The starfish and the spider
From Driscollwiki
Brafman, O. & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The starfish and the spider. New York: Penguin.
Contents |
Primary takeaway
Useful bits
- Productive examples from tech, business, war
- Good questions, metaphors to help us watch the growth of orgs like IC/HPA
Key concepts
Spider
The spider represents a centralized organization characterized by:
- Hierarchical management structure
- Top-down command-and-control
- The presence of a CEO, HQ, etc.
Example:
- Warner Bros. Music Group
- U.S. Army
Starfish
The startfish represents a decentralized organization characterized by:
- Non-hierarchical decision making, communication
- "Knowledge at the edges"
- People on the edges are empowered to make decisions
- No single leader
- Shared ideology among chapters/arms/nodes
Examples:
- eMule filesharing software (no one knows who made it, no central server)
- al Qaeda
Hybrid
This is the book's ideal. It is an org that combines the complementary strengths of spiders and starfish.
- Authors discuss a "sweet spot" or point along the starfish-spider spectrum in which the balance suits the contemporary expectations of users/members
eBay/Paypal
- eBay is largely decentralized: no inventory, trust built among users with feedback mechanism
- Paypal is highly centralized: interface with banking network, provide security
- By integrating these two orgs, there is a "hand off" between the starfish and spider where user expectations change
Features of decentralized orgs
Circles
These are the sub-nodes.
- Chapters
- Departments
- Tribes
- Cells
- Franchises
Ideology
Sense of belonging, purpose, or community that links circles.
- Expounded by catalyst
- Key point of contact among circles
- Stronger/ as strong as remuneration, recognition
Catalyst
This is an inspirational leader but one who steps aside and allows the starfish to grow without her.
- May be forgotten in history
- May not make money even if others do
- May be unwilling to speak for the org as a whole
- "Visionary"
- Networkers
Examples:
- Bill W. of Alcoholics Anonymous
- Craig Newmark of craigslist
- Mary Poppins
"The catalyst's tools"
- Genuine interest in others
- Loose connections
- Mapping
- Desire to help
- Passion
- Meet people where they are
- Emotional intelligence
- Trust
- Inspiration
- Tolerance for ambiguity
- Hands-off approach
- Receding (after the org/movement takes off)
Champion
This is a person who is so moved by the catalyst that he decides to dedicate his life to the ideology
- Charismatic
- Highly visible
- Pragmatic
- Salespeople, lobbyists
- Spokespeople
- More likely to become a CEO
Preexisting network
In many cases, the starfish/decentralized orgs build off of existing networks with complementary ideology
Examples:
- Anti-slavery movement builds on the preexisting network of the Quaker community
"Taking on decentralization"
There is significant discussion of "attacking" or "taking on" decentralized orgs.
- Changing ideology
- Centralize them
- U.S. gave cows to the Apaches (151)
- Decentralize yourself
Canonical examples:
- Music industry v. P2P
- U.S. military v. al Qaeda
How to assess an org
Is it spider or starfish?
Yes: centralized/spider, No: decentralized/starfish
- Is there a person in charge?
- Are there headquarters?
- If you thump it on the head, will it die?
- Is there a clear division of roles (among employees or departments)?
- If you take out a unit, is the organization harmed?
- Are knowledge and power concentrated or distributed?
- Is the organization flexible or rigid?
- Can you count the employees or participants?
- Are working groups funded by the organization or are they self-funding?
- Do working groups communicate directly or through intermediaries?
What to measure, monitor?
In decentralized orgs, one should keep track of circles
- How active are they?
- How distributed is the network?
- Are circles independent?
- What kind of connections exist between circles?
- Is it growing?
- Spreading?
- Mutating?
One peculiar example
When this book came up in conversation, someone mentioned that it was popular among Tea Party organizers. Of the dozens of examples selected in the book, there is a recurring discussion of the U.S. government's response to 9/11 and various strategies for quelling al Qaeda. It also reads like commentary on contemporary federalism.
The following quote comes from a chapter in which the authors argue that centralized orgs, when attacked, tend to become more centralized while decentralized orgs, when attacked, become more decentralized. They compare attacking decentralized orgs to attacking the Hydra. Lop off one head and two more replace it.
In response to al Qaeda's attacks, the U.S. government has hunkered down and become more centralized. This is a big shift from its original roots as a fairly decentralized system. The Founding Fathers realized the importance of power distributions. The Constitution is therefore based on two key starfish principles. First, the government is divided into three branches, each of which is fairly autonomous and indepedent. Second, the Constitution purposely keeps the federal government weak, delegating significant power to the states. Over the years, the federal government gradually became larger and more centralized. Centralization did have its advantages - [central banking, currency, welfare, EPA, Social Security]. The move toward centralization was gradual. The events of September 11, 2001, however, greatly accelerated this process. It's a natural reaction, when attached, to hunker down and adopt a command-and-control mentality. From this perspective, establishing the Department of Homeland Security makes perfect sense. [...] After the 9/11 attacks, the United States sought out the leader of al Qaeda [...]. The obvious target was Osama bin Laden, and the government put a $25 million bounty on his head. [...] The strategy makes perfect sense if you are fighting organized crime. But it falters when you take on a starfish organization. [...], take away the catalyst and the starfish organization will do just fine. If anything, it'll be even stronger: if a catalyst is killed, the power shifts to the circles, making the organization that much more decentralized. The U.S. government [...] also went after circles. [...] Take out a circle or two [...] and the decentralized organization does just fine. New circles sprout up like mushrooms." (143)
