An example of hierarchyless organization W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

- An example of hierarchyless organization Giorgio Baroni SOC 446 - Bureaucracy and Society Dr. Smith November 24, 2001 Introduction While pursuing a better understanding of how organizations work I am obviously bringing to the table my personal experience with all those organizations that have affected me throughout my life. One constant pattern that I have noticed during my entire life is that most organizations are bureaucratic and hierarchical, and such pattern is clearly confirmed by my recent formal education on this subject matter. One of the main reasons for why I am studying organizations is that such bureaucratic and hierarchical patterns do not find any place whatsoever within my ideal worldview, and I am therefore attempting to understand the subject to find solutions that may be applied to organizations in order to eliminate bureaucracy and hierarchy as much as it is reasonably possible. Here below I will focus this paper mostly on issues of hierarchy. In my current organizational course we are using as a textbook Richard H. Hall's "Organizations: structures, processes, and outcomes". As it appears to me, such book does not really touch on any subject in which the solutions that I am looking for are explicitly and extensively discussed. It appears that Hall discusses organizations from the standpoint of what is the status quo of organizational patterns, and therefore by explaining about the patterns of the majority of existent organizations (as opposed to trends that are currently developing new organizational patterns), which is obviously a picture in which hierarchy is predominant. In a recent e-mail exchange Hall wrote me that "the major consensus is that organizational structures are contingent on both internal and external pressures that make most structures relatively vertical" (personal communication, October 9, 2001), and such a comment appears to me to be the perspective from which Hall is coming from. I disagree with such perspective at least from an intuitive standpoint and from personal experience. My feeling is that-even though most "internal and external pressures" that dictate an organization's structural pattern are determined by those few that own and manage organizations (who in general have an obvious tendency to centralize power and perpetuate hierarchical patterns)-there are also "internal and external pressures" effected by lower organizational participants who may have minimal power if taken individually but that have a much more influential power if taken as a whole. It is my intuition (from personal experience) that an organization's lower participants have less potential and actual benefits to enjoy in a hierarchical organization then they would in an organization in which they were equal participants and vested shareholders. Because of this I feel that the tendency is for lower participants to push organizations toward adopting flat-organizational models, similar to the organic models proposed by some organizational theorists (Morgan, 1997, pp. 4471). Also, intuitively speaking, hierarchical organizations have much simpler structures when compared to flat-organizations, which instead are a step above in organizational evolution, requiring a mode of thinking that transcends our tested hierarchical concepts and embraces chaos and uncertainty as factors that will allow organizational actors to attain organizational goals. This last and most of my above intuitions are confirmed by Bill Gore and encapsulated in this statement of his: "the simplicity and order of an authoritarian organization make it an almost irresistible temptation. Yet it is counter to the principles of individual freedom and smothers the creative growth of a man [sic]. Freedom requires orderly restraint. The restraints imposed by the need for cooperation are minimized with a lattice [in other words, flat] organization" (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 13). Bill Gore is the founder of W. L. Gore & Associates, an organization that has a flat-structure. As a founder and owner, Bill Gore had realized the benefit intrinsic in harnessing the potential of equal participation by balancing the uncertainty created by freedom with his organization's goals versus adopting one of the well-tested hierarchical models that would obviously restrain optimal creativity and participation. Many bookstore shelves currently display a new trend of books expounding esoteric new organizational formulas (many of which I tend to agree with from a philosophical standpoint) in which organizations of the future are seen as systems where quantum thinking (as opposed to a boxed up Newtonistic thinking pervading most current organizations), spirituality and holistic thinking will permeate organizational patterns. Such books are ideal for someone like me, as I am exploring eastern philosophies to have a new perspective on life, however in this paper I will spare the reader from elaborating on such new massive trend that surreptitiously is spreading throughout our American society (which apparently Hall and other sociologists are missing), and I will instead use an example that is closer to an academic mindset that would generally be wary of new trends and developments. In this paper, therefore, I wish to back up my personal intuitions by using an organizational example in which hierarchy is virtually non-existent (to the exclusion of certain constraints due to the predominant patterns in our current societal status quo) and in which all participants are equal and yield power based on their contribution to the organizational system.

