Its all about transparency and democracy. Self-organising fails horribly in the presence of malice. Bad actors at any level break the communication and spirit

Its all about transparency and democracy. Self-organising fails horribly in the presence of malice. Bad actors at any level break the communication and spirit. Having a hierarchy allows for leadership to spot bad actors and take action. It does not of course eliminate bad leaders - but there is reasonable chance that you can select for good actors in leadership more easily than selecting for everyone to be good actor. However, if we introduce transparency - allowing everyone to see the output of, and decisions of, everyone else and democracy, allowing all those (stakeholders) to vote on projects / allocations, we might have coherent teams that have geneuine ownership. (as opposed to teams that feel ownership over a product, right up until the Boss sacks them, equity event shows they have not voting stock etc etc) Edit: Software changes the calculus of running an organisation. By pulling everything about a company out into code, it is possible to view and review the whole company and make explicit changes with an expectation of success based on modelling. A company will become immutable - able to run forever if nothing else changes. The problem is reduced to how to manage the organisation that changes the company. This makes a focus on people who can write code that changes the company. Why have anyone else on staff?