, football club, company etc. They all influence us in the same way we influence them.
X : Memory?
Me : Rituals, symbols and heroes support our values / our beliefs. The values make you, not the story.
X : What about Power?
Me : It's an old map.
X : What does that mean?
Me : It has changed. But I'm still working on it.
X : So is power on it?
Me : Yes. As someone pointed out to me, what I meant by structure turned out to be power.
Me : It's an old map.
X : What does that mean?
Me : It has changed. But I'm still working on it.
X : So is power on it?
Me : Yes. As someone pointed out to me, what I meant by structure turned out to be power.
X : The map is culture?
Me : It's an imperfect way of visualising the concept of culture. It's a representation and not the territory itself. A problem with culture is language is part of it and therefore a model of culture can never be effectively described with language alone.
Me : It's an imperfect way of visualising the concept of culture. It's a representation and not the territory itself. A problem with culture is language is part of it and therefore a model of culture can never be effectively described with language alone.
... it's Godel's incompleteness theorem and why anthropologists can spend 100 years trying to define culture without ever agreeing. It's not that people are daft, quite the opposite. It's just not possible to do this in language. Hence the map.
There's a wonderful thread along these lines covering #CancelCulture - ... "The term culture is notoriously difficult to define, doubly so for modern anthropologists who are often reluctant to use the much-critiqued word!"
