Buy It from Amazon
The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations
Executive Summary
Authors Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom of The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations predicted a growing organizational trend, decentralization, before it even took off by observing several of topics such as biology, history, world armies, political movements, technology, and business. The first chapter, Introduction, illustrates the unraveling of important events in the field of biology which lead up to the book’s premise. The events were stimulated by one simple question: how does the brain work? Beginning in the 1960’s, many scientists sought to answer this question and came back with rather disappointing results. The brain lacks hierarchy, in favor of a decentralized system. What the scientists failed to realized, during this time, was how decentralized systems have advantages over centralized systems. For example, Jerry Lettvin stated how the brain was resilient to elimination through decentralization.
While decentralization seemed chaotic at the time for some, it made sense to others. The result of Jerry Lettvin’s beliefs were ahead of its times. Eventually the times caught up to his ideology, leading to the decentralized movement the authors predicted. Decentralized organizations have overthrown centralized organizations in modern times. By using biology again, we can understand exactly why this is. Imagine a centralized organization is a spider, while centralized organizations are starfish. A spider’s anatomy consists of a head, body, and limbs. If any part of the body, especially the head, is severed the spider runs great chances of dying. In the case of centralized organizations, top management and CEO’s are the head. On the other hand, all starfish lacking brains/head can be cut from anywhere and prove resilient- most species can regrow severed limbs.
Decentralization proved effective in combating centralization for this reason: when attacked a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized. This means with every attack they come back larger and stronger. An example of this would be MGM (centralized) failing to effectively eliminate the piracy of their music and films. Grokster, Napster, Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, and eMule were the direct results of one too many attacks by MGM. The industry giant was simply overwhelmed. Outside of this one example, the book lists plenty of others to drive home decentralization’s effectiveness and success. Some of these other examples include the Apaches, the internet, Alcoholics Anonymous, Skype, Craigslist, and The Burning Man music festival (please visit the full summary if you wish to see them discussed in detail).
Upon dissecting decentralization further using the case studies, the authors noticed similarities between all successful decentralized organizations. These similarities are summarized into five foundations or legs. These five legs include the need for contributing circles, a catalyst, strong ideology, a preexisting network, and a champion. Circles are loosely connected groups of people sharing similar habits and norms based on a catalyst’s ideology. Champions within the circles are the more passionate contributors to the circle; true believers of the cause (ideology). Finally, a preexisting network provides a platform for the circles to work off of.
Due to decentralized success, centralized organizations trying to make money struggled to thrive. Therefore, hybrids were born- mixed organizations with centralized and decentralized components. Too much centralization ruins adaptability and causes stagnation, while too much decentralization drives profits down. Examples of hybrids include eBay, Amazon, and Google. While hybrids prove sustainable and competitive in today’s world, they are not without flaws. For example, every hybrid is constantly reevaluating and adjusting its organizational amounts of decentralization and centralization to keep up with an ever changing economy. As stated, becoming an outlier either purely centralized or purely decentralized can be dangerous.
The Ten Things Managers Need to Know from The Starfish and the Spider
1. Decentralized organizations are at their strongest when they have contributing circles, a catalyst, strong ideology, a preexisting network, and a champion. Circles are loosely connected groups of people sharing similar habits and norms based on a catalyst’s ideology. Champions within the circles are the more passionate contributors to the circle; true believers of the cause (ideology). Finally, a preexisting network provides a platform for the circles to work off of. When growing a starfish organization, it is best to have all five legs.
2. It is important for catalysts to know when to leave. If a catalyst controls a prominent scene for too long after the establishment of an idea then a decentralized organization runs the risk of becoming centralized. The longer a catalyst stays, the more circles will begin to rely on him/her.
3. Decentralization, based on ideology, is fueled and kept going from mutual user trust. By alienating users or their experiences, you are ultimately alienating and hurting yourself. To conclude, for catalysts wanting to succeed, they must always keep honest to the idea their organization was founded on.
4. Decentralized organizations capitalize on chaos and use it as a competitive advantage. In chaotic systems people have greater freedoms to do what they want- regardless of if it is creative, destructive, innovative, or crazy. This can lead to innovative results when trying to tackle traditional problems.
5. All organizations must know when to pick their fights and when to walk away. Identifying opponents as starfish, spider, or hybrid is difficult. Mistakenly attacking a decentralized organization, thinking it is a centralized organization, can cause overwhelming results- like a starfish, the decentralized organization will keep on coming back stronger and more decentralized. The attacks are wasted efforts better spent elsewhere, unless adding gasoline to a fire sounds like a good idea!
