To say that organizations are soul-sucking bastions of bureaucracy is to reference a trope, but one that has its foundations in truth. Can we do better? In this book Frederic Laloux explores the idea of Evolutionary-Teal organizations as a way to create organizations which effectively achieve a meaningful purpose while being fulfilling for the individuals working there.

Laloux looks at multiple organizations that have figured out a way of working that seems better at dealing with the complexities of modern problems. The variety of organizations that he looks at is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because we get to see how similar practices play out in different ways across organizations. It is a weakness because the overall model is something of a collage. It’s hard to get an idea of what any one of these organizations is really like. In a way, this book presents an organizational model that is an archetypical ideal. Like all archetypes, taking it too literally as an ideal will make you blind to the challenges associated with achieving that ideal. (Archetypes are better north stars than blueprints.) That said, it is still useful as a proof of concept that organizations can operate differently, in ways that are more flexible, adaptable, resilient, and meaningful. How generalizable this is, how much this scales, and whether or not these current organizations are a stable species or an intermediate species on the way to something else is unclear.

For those familiar with adult development theories or other similar theories of development of individuals or groups, you’ll quickly recognize Laloux’s use of developmental stages. The basic idea behind these stages is that the world can be approached with different postures. Each posture creates new problems that cannot be solved from that posture and so requires new ways of thinking. More complex postures are not better; they are just fit for more complex circumstances. As a concrete example, being focused on individual wholeness is a death sentence in war zone, be it literal or figurative. On the other hand, focusing on zero-sum win/lose logic when the goal is innovation leads to stale ideas.

Laloux maps a generalized notion of these development stages onto organizational structures. He primarily focuses on three: Achievement-Orange, Pluralistic-Green, and Evolutionary-Teal (yes, the colors are kind of annoying; that’s all it’s worth saying about it). Achievement-Orange is the paradigm of today’s standard successful business organization: objective and achievement oriented, focused on growth, profit, and worldly success. Pluralistic-Green focuses on culture, equity, individual empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and multiple stakeholders. Evolutionary-Teal is characterized by a focus on wholeness. Individuals are less attached to their own ideas and able to see how seemingly disparate ideas integrate. Learning and creating shared worldviews are valued.

One of my frustrations with this book is that the Evolutionary-Teal model is primarily compared to the Achievement-Orange paradigm. In some ways this is fair: Achievement-Orange is the dominant business paradigm. In another way it is unfair: I suspect many of the advantages that Evolutionary-Teal has over Achievement-Orange are also shared by Pluralistic-Green. Thus, comparing to Achievement-Orange makes it harder to truly understand the differentiating advantages Evolutionary-Teal over Pluralistic-Green.

After introductory chapters which lay out some of the fundamental concepts above, the bulk of the book is spent discussing the three fundamental practices of Evolutionary-Teal organizations: self-management at scale, a focus on individual wholeness within organizations, and a evolutionary sense of purpose where the direction of the organization depends on the signals that the organization itself provides.

The chapters on self-management are the most extensive. Self-management is a set of interlocking practices that need to work together for the practice to be effective. Self-management is, roughly, exactly what it sounds like. Instead of individuals being slotted into a hierarchical authority structure, they are in more egalitarian structures where they act as teams or individuals who have high level of autonomy to achieve their purpose. The best structure depends on how the organization realizes value (there’s a nice appendix to that effect). Distilling the key elements to their essence, there are three key practices for self-management.

An advice process requires that all decisions be made by asking for and seriously taking into consideration advice from all people affected by the decision. There are different formats for the advice process, but a common feature is that they do not require consensus but they do require addressing all substantial objections. People don’t have to vote yes, but they can vote no.

The next key piece is a conflict resolution mechanism. Conflict will occur and some amount of conflict is good for the organization — as long as it’s based on conviction, not ego. Conflict resolution processes can vary. Their common core is to try to resolve problems as autonomously as possible. Even when others are brought in, they are considered to be giving advice, not dictating a resolution to the conflict. The other key element of the conflict resolution process is that resolving conflict becomes the responsibility of everyone in the organization.

