I think the premise is wrong. Having a structure has many advantages and these advantages work favourably for companies in many cases. Clear hierarchy can immed

I think the premise is wrong. Having a structure has many advantages and these advantages work favourably for companies in many cases. Clear hierarchy can immediately end a discussion and bring people to act. Striving for objective news stories is highly valuable as well as social science regarding as many perspectives on different values as possible. That generates value. Otherwise you just iterate on stagnation. The comparison the author makes is a bit random here and I believe the motivation to define it as such is that she is not content with people making different decisions. Well, nobody truly is but there are different ways to deal with that. What I agree with is that you should look at power dynamics. Competence is as often seen as a threat by you colleagues as it is seen as a positive. Why is that? Because people feel threatened by it and start to downplay its worth. All those that are threatened do indeed quickly form a structure because of their common goals. That said, there are managers that deserve the authority as they have a talent to keep people focused on relevant issues. They are often well liked and people gladly delegate decision making. But only in the scope of their mission which should be defined just as rigidly as groups are proposed to be here. Although I argue that the latter rigidity is not as relevant.