6. When confronted by decentralized attacks to your organization, it is best to respond with the following approaches: change your opponent’s ideology, centralize them, or decentralize yourself. When the first two approaches fail, they become recognized attacks. This can cause the enemy to grow. Therefore, the best approach is the third approach. Decentralizing yourself is strong because it is reliant on other organizations and is passive.
7. Yesterday’s future is tomorrow’s past: meaning never get caught up on the past. Organizations must be willing to reinvent themselves, constantly pursuing a “sweet spot”. Basic economics explains there is no long run equilibrium.
8. There is no “one-trick” pony in regards to organizational structure. For example, too much decentralization lowers profit. On the other hand, too much centralization causes stagnation and ruins adaptability. For these reasons, plenty of companies have become hybrids. Organizations must be capable of adapting.
9. Adoptability is just as important as adaptability. Borrowing effectively from major and known decentralized organizations can help strengthen your organization. Failing to become more decentralized or adopt what other decentralized companies are doing can weaken an organization’s ability to compete. This is basically the “If you can’t beat them then join them” approach.
10. Decentralized companies take advantage of the network effect or the increase in overall value of a network with the addition of every new member. With every new member recruited, value is added from the willingness to contribute out of passion for the founding ideology. Centralized companies experience inefficiencies when too many workers are present. Management and regulation is a fixed resource (companies only have so much of it), where a strong idea can be infinite as long as a person believes in it.
Full Summary of The Starfish and the Spider
Introduction
The crux of a very modern and evolving organizational theory is initially and ironically presented, within the introduction, through past misunderstood happenings. These misunderstandings or failures to understand, neuroscientific in nature, dealt with how the brain stores memories; traditional research suggested hierarchical models where every memory was designated to a specific and targeted neuron. This way of thinking was disproved by the very tests which were designed and set up to support its idea. Brain activity, being measured by wire and sensors, showed how individual memories trigger multiple “neurons” or parts of the brain, rather than just one. Being as complex and prideful as what we were/are, these findings were hard for people to swallow. Much debate and further testing was pursued blaming undesirable shortcomings on the lack of sufficient technology, until one particular, Jerry Lettvin, proposed a solution.
Jerry Lettvin proposed: each memory is not stored in one particular neuron, but rather multiple neurons which report to the hippocampus. To garner belief, he placed much emphasis on his coined and satirical term “grandma cell” which was used to illustrate the idea of every individual’s memory of their grandma being contained to just one neuron; the idea of one neuron being representative of a memory with such large sentimental value (a family member) seemed silly. This way of thinking shows how memories are resilient to elimination through decentralization.
Applying Jerry Lettvin’s knowledge to organizational theory we begin to realize the importance of concepts, such as decentralization and organized chaos. The organizational theory of being a “starfish” organization capitalizes upon and, in turn, is empowered by these concepts; the crux, stated previously, of a very modern and evolving organization theory is the absence of leadership within the presence of an organization. Therefore, this book is all about the benefits and successes of being a starfish or leaderless organization. Known benefits include resiliency through chaos- the more you try to fight the chaos the stronger it gets. Examples of successful organizations which will be further talked about in the following chapters include various blows to the recording industry (Napster), the attacks of 9/11, and the success of online classified and collaborative encyclopedias.
MGM’s Mistake and the Apache Mystery
In this chapter, examples of court cases involving the music industry and MGM are studied in relation to historical civilizations, particularly the Apaches, to illustrate the power of decentralization versus centralization. In 2005 MGM, one of the biggest entertainment companies in regards to both film and music, found themselves fighting a Supreme Court case against an unlikely defendant, Grokster. This case represented one of the several music and film piracy cases to come, taking place after the shutdown of Napster. For those who are unaware, Napster (created by Shawn Fanning) was a pivotal player in the early days of free software music/film privacy- it worked by allowing people to connect to a main server to share files with others around the world. Grokster was inevitably shutdown like its precursor, however the effects and implications which the case had on aspiring pirates/hackers were echoing and permanent- a message rang loud and clear. The message was: In order to dodge judicial scrutiny and the executive cleaver piracy must become more decentralized. The thought was essentially security through obscurity and represented leaderless organization.
