Starfish? Spiders? Great Insight? Yes, its all here.October 10, 2008 Starfish are great creatures. They crawl around and eat things, but do little else. Or, so one would think. The authors detail the uniqueness of starfish. In process, they detail how the attributes of these creatures metaphorically describe successful decentralized organizations. The principle is that there is no centralized control center in either leaderless organizations, or starfish. As a result, both are able to adapt to changes that would normally threaten other mechanisms. This is a lesson many organizations should learn because it allows them to adapt to a world that details little stability. All in all, a readable book with great insight.
Shallow and disappointingSeptember 29, 2008 0 out of 1 found this review helpful
The Starfish and the Spider was recommended to me and looked forward in diving into it. I love books on new organizational ideas. Though, I was very disappointed with this book, it doesn't contain much new ideas and instead is a shallow and black/white overview of much earlier work.
The book divides the world in either centralized or decentralized and looks at the two extremes for their advantages and disadvantages. It then tells stories (which are often interesting, though not always well-researched) about centralized vs decentralized ways of organizing. It talks about MGM vs P2P and about US vs Apache. Though, it draws somewhat simplistic conclusions from these stories, somewhat drawn out of context.
It then tries to combine the two extremes in a hybrid organization and gives eBay as an example.
Centralized vs decentralized organizations is an interesting topic, though there are more interesting books on this subject than this one. For example, Thomas Malone "The Future of Work" was more insightful than this book and it provides a huge bibliography for further research on this subject. Don't read this book, unless you do so for the stories.
Catch-22, Only Worse!September 25, 2008 This book focuses on a new revolution you might have missed--what happens in movements without a hierarchy. The authors announce, "A lack of traditional leadership is giving rise to powerful groups that are turning industry and society upside down."
Cut off a spider's head and the poor guy is dead meat. Slice a leg off a starfish and the separated leg rejuvenates into a new starfish. There's a new sea change afoot of decentralized organizations (starfish) that are giving the top-down centralized organizations (spiders) a run for their money.
For an entertaining, but highly informative and important look at why the Apaches, the Quakers, Alcoholics Anonymous, Skype, eMule, Wikipedia, craigslist and other "open source" movements have changed and are changing the world, be sure someone on your team reads this book. You'll be dropping insights from the principles of decentralization into every conversation.
The nonprofit and ministry world is not unaccustomed to leaderless movements. Just check out the number of small group Bible studies most mornings at your local Starbucks or Denny's. Yet your vision will explode with new ideas and opportunities once you understand why when MGM (a spider) won their Supreme Court decision against Napster, they really lost.
Here are some conversation starters: 1) What is it about Wikipedia and craigslist--free services--that make them so appealing to millions of people? 2) Are there any centralized programs or services that your company, organization or denomination could decentralize and give away in the starfish mode?
Peter Drucker encouraged companies to "slough off yesterday"--one of the five balls in the "Results Bucket" of my book, Mastering The Management Buckets: 20 Critical Competencies for Leading Your Business or Non-profit. He said you must prune back to have capacity for the new opportunities coming your way. In the end, it's all about results. Some products, programs and services should be dropped--others might work well in the starfish mode. But focus on results, not leadership methodologies or systems.
Robert Byrne said, "There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start and so on..." Leaderless organizations do work--but usually those who lead them don't truly finish what they start. It takes incredible discipline--which is often the reason why some folks flee the bureaucracy in the first place--they don't like leaders and they themselves are not leaders. It's a Catch-22, only worse!
Why popularizing books should end up on college syllabiSeptember 21, 2008 1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Academic technology organizations are "starfishes" - in that authority and knowledge are distributed - and that we are mission driven. Recommended to anyone who thinks about organizational effectiveness. This book fits beautifully within the genre of short works that communicate serious academic research by telling interesting stories and providing fascinating examples. We don't assign enough books like this in our college courses - thinking that since is a "popularizing" book it must therefore be "inferior". I'm starting to think that we've been too snobby....and that in privileging good writing and storytelling over total academic rigor we may be inhibiting our students from absorbing the central points.
Good Book But....August 31, 2008 1 out of 2 found this review helpful
I am a corporate director of human resources and continually look for material to use in professional development of our managers. I enjoyed this book and found it an interesting read that stimulated thought. However, as I read the book, I found I kept making notes in the margin where I disagreed with the book or at least, questioned the premise.
Over the decades, I had a colleague that worked for a large manufacturer that produced engine parts. This organization led a decentralized existence and was very proud of this accomplishment. The company was managed with those "picky" supervisor and managers hanging around sucking up the company profit. Another friend was associated with the clothing manufacturing industry and proudly proclaimed how his people worked in self-guided "cells". Years ago, both companies failed to maintain profitability and filed for bankruptcy.
I am reminded of the lessons in Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't where the emphasis is on the humble manager versus the flamboyant leader type. The humble manager ensures the company is not about him or her but rather builds an organization that can weather most storms. For me, this is preferable to decentralized organizations. Some decentralization is needed for creativity and nimbleness. But as a general rule, give me the centralized with humble leadership.
Michael L. Gooch, SPHR Author of Wingtips with Spurs