The final key practice is peer based evaluation and salary processes. People need to be evaluating each other to ensure that they are getting developmental feedback and, to be more blunt than the book was about it, to handle slackers. Peer based salary processes promote equity. They also ensure that people understand whether or not the work they are doing is valued by their peers.

One thing that was hiding between the lines throughout the book is that self-management requires people to be __tough__. Laloux uses the term responsibility a lot. I don’t think that term is incorrect. However, it doesn’t quite capture how on-the-ball people need to be to make self-management as described work. Individuals need to be masters of what Kim Scott calls Radical Candor: the ability to care personally while also challenging directly. This is hard to do, and expecting everyone in an organization to be able to do this is a high bar to set. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it does make me wonder what a variation of self-management that could scale to a broader population would look like.

Another related concern I have is that because self-management depends on people acting with good intent, it feels prone to sabotage from the inside. There is always bias that makes it harder to be valued if you are productive but uncongenial and bias that makes it easier to be a friendly slacker. However, I do wonder if these biases might be magnified even more in a self-managing organization where there’s more flexibility and less clear lines of accountability.

The professional mask that we wear often leads to work being exhausting and limiting rather than helping it be part of what helps us have a meaningful life. The next key pattern of teal organizations is finding ways to encourage wholeness in the workplace. This entails letting people find a way to bring their humanity to work rather than expecting them to conform to an artificially constrained sense of what is acceptable.

Key wholeness practices include clear and explicit ground rules for creating psychological safety. These rules come with the expectation that everyone is responsible for following these rules and raising concerns when the rules are violated. Beyond just psychological safety, practices which help to encourage showing humanity at work, such as check-ins and storytelling, can help to make work a more meaningful and welcoming place.

Concrete things that can be done to encourage bringing one’s humanity include having a physical space which reflects the humanity, purpose, and individual personality of the organization — one which is neither corporately sterile nor designed by outsiders who create an artificial sense of quirkiness. The onboarding process needs to take time to thoroughly introduce new hires to the organization’s principles — especially since those principles are likely to be unfamiliar. Meeting practices need to invite wholeness and promote psychological safety to avoid getting focused on individual ego.

Unlike the self-management or wholeness, the idea of introducing organizational purpose is probably the easiest to get support for. It’s standard organizational practice these days to want to have a sense of purpose the organization is trying to achieve. However, a sense of evolutionary purpose goes beyond often empty, often bland corporate statements of purpose.

A sense of evolutionary purpose acknowledges that the organization itself emergently defines its purpose. Authentic purpose cannot be imposed from above. Organizations need to listen for this purpose and listen for the ways it is changing. They also need to articulate the purpose frequently so that it becomes a living part of the organization’s decision making process, including creating space to listen at each meeting for whether or not the meeting is upholding the organization’s purpose. Alignment with the organization’s purpose should be a key part of the hiring process.

In addition to deep diving into all of these areas with details and examples, the book discusses how to create or pivot organizations to be more teal. It also briefly discusses how these ideas might apply beyond organizations.

Overall, I think Laloux’s perspective on organizational development is valuable if you take it as an exploration of an archetype rather than as a guidebook. I do believe that we can create organizations where people have more autonomy, more room for humanity, and a deeper sense of individual and organization purpose than is typical today. Does it look exactly like this? I don’t know. Does it look more like this than the Achievement-Orange paradigm? Quite possibly.

On a personal note, while I have never worked in an Evolutionary-Teal organization, I have worked in a organization where for some roles, at some times, the world was nearly Evolutionary-Teal: there were high levels of autonomy and flexibility in what work to do (within the given role), there were official organizational programs which encouraged wholeness and being more than just your professional mask. This didn’t last. It depended on the organization having high revenue growth which allowed for slop at the margins. It depended on an organizational culture which didn’t realize that hiring for a particular conception of the “best” selected for a narrow, homogenous culture. Given both the good and bad of this experience, I approach the idea of a sustainable, equitable, diverse Evolutionary-Teal organization with some trepidation. Yet I can enthusiastically speak the feelings of meaning, purpose, joy, and intrinsic motivation that come when the conditions do point in an Evolutionary-Teal direction.

Read more : ‘War of attrition’: why union victories for US workers at Amazon have stalled