The coming events involving the music industry versus piracy mimic past events played out when Spain tried to conquer the Apaches. Figuratively speaking, when Spain came knocking on the Apaches door demanding money, riches, and gold, war broke out. The Apaches survived every Spanish attack due their societal structure. Where Spain was much like MGM, centralized, the Apaches were much like the pirates/P2P companies, decentralized. In this society there was no clear leader and rather everyone had the opportunity to lead through example. In most cases, when leading through example occurred it would be by religious shamans. Therefore everyone had equal opportunity, meaning power was allocated to everyone. Everyone was empowered geographically! This ambiguity and lack of hierarchy made it impossible for Spain to defeat or demoralize their opponent. Every attack on the Apaches would decentralize them further, like a starfish regrowing severed limbs, making them more ambiguous, unpredictable, and stronger.
In short, this is exactly what happened with the music industry versus piracy. Piracies never stopped despite the Supreme Court’s efforts to fine and persecute offenders. Napster created a legacy which would live on in a chain of events; as software would die another would come along stronger and more decentralized, thus fulfilling the first principle of decentralization. The first principle states when attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized. Napster set the stage for Grokster. Grokster would set the stage for Kazaa and eventually Kazaa Lite until both would cease…giving way to eMule. The waged war between music industry and piracy is a war of attrition, not bloodshed; attrition which is slowly defeating these centralized industries.
The Spider, the Starfish, and the President of the Internet
The creation of the internet and Alcoholics Anonymous along with major disasters from hurricanes further illustrates the key principles and powers of decentralization. When the internet was being pitched to the French for fund raising, the French frequently wanted to know who the president of the internet was…they failed to understand the idea of decentralization, largely because companies, at the time, had hierarchies. This “confusing” question leads to the second principle of decentralization: it’s easy to mistake decentralization for centralization; in attempts to clarify the differences between the two, the authors intentionally give symbolic identities to them (starfish being the former and spider the latter). A spider’s anatomy consists of a head, body, and limbs. If any part of the body, especially the head, is severed then a spider runs great chances of dying. On the other hand, all starfish lacking brains/heads can be cut from anywhere and prove resilient- most species can regrow severed limbs. In some cases severed limbs can regrow into new or duplicate starfish proving adaptability.
The creation of Alcoholics Anonymous is a prime example of this adaptability. No one and everyone are in charge at the same time, meaning it is a decentralized and open system! Anyone can join and leave whenever they want just like a starfish’s limbs. So long as the twelve founding steps are being taught, people coming and going act as the limbs and body which change whenever need be. This adaptability gives way to the next two principles of decentralization: an open system doesn’t have central intelligence because intelligence is spread throughout the system (third principle) and open systems can easily mutate (fourth principle).
As an important side note, major disasters such as the 1935 hurricane in the Keys and the 2005 hurricane (Katrina) in New Orleans can show the dangers of rigid central intelligence. Disaster and casualty was magnified on both accounts due to the local government acting as the main operator and authority. Information was not effectively distributed throughout the system and the people with the most knowledge were undermined.
Similarly to Napster and within a short period of time, Alcoholics Anonymous’ abilities to mutate and its lack of central intelligence gave birth to many “sister” programs dealing with addiction such as narcotics, food, and gambling. Are Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, and eMule beginning to ring a bell? The discussed piracy programs can all be considered mutations which were/are hard to fight. Spider organizations are frustrating to oppose…large efforts must be spent to fight tiny and spread out opponents growing at exponential rates. To summarize, decentralized organizations sneak up on you (fifth principle). Perhaps, the best case scenario for MGM would be to become decentralized as well. However, the reason why this poses a threat is: industries becoming decentralized experience decreasing overall profit (sixth principle). By doing so, MGM would cease to exist because the company would have too much attachments, assets, obligations, reputations, and partnerships to liquidate. Going from such a large state to a small state represents unmanageable shock and stress.
A Sea of Starfish
At this point in the book, decentralization is a well-known concept and a growing trend. As the pages turn, the authors write with confidence highlighting additional decentralized companies’ successes- Skype and Craigslist are two such companies. The interesting part about Skype is how founder and former pirate Niklas Zennstrom, creator of Kazaa, found a way to make it legal. The second interesting part is how he, once “criminal” turned hero, managed to revolutionize the communication industry single-handedly! By embedding different directories into every individual’s devices Skype is able to remain legal; these directory pieces act to make a whole and complete network without having to use traditional concepts for landlines and servers. So the take-away from Skype’s origin story is this point: decentralization works as a potential and legal business model for organizations. Mr. Zennstrom has collected billions from selling Skype to eBay.