Such organization I already mentioned above when introducing its founder, it is W. L. Gore & Associates. As my interest in organizations is especially focused on organizational communication, for the sake of argument I will also use below Hall's book's Chapter 8 (in which the subject of communication is covered in detail) to contrast Hall's views with the reality of an organization such as Gore, where Hall's views clearly do not find confirmation. What makes W. L. Gore & Associates an ideal example to argue Hall's perspective is that Gore is a company that, because of size and complexity, could very well be an organization where hierarchy was the norm (as it is for other similar organizations) but that because of the founder's vision has instead developed into an incredibly successful organization where hierarchy is non-existent and fairness is passionately and consistently striven for. Here below I will first describe some general facts and figures about the Gore organization, I will then introduce (for an in-dept discussion, I suggest reading the sources referenced below) its organizational system and thirdly I will contrast such system with Hall's main points about organizational communication. Gore's organizational facts and figures W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. was founded by Bill Gore and his wife Vieve in 1958. Gore's neat website informs that "Gore is a privately held company, ranking in the top 200 of the Forbes top 500 privately held companies for 2000", and that "approximately 6,000 associates work in over 45 plants and sales location worldwide" (gore.com, 2001, Fast Facts). This year Fortune magazine ranked Gore 35th among "the 100 Best Companies to Work For" (2001) in the US, and Gore has been on this Fortune annual list since its inception. Since Gore is a privately owned company, its current market value is not publicly known, however according to its official website "worldwide sales in the past fiscal year were $1.4 Billion" (gore.com, 2001, Fast Facts). Also, in Gore's website we find out that Gore's "proprietary technologies with the versatile polymer polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) have resulted in numerous products for electronic signal transmission; fabrics laminates; medical implants; as well as membrane, filtration, sealant, and fibers technologies for diverse industries" (gore.com, 2001, Fast Facts). Among people that like the outdoors it is well known that Gore is the manufacturer of the Gore-tex fabrics that are a component of many higher-end outdoor gear. Shipper and Manz note that "Gore is [] a highly successful and profitable company. In fact, it has been profitable for 31 straight years. Sales jumped from $6 million in 1969 to $660 million in 1990, the growth financed entirely without debt" (1992, Section: Organization without bosses, 7). All these facts and figures paint an interesting picture: Gore is not Exxon or Wal-Mart, but it is also not a small business either, it is a very successful, large, global organization at the forefront of technology in its sector. Also, being ranked among the top 100 best companies to work at, Gore is an organization where success is matched by high employee (we will see below that such term is incongruous with Gore's culture) satisfaction, to the point that organizational participants are actually not employees. Gore's organizational system In Gore's site's FAQ sheet (gore.com, 2001, Frequently Asked Questions, 5) I found an interesting question and its respective answer that is worth reporting here: Q. Can a company like Gore with its unique culture and un-management style continue to compete in the new millennium? A. We believe it is a combination of our high quality products and our unique culture that makes us successful. Because we work in small teams and encourage direct one-on-one communication, we have the ability to make timely, informed decisions and get products to market very quickly. This question and its respective answer tell us quite a bit. In this extremely successful company the philosophy is clear: the more the environment is in flux, the more its Lattice structure allows Gore to thrive. So what exactly is Gore's organizational philosophy? From the words of Bill Gore himself we learn that A lattice organization is one that involves direct transactions, self-commitment, natural leadership, and lacks assigned or assumed authority Every successful organization has a lattice organization that underlies the faade of authoritarian hierarchy. It is through these lattice organizations that things get done, and most of us delight in going around the formal procedures and doing things the straightforward and easy way. (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 2) Bill Gore realized that all successful organizations have a cultural substratum where formal hierarchy plays a marginal role and where free communication allows organizational participants to get things done more efficiently then they would by strictly following formal rules. Instead than adopting a tested hierarchical model Bill Gore decided to just do away with the hierarchy-shell and build his organization's culture directly around a free and fair system where hierarchy would be absent. Gore's organizational philosophy is based on four central principles: Fairness, Freedom, Commitment, and Waterline. At Gore Everyone will: Try to be fair. Sincerely strive to be fair with each other, our suppliers, our customers, and all persons with whom we carry out transactions. Allow, help and encourage associates to grow in knowledge, skill, scope of responsibility and range of activities (Freedom). Make his or her own

