4 ms·
Me too. But the organization doesn't have to be a "firm" in the usual sense...
by pg 15y ago
Me too. But the organization doesn't have to be a "firm" in the usual sense...
- mindcrime 15y agoTrue, and I'll admit to being lazy in my use of language there. I'm using "firm" and "organization" as though they were completely synonymous. That need not be the case, of course, depending on whose definition of "firm" you use. Anyway, I find it interesting that Coase argued that firms exist to mitigate transaction costs resulting from imperfect information... and then Downes & Mui argued that digital technology would reduce transaction costs to a point of eliminating the need for large firms, creating what they called "The Law of Diminishing Firms." So far we haven't seen big corporations fading away, but I still come down on the side of an eventual transition to networks of collaborating (smaller) entities displacing some of the bigger firms.
- ivankirigin 15y agoMeetup is trying something like this: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088088652060.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b40880886... I haven't heard an update for how it has gone.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ajju 15y agoRicardo Semler has done this with his business(es) in Brazil. His book about this, 'Maverick' is a decent read. http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553 http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workpl...