Another example of a successful company is Craigslist. While in an interview with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark and its CEO Jim Buckmaster, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom discovered a strong and endearing epiphany. The epiphany was decentralized organizations rely on two very human and cooperative elements to exist… community and trust. For example and in the spirit of a true open system, the users are trusted to act responsibly when using the website. Proof can be found within the lack of a policing force on Craigslist as the founder just provides a platform for people to interact. Majority of the users take pride in doing the right things and as a result the community regulates itself. Is this due to the lack of a traditional leadership role?
To find the answer to this question, other similar companies and events were observed. Wikipedia shares similar senses of community and trust. The authors felt, at this time, the information was enough to create another principle from. The seventh principle of decentralization states if you put people into an open system then they will automatically want to contribute. Interestingly enough, this sense of “wanting” creates greater desirability and response time in services. If errors, flaws, and wrongdoings exist, users will feel obligated to correct them before an administrator even needs to.
The Burning Man can serve as the apotheosis to best summarize community, trust, and the seventh principle. Frankly, this is my favorite chapter because it drives home a very important message which hangs close to the heart…people are, indeed, good and mean well; it’s very easy to lose sight of this sentiment when life proves difficult. The Burning man- an event in the middle of nowhere, where people are more likely than not on drugs, and money is a foreign concept- is peaceful. People share culture, food, and good times as bands play and festivities take place in the absence of official ordinance.
Standing on Five Legs
All decentralized organizations exhibit five distinct foundations, similar to the five legs of a starfish. When standing on all five foundations decentralization becomes strongest. This chapter’s purpose is to lightly touch upon each, leaving the details of particular foundations for later. The first foundation (leg) states how decentralized organizations must be a circle or have circles. In this context, a circle is a leaderless and loosely connected group of people sharing similar habits and norms. These norms are voluntarily enforced by group members and are responsible for providing just enough cohesion to hold the group together. Therefore, circles only exist because members want them to…reversely enough, rules act opposite as they are not normally self-imposed. Last chapter’s Burning Man is a strong example of a huge circle.
Another strong example would be Wikipedia! Circles, such as Wikipedia, are becoming increasingly larger and more common in today’s world due to innovations, such as the internet. Where Burning Man is limited by its geography, Wikipedia is not. These innovations provide decentralized organizations with another foundation, a preexisting network. Networks provide platforms for decentralized organizations to work off of. To put simply, preexisting networks are the infrastructure for an organization’s operations.
The next two foundations (legs) decentralized organizations exhibit is the need for a catalyst and an idea. Catalysts are different from leaders because they foster and nurture ideas for circles to form around, whereas leaders tend to be more controlling (sometimes even totalitarian). They are the main players responsible for birthing circles and establishing norms. Catalysts step aside when objectives are met, hoping their ideas are strong enough to sustain a circle’s future. However and despite eventually opting for background roles, their reputations exceed them by feeding continuing inspiration and empowerment to members. For example, ideas put in place by catalysts act as a circle’s core belief and value system. These ideas are responsible for why members feel as though they should contribute and enforce norms.
The final foundation decentralized organizations exhibit is the need for a champion. Where the catalyst is more reserved, a champion’s presence is made intentionally known. A champion’s role is similar to the role of a verb within a sentence; they are the action within the organization. When something needs doing these advocates will guarantee it gets done with expecting little in return!
The Hidden Power of the Catalyst
By arduously studying highly successful catalysts such as Auren Hoffman, Deborah Alvarez-Rodriguez, Jimmy Wales, and Josh Sage, the authors developed a list all catalyst should possess. The qualities, if expressed, act as tools to grow businesses; this statement is supported by Stonebrick, Auren Hoffman’s lucrative and successful company, which provides catalyst-for-hire services. These qualities are: the genuine interest in others, an ability to make loose connections, mapping skills, the desire to help, meeting people where they are, having emotional intelligence, displaying trust, providing inspiration, exercising tolerance for ambiguity, being “hands-off”, and receding when work is done. This long and exhaustive list can be condensed into three key words: all catalysts are mentors capitalizing on passion, connections, and training. Passion includes the genuine interest in others, the desire to help, having emotional intelligence, and displaying trust. Connections include an ability to make loose connections, mapping skills, and meeting people where they are. Finally, training includes providing inspiration, exercising tolerance for ambiguity, being “hands-off”, and receding when work is done.
