By Ori Brafman & Rod Beckstrom
Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom's The Starfish And The Spider "is about what happens when there's no one in charge. It's about what happens when there's no hierarchy" (p. 5). The authors argue (and seek to prove) that while "decentralized organizations appear at first glance to be messy and chaotic," they can be a powerful force ("one of the most powerful forces") when fully realized and developed (p. 208).
Be aware, what follows was intended as a review. It has become a summary review.
Brafman and Beckstrom do a stellar job of clarifying the distinctions between spiders (centralized organizations) and starfish (decentralized organizations). Lacking a centralized head and big headquarters enables decentralized organizations to operate in nimble fashion. Like a starfish, chop off a leg and they just grow another. Since structure is minimal, knowledge and power are distributed, communication flows freely apart from a centralized gate-keeper, and members are largely or fully autonomous. As a result, the organization can flourish with a vibrancy often not seen in centralized organizations.
For the authors, the difference between a spider and starfish is the difference between Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia. The latter has become an internet giant, in part because no one owns it and everyone can contribute to it. At the same time, such decentralization does not simply happen. Starfish "stand" on five legs:
Leg 1: Circles -- These are independent and autonomous groups. I felt the author's did not dissect the concept of circle particularly well. In a circle, people rally around an idea and ideology. An example is Wikipedia. I will use a formula: Interest + autonomy + norms + time + trust = contribution.
Leg 2: The Catalyst -- The catalyst is the architect and initial builder. The catalyst "gets a decentralized organization going and then cedes control to the members" (p. 92). Examples include Craig Newmark of Craig's List, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, and Bill W of AA. Catalysts are the Mary Poppins-type leader who come in, clean up, and move out. "In letting go of the leadership role, the catalyst transfers ownership and responsibility to the circle" (p. 93). In the same way an architect does not remain in the house after it is built, the catalyst leaves. However, like Frank Lloyd Wright, the catalyst's presence is still felt.
The catalyst exercises the relational soft skills that build trust and understanding (p. 113). They have a unique tool set: genuine interest in others, multiple loose connections, the ability to network or map people and opportunities, and a deep desire to help. Catalysts are passionate and emotionally intelligent. They trust, inspire others, can live in ambiguity, take a "hands-off approach" and get out of the way after they do their work. You don't follow a catalyst because you have to--you follow a catalyst because he understands you (p. 125). I love that line.
Leg 3: Ideology -- Members join a circle because they offer more than community. They join because they resonate with the ideology. Think AA. "The ideology is that people can help each other out of addiction" (p. 95).
Leg 4: The Preexisting Network -- The authors contend that decentralized networks that "make it" practically all "launch from a preexisting platform" (p. 97). The implications of the Internet and social platforms as preexisting networks are huge here.
Leg 5: The Champion -- As the authors note, "Catalysts are charismatic, but champions take it to the next level" (p. 99). The relentlessly pursue the new idea.
There are many examples of the five legs in action: The abolition of the African slave trade in England (I think the authors are too dismissive of the contributions of William Wilberforce here) and the movement toward women's rights (catalyst Elizabeth Stanton to champion Susan B. Anthony) being two examples.
Initially, I pushed back on The Starfish and Spider. I felt the authors only offered a dichotomous, bifurcated, either-or approach to centralized/decentralized organizations. Centralized organizations are coercive, top-down, command and control entities (think Cortes or Neutron Jack) (p. 19). Decentralized systems, on the other hand, lack a clear leader, hierarchy, and headquarters (p. 19). Think the Apaches' Nant'an (spiritual and cultural leader who sprang from the tribe and whom people willingly followed). Whether than command-and-control, decentralized organizations rely on "flexibility, shared power, [and] ambiguity" (p. 21).
In all fairness they do write, "Although [coercive] sounds like something out of a Russian gulag, a coercive system is not necessarily bad" (p. 19?). Indeed, later in the book, Brafman and Beckstrom differentiate between the catalyst and the CEO. They contend both are leaders, but each draws on different tools. Again, this is where I felt the dichotomy, as if every CEO is "the boss," top-down, command-and-control, and can't be your friend; and every catalyst is emotionally intelligent, more interactive, and thrives on ambiguity, which the CEO is incapable of doing. To me those differences seem to be a function of person and style and less about the role; however, one may find more "catalyst-like people" in the catalyst role (see pp. 129ff).
Decentralized organizations -- effective ones anyway--are tough to beat, because they are tough to shut down (kill), e.g. the Animal Liberation front (ALF) and al Qaeda. What is the strategy to overcoming a starfish organization? By (1) Centralizing them, (2) Changing their ideology, or (3) Going decentralized yourself (see pp. 144-158).
The authors address hybrid organizations and discuss the importance of organizations knowing their sweet spot (Chapters 7-8). "Decentralization (e.g. a Toyota assembly line) brings out creativity, but it also creates variance" (p. 191). "The sweet spot that Toyota found has enough decentralization for creativity, but sufficient structure and controls to ensure consistency." (p. 191).
While the authors were, for me, too dichotomous at times in their approach, the strong pat of the books has to do with their 10 rules for the new world:
Rule 1: Diseconomies of scale. Bigger is not always better.
Rule 2: The Network Effect. The network grows in value and power with the addition of each new member.
Rule 3: The Power of Chaos. Freedom can generate creativity and innovation.
Rule 4: Knowledge at the Edge. "The best knowledge is often not at the hub, but at the fringe of the organization. (p. 204)
Rule 5: Everyone Wants to Contribute.
Rule 6: Beware the Hydra Response. If you attack a decentralized organization be prepared, like the Greek mythological Hydra, for it's head to grow back in two places.
Rule 7: Catalysts Rule. These individuals are the movers. They suggest a course of action and then let go.
Rule 8: The Values Are the Organization. "Ideology is the fuel that drives the decentralized organization."
Rule 9: Measure, Monitor, and Manage. Ambiguity does not mean lack of accountability.
Rule 10: Flatten or Be Flattened. Look for ways to decentralize.
My big takeaway: When it comes to organizations, it is not an either-or (starfish or spider), the Spider is wise to incorporate starfish qualities at every possible turn. This will take time, patience, and boldness.