5 ms·
And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no
by fbrusch 11y ago
And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work together the way components of a market economy do.
That might be worth exploring. I suspect there are already some highly partitionable businesses that lean this way. But
I don't know any technology companies that have done it.
Isn't Valve such a company?
http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...
- mrbgty 11y agogithub too http://www.fastcompany.com/3020181/open-company/inside-githubs-super-lean-management-strategy-and-how-it-drives-innovation http://www.fastcompany.com/3020181/open-company/inside-githu...
- swombat 11y agoAnd Morning Star, Zappos, Stripe, Medium, Semco, W L Gore, Whole Foods, and others... http://danieltenner.com/open-cultures http://danieltenner.com/open-cultures
- akamaka 11y agoAlso, the guy who founded VISA has spent his later years putting forward ideas on how build large organizations that still maintain the anarchic qualities which allow independance from too much central control. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Birth_of_the_chaordic_age.html?id=osgYgo_lHp4C&hl=en https://books.google.ca/books/about/Birth_of_the_chaordic_ag...
- fokz 11y agoI also thought of Valve when reading that sentence. Being anarchic is a compelling idea. There are some conditions to be met though. You would need highly autonomous people who have good grab of the big picture to drive the group forward.