Ultimately, possessing the right qualities is difficult and requires a certain mindset. A catalyst mindset is one of subtlety. Surprisingly enough, this otherwise subtle mindset in decentralized businesses creates chaotic effects in traditional centralized businesses. Therefore, decentralization is very effective at combating centralization. An example the book uses to illustrate the point, is hierarchical structures managed by a CEO being disrupted by a catalyst’s presence.
Taking on Decentralization
Comparing the first principle with a newly introduced eighth principle allows us to understand why centralized organizations are vulnerable against decentralized attacks. The eighth principle states centralized organizations tend to become even more centralized when attacked. In symbolic terms, this outcome, of becoming more centralized, makes a spider’s head bigger and easier to locate for severance. The imperative question is what is the reason behind the outcome? In other words, what is the cause behind the effect?
The cause behind the effect deals with previous principles three and four stating, respectively, an open system doesn’t have central intelligence because intelligence is spread throughout the system and open systems can easily mutate. Centralized organizations are closed systems meaning intelligence and ideology are not equal throughout members; the higher the position a member is in, the greater the access he/she has to information and organizational ideologies. Because of this bias, when centralized organizations are attacked they predictably recover by remaining tight and close to their superior(s) (CEO, boss, or etc.); for this reason they cannot readily or flexibly mutate. Change is a very slow process for centralized entities; therefore, it makes them easier to attack and identify. Decentralized organizations do not have this problem. However, they are not without flaw.
Approaches to dealing with decentralized organizations by exploiting weaknesses include changing ideology, centralizing them, or decentralizing yourself. Targeting a catalyst or a circle is simply not enough, therefore the ideology must be changed. As already stated, after developing an idea catalysts step aside; the acceptance of this idea is what leads to the enforcement of norms and the cohesion of circles. As long as the idea exists, when one circle is eliminated another will grow in its place. Therefore, in order to eliminate a decentralized organization completely you must eliminate the idea everything else hinges upon. Targeting a catalyst before they spread an idea is nearly impossible. For example, how do you effectively target something which cannot be identified? If a catalyst has yet to spread an idea, can it really be labeled a catalyst yet?
Quiet effort and manipulation must be used when changing ideology. If this effort is realized amongst decentralized organizations they will feel threatened. If efforts to internally change ideologies fail, then a more external approach can be taken to exploit internal weaknesses. In some cases, decentralized organizations can be forced into centralizing by introducing external material values into their system. This approach led to the Apaches’ downfall. Their Nant’ans or spiritual shamans, responsible for being catalysts, were given cattle; the cattle were used to reward or punish members of the tribe creating an all too familiar hierarchy system. The act of allocating a resource ruins equality as members began to follow a centralized system. Not everyone has cattle, but now each member, assuming rationality, will act in ways best suited for acquiring cattle.
Higher amounts of decentralization add to higher amounts of resiliency. Sometimes the aforementioned approaches are ineffective. In this given situation, the best approach or way to deal with a decentralized organization is by becoming a decentralized organization yourself.
The Combo Special: The Hybrid Organization
In the recent past, tension between centralized and decentralized organizations threw the overall economy into a major transitioning period. The period was one were decentralization reigned over centralization. Ironically enough, this reign was caused by centralized organizations failing to understand the first principle of decentralization and eventually the eighth principle. With every centralized attack to decentralized organizations, decentralized organizations grew in power and presence until it dwarfed its attackers; once they became big enough they could attack attackers without repercussion. As the eighth principle states, when centralized organizations are attacked they grow smaller, more centralized, and weaker.
Two of the three centralized approaches to dealing with decentralization, changing ideology or centralizing them, proved inefficient. There were too many decentralized organizations for every centralized organization; the centralized organizations were losing a battle of numbers as their efforts could only spread so thin. This led to centralized companies adopting the third approach, but only partially and as a result “hybrids” were born. A hybrid is a term for the loose mixture of centralization and decentralization within an organization. This type of organization made the most sense when trying to make money for two reasons. First, purely centralized companies struggle existing in a world ran primarily by decentralization. Second, too much emphasis on decentralization can drive profits down too low (sixth principle).