commitments and keep them. Consult with other associates before taking actions that might be "below the waterline" and cause serious damage to the enterprise. (This is an analogy to a boat, where shooting the boat below the waterline-damaging the reputation or financial health of the business-could result in sinking it). (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 5) Out of these four central principles Gore's organizational system has generated key attributes that allow its participants to adopt such principles on a day-to-day basis. Following are the main "Attributes of the Lattice" as outlined at Gore's website (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 3): No fixed or assigned authority Sponsors (mentors) not bosses Natural leadership defined by followership Person-to-person communication Objectives set by those who must make things happen Tasks and functions organized through commitments

All these attributes translate into an organizational system in which formal and informal hierarchy is nonexistent. Communication is direct, person-to-person, there is no fixed, assigned or assumed authority, and sponsorship replaces management and supervision. In Gore everyone is potentially a leader. And a leader today may be a follower tomorrow, depending on the task at hand and on environmental changes. I personally dislike the term "followership", as it implies cognitive passivity (as someone blindly following someone else, with limited incentive to change course of action), while instead such implication is not reflected in Gore's overall philosophy. Instead than using terms such as "followership" I would state that Gore has leaders and potential leaders, all with interdependent roles. A potential leader in Gore will be a leader only when certain factors are working together, including having the necessary skills in a specific area, starting a new project and gathering volunteers (other potential leaders) that would like to assist the potential leader in bringing the newly started project to fruition. The Gore's website further clarifies: In the lattice, individual authority and credibility are based upon proven skill or a history of contribution rather than an assigned title. All employees are known by the same title, "associate." Every associate has a sponsor who guides him/her in growing in contribution. Leadership evolves based on knowledge, skill, experience or capability in the particular activity in which a team is involved. Leaders are associates who have developed followers. Each person in the lattice interacts directly with every other person. Teams or groups formulate their own plans of action rather than having them dictated to them. Each associate selfcommits to projects or responsibilities. There is no hierarchy of communication, no need to go through one associate to reach another. Associates are free to go directly to whomever they believe has an answer. (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 14) From the above, it is clear that the Gore system has a few challenges that need to be met (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 5): Well-defined objectives are needed Decisions must be made People must know each other Compensation process must be fair

The first two challenges are related to leadership. A leader is an associate that has made a commitment toward a defined objective and makes decisions based on such commitment and objective. "Associates must understand the objectives of the organization and their businesses in order to make wise judgments about their own commitments. Complete consensus can never be reached. Different decision-making styles are required in different situations" (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 15). Such first two challenges are met firstly at hiring time, by selecting individuals that are ready to understand the overall organization's objectives, to set goals and make decisions, and to be committed to and accountable for the decisions made to attain such goals. An associate that cannot meet such challenges may not last long at Gore, since compensation is also based on individual contribution to the organization's well being (the fourth challenge). The third challenge justifies another important characteristic of Gore's organizational structure. "Gore has a small plant approach, meaning it limits each facility to approximately 200 people. Most plants are self-sufficient, with manufacturing, finance, research and development contained within the facility" (Anfuso, 1999). Whenever the number of associates in a plant reaches or surpasses 200, another plant is created. Such system allows for all associates working in the same plant to know each other, therefore facilitating the person-to-person communication. Plants are set up in clusters, so that several 200-associate plants can be interdependent and utilize resources that one plant may specialize in, versus another. The fourth challenge is justified by the principle of fairness. "Gore uses a peer ranking system for compensation. Associates rank each other twice a year on contribution to the success of the enterprise, and functional committee assigns pay according to the rankings. This method was designed to be as internally fair as possible. Benchmarking with other companies ensures external competitiveness" (gore.com, 2001, The Lattice Organization, p. 15). "About

