Loose Organization

Interview

Clay Spinuzzi interviewed:

"“Loose organization” is sort of a broad heading for a set of actors that have formed relationships or associations, allowing them to accomplish objectives without the strong top-down control of a formal hierarchy. They tend to be agile, project-oriented, innovative, and decentralized, and the individuals within them tend to function with a great deal of operational autonomy and form alliances that support their individual goals. Think in terms of coworking spaces like Austin’s own Conjunctured, where independent freelancers and entrepeneurs have established trust with people they work near. When one freelancer gets a big project, she can draw on those connections to “swarm” the project. The one-person business turns into a 3-, 5-, or 6-person shop for the duration of the project. Other examples might include temporary virtual organizations, open source projects, subcontractor networks, Tea Party chapters, and al Qaeda. These organizations all have somewhat different structures, ideologies, and populations, but they’re all loose organizations.

What does a loose organization look like?

CS: I like to talk about the organizations that form in coworking sites – they tend to be of short duration, they focus on projects, they disperse, and they value innovation and results over obedience and connections. And they tend to be specialists with deep expertise and people skills that let them use that expertise in different contexts. Plus, most of the people I meet at coworking sites turn out to be good folks. But al Qaeda is another model. They have a core ideology, but they are happy to work with freelancers who have competing ideologies as long as they share a tactical objective. Obviously I don’t think that AQ is composed of such good folks, but it’s another strong example of the general model.

What are some of the challenges faced by loose organization?

CS: Loose organizations are networks rather than hierarchies, and they give up some of the strengths of hierarchical structure. For instance, they have a harder time establishing and maintaining a strategic vision or strategic objectives. They don’t have a strong way to enforce discipline across the members – members are there by choice and can simply melt away if they want. And since individuals exercise a lot of autonomy, they have to do more work in terms of establishing and maintaining relationships, establishing trust, and understanding each others’ work. Also, they can’t just blame a manager when things go wrong." (http://sxtxstate.com/?p=3345)