Hybrids are either centralized companies that decentralize the customer experience or centralized companies that decentralize internal parts of the business. Examples, in the book, of hybrids with decentralized customer experiences include eBay, Amazon, Google. These companies all have a CEO, physical headquarters, structure, and hierarchy, but different decentralized customer experiences. eBay’s customer experience and competitive advantage is its customer rating system. The system provides a sense of community and trust as members get to rate shops they have purchased from. Positive feedback signals how a store is both safe and reputable. Without the system, eBay would most likely be dead. Amazon also has a rating system for their purchases. However, this rating system includes both user and expert reviews for greater diversity. While expert reviews provide technical detail, user reviews add simple and personal value; users do not make money posting reviews! Google searches run off customer input as well. Its search algorithms retrieve useful websites based upon traffic and clicks generated by users.
GE is a good example of a hybrid with decentralized internal parts. Decentralizing internal parts enforces accountability. By making each internal part responsible for their own performance, units were able to focus on their departmental problems. As a result, inefficiencies were easier to identify and eliminate.
In Search of the Sweet Spot
In this context, hybrid organizations reach a sweet spot when optimal levels of centralization and decentralization are achieved; it is when individual benefits of being centralized and decentralized are maximized, while their costs are minimized (ideal balance between starfish and spider). At this point, profit and efficiency is the greatest. As stated in the previous chapters, outliers are unhealthy when trying to make money.
Basic economics states how the equilibrium shifts in the long run. This means organizations need to continually change, pushing boundaries and adapting with the times. Change in equilibrium represents the birth of new opportunities. For this reason, Toyota eventually surpassed GE in profit because they were willing to adapt and push decentralized boundaries while still capitalizing on the marketplace. The marketplace has changed as it requires centralization to adapt to decentralization. At one time this was the opposite because decentralized businesses adapted to centralization.
The New World
The pursuit of a sweet spot has led to the adoption of new rules when pushing decentralized boundaries. At the time the book was written, in 2006, the authors wrote ten rules. With the passing of time making it 2014, these rules might be dated. Therefore, instead of focusing on the past, I would like to focus on the future. Tomorrow’s future is inexplicable, dubious, and undoubtedly unknown…dare I say it is chaotic? I believe decentralization is the use of chaos as leverage to magnify gains. Decentralization is to not fear the unknown, but to dive head first and understand the unknown…creating a competitive advantage. Everyone needs to learn to embrace decentralization.
The Video Lounge
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc1ZFTnSSVM]
This video complements the full summary by explaining the previous symbolic terms starfish (decentralized) and spider (centralized) organizations. Furthermore, it serves as a great stand-alone introduction to the book through careful elaboration on the differences between the two.
A starfish organization is better suited for today’s modern and ever changing economy because it can better adapt through superior reproduction techniques. Decentralized organizations are most effective at keeping up with change. The more threats they face the stronger they become, such as several of starfish growing in population after being cut into halves.
For the above reasoning, finding purely centralized organizations is difficult; anything claiming to be “centralized” normally has decentralized components mixed into it. These structures are called hybrids. Some examples of hybrids include Toyota, eBay, Intuit, and Tesla cars. Rod Beckstrom does an excellent job explaining how they are hybrids; if this topic piques your interest then I highly recommend watching the link!
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJQ6GVhZzQM]
Fox News interviews with Rod Beckstrom to discuss his new book, The Starfish and the Spider. The popular analogies starfish and spider are used to understand decentralization versus centralization. After establishing the book’s foundational concepts, he then applies these concepts to the real world. Interestingly, enough, he argues how the war on al Qaeda is failing because our army is too centralized. As mentioned in the full summary when discussing approaches for dealing with decentralization by exploiting weaknesses, he proposes that our army becomes more decentralized. To do this, our large armies should break into greater amounts of smaller units to combat al Qaeda’s small units locally. This form of out networking them would effectively suppress them. If this topic piques your interest, I highly recommend reading chapter six of the book, titled Taking on Decentralization.
Personal Insights
Why I think:
The author is one of the most brilliant people around because:
Both authors are brilliant because they were able to identify a growing trend before it really took off. Their unconventional thinking of conventional and traditional organizational structures has opened several of people’s minds, thus acting as a true catalyst for accelerating a decentralized movement. Satirically enough, they became what they wrote about. In the confines of the book, a catalyst is responsible for developing a decentralized organization until it is sustainable. To quote the book, “A catalyst develops an idea, shares it with others, and leads by example.” (The Starfish and the Spider, pg. 94). This is exactly what they have done! The authors are the catalyst, the book is their idea, and their readers are the circle or circles. Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom are true Nant’ans as they offer a spiritual journey and enlightenment in the form of a book to their readers!
