Mossad, French Legion or Taliban - what does your company look like?

Being a big fan of analogies I admit this one may not work precisely as I expect. Probably you'll help me find something better while I'm trying to explain what I meant.

I think any IT group or high-tech company may be classified in such an analogy and the criteria of the classification depend on the answer to the following questions:

• how rigid are your duties defined and how granular are the positions in the company?
• how easy can you reach the boss making decisions and how numb are the rules?
• how professional (in their specialities, discipline, soft skills) are your colleagues?

What I call a Mossad-like company is a flexible, agile group with duties although assigned to the titles still loosely confined;  where everyone volunteers for what's needed to be done with high responsibility and discipline; where no rules or confining policy have been erected to control and manage employees but where success of the group lies on trust, discipline, and initiative. Small special forces (of course not only Mossad's groups) act based on the same principals where high professionals are gathered together to accomplish one common mission.

In the civil world, or more precisely - in high-tech, start-ups by nature have good chances be placed into this category. Especially during bootstrapping phase when the crew size is reasonably small so there is no unnecessary people and everyone has to deal with everything. Unfortunately it's not always the case. There are even small companies contriving squandering precious time and money on non-efficient communications (needless meetings, discussions, working plans) and building complex working processes and internal hierarchies (assigning high titles, creating policies and rules). The drawback of Mossad-like companies is not are the special force member's biographies secret in such divisions but the parallel high-tech employees' histories will not tell much about their owners unless the start-up mission becomes very successful and well known.

A French-legion company is (usually) a big corporation with very well known brand name. The analogy here is it's honorably and lucky to get to such companies as to get to the Legion (probably instead of the Legion I should have used more abstract example like "elite army forces", but I hope you understand me).
Undoubtedly the company's name in the resume has its own weight and people getting offers from Fortune 500 clearly understand it. Usually there is a complex system of rules, policies, and deep hierarchy in place and even your three-level-up boss rejecting your request refers to THE system and THE processes everybody ought to follow. The flip side of this type  is the employees in such companies feel very protected, they have enough opportunities to build their career since they can dramatically change positions not leaving the company, and the social benefit grows up with the long service. Of course this kind of companies has its own exception and if you're lucky to find a "special forces group" inside a Top-500 company you get the best of the two worlds:-)

The third type in the list is already sunk into oblivion group - Taliban. Authoritative management, "personal" approach to career advancement, absence of initiative, mediocrity and ignorance of the management and an "average employee", devastating level of cynicism in company jokes - typical characteristics of these companies. There is no team solidarity but politics and intrigues are the second nature of the company. People work there because they have nowhere to go, they lost belief in the company and themselves. Nobody feels responsible for the situation but afraid to try to change something.

I'm far from the idea that every company fits exactly to one of the above types. I think a mix of the first and the second may create a good team environment. But even in such happy companies it's responsibility of everybody to take full care the brave crew doesn't drift to the third type. I admit again the analogies may not be ideal and welcome you to share your vision on what the companies look like.

Technorati tags: team, crew, IT, startup, working environment 

 

Comments

[Oleg]

One interest thing. A company can be assigned to the one type or another on the certain stage of company's evolution. But on the start (just not in case if company was created as subsidiary by another one) most companies looks as lucky family, as baby which born with a silver spoon in its mouth. But in course of time, this Babylon inevitably changed to the one of the aforesaid types, cosciously or under somekind of circumstances. How to determine this moment of truth? Anyway, clear type I or II is rare, there are lot of variations, every of them with its pluses and/or minuses. 'Mossad' also not ideal, more than this, high professional level cannot be balanced with total disavowal of meetings, working plans etc. even in small dynamic company; it's necessary part of any project, otherwise anarchy is inevitable. Most important is finding optimum and not to substitute live processes with hours of unnecessary discussions and nominal paperwork. It does not works for type II, where all steps are planned and processes defined as ABC. :) Everyone feel itself as screw in big machine and company should give a confidence that this 'screw' is significant, not just one of the hundred(s).
If company degenerated to the third type - it seems no way to back, no second birth. Only full destruction and rebuilding if good idea still alive. With any cosmetic changes its only agony procrastination.

[Nitzan]

An interesting question one can raise might be is it really the company that has those types of characteristics or is it each one of its employees subjective perception? Maybe in small startups it easy to say that the company is type I or type II but for the mid size and higher the company type might be different depending who you ask. Can one feel that he is part of the “Mossad” while his next door colleague coming from the exact same group would feel in the “Taliban”? I personally think that the answer is yes. The big challenge as I see it is how to preserve this subjective feeling an employee has regarding its career and company, and whose challenge is it? Would it be the employee’s management challenge meaning the company? Would it be the employee’s own challenge? Or maybe its really a combination of both?

[Shanti Braford]

I like the 'Mossad' analogies, etc. (just watched Munich the other night)

That style does seem like it'd be most effective for a high-tech startup.

[Roman Rytov]

I don't like the movie either. Not sure if on such a sensitive topic it's possible at all to make a movie everybody will like. The problem of Munich though is nobody likes it:-)

I'd suggest to look at this link as an example of a higly efficient Mossad operation.

But don't forget. It's only an analogy:-)