25 percent of the company is employee-owned, while the rest of the shares are predominantly held by the Gore family." Gore's stock option plan "made one 25-year veteran machinist a millionaire" (Dominguez, 1998). By looking at all the factors outlined above it is evident that communication plays a central role in every aspect of Gore's system. The leadership/sponsorship system eliminates the need for a hierarchy and allows for person-to-person communication, and person-to-person communication reinforces the flexibility, freedom, and fairness of the system. Hall's versus Gore's organizational perspective In his chapter on communication referred to above, Hall makes an excellent point regarding an important factor that affects any kind of organization through communication: perception is such a factor. Hall notes that "it is obvious that perfect perception-that is, perception uniform across all information recipients-is impossible in any social situation. The addition of organizational factors makes the whole situation that much more complex" (1998, p. 169). Here Hall basically lets the reader know that communication in a simple social situation (e.g. a conversation among two individuals) is already affected and distorted by the perception of both the sender and the receiver, and that when we start analyzing perception at the organizational level, then such factor may be affected by other organizational factors and distort communication to a much higher degree. I cannot but agree with Hall on this point, and as a matter of fact this point makes my flat-organization argument that much stronger. Since the more distorted perception is, the less effective the communicative effort, then it is obviously arguable that the reduction of distortions to their minimum will positively affect the effectiveness of communication. The more people are between the sender and the receiver of a message, the more likely for a message to be distorted by the perception of several intermediaries. In Gore's structure communication is direct, person-to-person, reducing distortion by perception to just the perception of the sender and the receiver. In a hierarchical organization the communication will be distorted in increasing fashion according to how many intermediary layers a message has to go through. Another point that Hall makes is that "Organizational position affects how communications are perceived or sent []. In almost all organizations, people can be superordinates in one situation and subordinates in another" (pp. 169-170). Again, Hall here reinforces my argument, as for matters of communicative effectiveness it is obviously necessary to stay away from situations in which a receiver/sender perceives the communication from/to another individual in a distorted way, because of the influence of hierarchy factors. If another individual is perceived as equal then distortion in the communication process is reduced. At Gore a leader may appear to have subordinates, but in actuality the leadership role is more that of a mentor, of someone that shows the way. Leadership roles are not assigned or assumed, they are flexible and therefore not conducive to creating static hierarchical communicative patterns. The receiver decides freely who should and should not be the mentor/leader. This allows for a higher probability of exchange of communication with minimal distortion and increased focus. Further in his chapter Hall goes on to distinguish between vertical (downward and upward) from horizontal communication. He notes that "from our discussions of organizational structure, power, and leadership, it should be evident that the vertical element is a crucial organizational fact of life. Since communication is also crucial, the vertical element intersects in a most important way" (p. 171). I cannot disagree more with Hall in this above statement, since he assumes a priori that verticality is a sine qua non for the existence of an organizational structure. His boxed up interpretation of what is a "fact of life" is clearly delimited to what most organization currently are, ignoring what most organizations could potentially be and a few already are. In Gore the vertical component of communication is nonexistent, as the communication would flow from person to person without the necessity to change communication patters because of vertical hierarchical distinctions. The Lattice communication pattern clearly eliminates many of the problems that arise when considering upward and downward communication in hierarchical organizations. Further on in his chapter Hall describes the "5 elements of Downward Communication" which outline communication patterns when superordinates send messages to subordinates. Of these elements, "the first is the simple and common job instruction, in which a subordinate is told what to do through direct orders, training sessions, job descriptions, or other such mechanisms" (p. 171). Here also we clearly see the potential distortion, noted above by Hall, in communication where a downward message is to be received to communicate orders, training, job descriptions, and "other such mechanisms" from an above authority. If a recipient created his/her own job description to begin with, as it is possible at Gore, there would be no need for communicating job descriptions, at least not in a downward fashion; if the recipient is empowered, there would be no need for orders; and if the recipient has a clear vision of where the organization as a whole is directed, training communications can be received more efficiently, especially because training is asked for by the recipient. A recipient that has a vested interest in the organization will actively ask for training, created his/her job, and do the job. Doing something by choice is definitely going to yield better results than doing something by order, at least by reducing communicative distortion, and at most by eliminating potential conflict due to superordinate/subordinate relationships. In Gore's case the