With business conditions today, what the authors wrote is true because:
With factors like technology and the internet pushing the boundaries for what’s possible and what’s not possible, organizations must keep up. The above factors accelerate the availability of knowledge and the allocation of data which can be harnessed to connect people/customers or create meaningful services or products. Centralized companies fail in today’s world because of the hierarchical structure; it is impossible for the manager’s and CEO’s alone to process all large amounts of available knowledge and data effectively. This is why we see more and more hybrid companies. Traditional top down manager’s and CEO’s must cede control over the aspects users can run better.
If I were the author of the book, I would have done these three things differently:
1. Chapter six, titled Taking on Decentralization, discusses how to effectively fight al Qaeda. The approach is for the United States army to become more decentralized than what al Qaeda is. This was difficult for the United States army due to their sheer size and strong centralized roots! Despite an example being given for becoming decentralized, it was flawed in application to the United States army. Mamoud’s government had success on fighting al Qaeda because the government was already somewhat decentralized, especially in comparison to our army. It was easier for Mamoud than the army to change its organizational structure. The army needs a more comprehensive plan for moving towards decentralization. For these reasons, the book’s examples and approach on the al Qaeda topic seem almost elusive.
2. The book is wrong to ignore the advantages of centralization. While I understand how the authors were trying to solely focus on decentralization, the focus creates too great of a utopian feel…making reading sometimes difficult. I felt as though the book was trying to suppress my skepticism and questioning. Despite its best efforts, some questions remain! I believe a spider’s brain to be important in certain situations. For example, would we really want a decentralized government? Our whole economy is based up the allocation of monetary resources, cash. Would allocation of this cash best lie in unorganized hands to stimulate the very economy which runs our country? Alternatively, would we want a decentralized NASA sending people to their death? Centralization is irrefutably effective at managing long term projects.
In the context of the book, discussions of principle six and hybrids are the only two noteworthy hints about how centralization can be good or how decentralization can be bad. Principle six states by adopting too much decentralization, profits will erode. To conclude, if any lucrative business is to exist, they must be a hybrid. Taking on too much decentralization is bad for the bottom line, while too much centralization is bad because of the lack of resiliency.
3. The ten rules in the last chapter, titled The New World, are too general in nature. Much like the al Qaeda complaint, implementation of the ten rules was lacking. Examples were offered, but they were not strong. Since the examples felt like they were reused from previous examples and ideas, I would have moved the rules to sections discussing the same or similar topics. Therefore, not only did they not offer implementation, but they failed to offer anything fresh. I wonder how relevant these rules are in 2014.
Reading this book made me think differently about the topic in these ways:
1. What is chaos and what are its implications? Chaos is largely used as a term by organizations to describe unwanted change. Something is deemed “chaotic” when too much is left to chance. Chance is a strikingly funny word- the more I think about it, the more it starts to sound like opportunity. If we change the way we think ever so slightly, can this mean that chaos represents opportunity? Upon further pondering, I am starting to believe that chaos represents a competitive advantage if people seek it out enough. The study of decentralization can be used to support this method of thinking.
2. Before reading the book, I would have been somewhat apprehensive and against a leaderless organization. This book has begun to open my eyes by showing me how decentralized organizations are viable structures. In most cases, dependent on industry, they are better than centralized organizations. In these cases, catalysts replace traditional leadership roles to guide and empower people.
A question I have put good thought into is what industries could benefit most from adopting more decentralized structures? A good candidate for decentralization might be elementary education as children are more impressionable the younger they are. Instead of teaching a strict curriculum from a top down perspective (teacher teaching all the children the same), every growing child should be focused on separately. An implementation of this could be hiring more tutors. Every tutor could act as a catalyst reinforcing ideas in different ways to different students. I believe homeschooling to be superior in this regard as it is more decentralized.
3. The book has taken a toll on my outlook or the way I think and identify everything on a daily scale! Lately, I always catch myself trying to identify if something is a starfish, a spider, or a hybrid. The biggest historical and theological identification which I have made is this: Christianity is one of the greatest decentralized organizations to exist. The catalyst is Jesus and his words (the bible), the circles are his followers and churches, and the champions are his saints, priests, and nuns. The existence of Christianity demonstrates how strong decentralization can be if an idea is strong enough.
I’ll apply what I’ve learned in this book in my career by:
1. Worker’s emotions are valuable and should always be considered. CEO’s tend to undermine their workers’ emotions by issuing commands and demanding performance. If requests are unrealistic, employee morale will suffer causing a de-synchronization between company efforts and the achievement of goals. To put simply, people will feel like working less. A catalyst leads through example, thus alleviating the stress coming from a chain of command and promotes good attitudes. If I ever find myself in a managerial position, I will remember to be more of a catalyst and less of a CEO.
2. Similar to emotions and of equal importance, all ideas should be listened to within an organization. Each worker possesses different ideas which contain information and perspective. Added information and perspective increases decision making abilities as more knowledge is readily available.
3. Businesses must always adapt to keep up with the changing economy and its marketplace. When working, I will try to be more open minded towards change because it is a good thing if capitalized on properly- change can be a positive risk. The pursuit of change is the only way to identify a sweet spot. By playing it safe, hybrid structures seeking profit will never be able to keep up with a sweet spot.
Here is a sampling of what others have said about the book and its author:
“The world is changing, and the changes are permanent. We are not going back to the old way. This is the fundamental premise of Brafman and Beckstrom.” – The bankwatch.com blatantly declares exactly why people need to read the book. They urge people to care about its content because its content is the way of the future. Decentralization is here to stay!
“After five years of ground-breaking research, Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom share some unexpected answers, gripping stories, and a tapestry of unlikely connections. The Starfish and the Spider argues that organizations fall into two categories: traditional “spiders”, which have a rigid hierarchy and top-down leadership, and revolutionary “starfish,” which rely on the power of peer relationships. It reveals how established companies and institutions, from IBM to Intuit to the U.S. government, are also learning how to incorporate starfish principles to achieve success.” – Rosa Say of talkingstory.org provides punctual and concise definitions of the book’s overall themes, decentralization versus centralization. Her understanding of the book proves to be above adequate as she recognizes some of its shortcomings. “The authors strive to be objective, but I felt they gave short shrift to the downsides of decentralization…” I find this statement true as well; the book’s information is slightly biased, providing almost no evidence on the advantages of centralization. However, this complaint is small for Rosa as her review is pretty positive!
“Authors Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom’s small (200 pages), easy to read book on business provides tremendous insights into the differences between hierarchical (traditional) and decentralized organizations. The principles of decentralized organizations in the book touch on movements as diverse as Alcoholics Anonymous, the Apache Native American tribes in the 1880s-1900s, the Anti-slavery movement in Europe and the US in the 1800s, as well as Al Qaeda today. It is for this reason that we commend this book to military professionals and strategic thinkers.” – Seeing how many industries decentralization has effected, Colonel John Bessler of the United States army gives the book high praise, finding it important enough to recommend to anyone serving! The book was a light read for him with heavy impacts.
Bibliography
Brafman, O., & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. New York: Portfolio.
Bessler, J. (2012, August 10). PKSOI – PKM – Book Review – The Starfish and the Spider. PKSOI U.S. Army. Retrieved March 25, 2014, fromhttp://PKSOI.army.mil/PKM/publications/bookreview/bookreview.cfm?bookreviewID=16
Henderson, C. (2006, November 26). Book review: “The Starfish & the Spider” – Brafman/ Beckstorm.The Bankwatch. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://thebankwatch.com/2006/11/26/book-review-the-starfish-the-spider-brafman-Beckstorm/
Kleczek, D. (2008, June 22). Review: The Starfish and the Spider. Leadership in Social Networks. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from https://Kleczek.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/review-the-starfish-and-the-spider/
Mackanic, J., & Dekoenigsberg, G. (2006, October 5). Book review: The Starfish and the Spider. Red Hat Magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://magazine.redhat.com/2007/02/05/book-review-the-starfish-and-the-spider/
Say, R. (2011, March 31). Book Review: The Starfish and the Spider. Talking Story with Rosa Say. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://www.talkingstory.org/2011/03/starfish-and-spider/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Contact Information
To contact the author of this article, “Analysis of the Book, The Starfish and the Spider by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom: A Synopsis and Review,” please email Brian.McGarry@Selu.edu.
About Good Advice Publishing Company
Good Advice Publishing Company is a media/PR/content marketing firm based in Hammond, Louisiana. We publish articles that provide useful information on a whole range of topics, including business, career, books, home improvement, medical, and food/dining. Find us on the Interweb at http://goodadvicepublishing.com/.
We are proud to facilitate in the Student Publication Program for the College of Business at Southeastern Louisiana University. Through this effort, students like the one featured in this article have the exemplary projects turned into published works in edited online periodicals. For more information on this program, please contact Professor David Wyld (dwyld@southeastern.edu).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cover via Amazon