communication would be initiated by the recipient at will, when needed. Since all individuals in the system would be equal, then everyone would be actively initiating communication and actively receiving communication to maximize the organizational results and therefore to capitalize on the vested interest. Hall further clarifies his point by noting that "the intent of job instructions is to ensure reliable and consistent job performance" (p. 171). Again, if the recipient has a vested interest, then the job performance issue would rely on him/herself. To me the approach described by Hall conjures up images of brainless, slaved machines instead of capable human beings. We see here that this first element of downward communication is unnecessary (and moreover, counterproductive) in an organization where all members are average human beings with a vested interest in the organization itself. The second element outlined by Hall notes that "all organizations, even those most interested in the human qualities of their members, have hidden agendas of some sort at some time. If the total rationale for all actions [performed in an organization] were known to all members, the potential for chaos would be high, since communication overload would quickly occur" (p. 172). Hall here implies that there have to exist some sort of super-humans (whomever is at the top of the hierarchy) that keep track of all information and selectively disseminate such information to avoid overload and chaos. I would counteract this point using as an analogy the Internet. The Internet definitely allows for an information overload, and allows people to access virtually all known information with the click of a mouse. Where is the chaos? It is public domain the fact that individuals, even though they have gazillions of bytes of information at their fingertips, will only use the information that pertains to their task at hand. The same would be for a Lattice organization, where all pertinent information is available upon request to maximize any task at hand (I grant that I have no source that confirms such point for the Gore organization). I will here skip Hall's third element, as it would be debatable similarly as his first one, and move right along to his forth element: Downward communication of feedback. Obviously feedback is important to allow organizational participants to maximize their performance, and along with the points noted above, feedback is best when it is asked for. An individual with vested interest would certainly need to ask for feedback to ensure that performance is optimal, however feedback received in downward communication allows for problems that are absent in a Lattice organization. Hall notes that "this is almost by definition a sticky issue, particularly when feedback is negative. If the superior has attempted at all to utilize socioemotional ties to his or her subordinates, the issue becomes even more difficult" (p. 172). As far as this last point we see that the introduction of socio-emotional ties will not instead have a negative effect in a Lattice organizational system since the individual needing feedback will initiate feedback. When an individual (with vested interest) realizes that his/her area of work is not productive, and his/her livelihood is at stake, it will become self-evident that his/her performance is lacking something and that there is a need to understand if such deficiency may be improved in some way through communications with other individuals and other teams. In a flat organization feedback will be asked for, or if not asked for, it will be very likely accepted for the reasons outlined above (vested interest): this eliminates the need to have a top-down communication of feedback. "The final element of downward communication involves attempts to indoctrinate subordinates into accepting and believing in the organization's (or the subunit's) goals. The intent here, of course, is to get the personnel emotionally involved in their work and add this to the motivational system" (p. 172). This type of communication is generally useless. According to my personal experience, such communication is a weed fire, where the subordinate members of an organization are pep-rallied toward a certain goal that is not of their selection. If someone does not embrace a goal willingly, then it is very likely that the actions performed toward such a goal will not be performed willingly as well, and this obviously introduces a factor of inefficiency. This element of downward communication can be effectively replaced in an organization where all members have vested interests, and share a priori their personal vision with the vision of the organization. Such approach transpires clearly from Gore's organizational structure, in which 25% of the company shares are owned by the employees, and where successful employees, that in a hierarchical organization may be mere lower participants, can become millionaires. To me the point just appears obvious as the fact that the unclouded sun is bright: who would buy into a goal, someone that sets the goal or that willingly embraces it, or someone that is "indoctrinated" into accepting a goal? Further in his chapter Hall expands on his ideas of vertical communication by describing upward communication. His most interesting point in his discussion about upward communication is that "People are unlikely to pass information up if it will be harmful to themselves or their peers. Thus, the amount any kind of information that is likely to be passed upward is affected by hierarchy" (p. 173). Once more, Hall makes the case for me here, showing that upward communication has even more drawbacks than downward. Going back to the points illustrated above, any situation that may distort the perception of parties involved in a communication exchange will decrease the effectiveness of communication, and therefore, in upward communication, when the perception of the sender is distorted to the point of avoiding any communication, then the effectiveness is dramatically reduced or nullified. We see here another point where an organization such as Gore has an advantage against a hierarchical organization. Conclusions

So, is Gore's system the only way to go? Certainly Gore's structure does have its limitations. Shipper and Manz dedicate a whole section of their paper on the limitations that the Gore approach may have. However all the limitations listed by Shipper and Manz are not intrinsic to the Gore system, but are instead created by the interaction between Gore and hierarchical organizations: if Gore's entire environment was composed by other flat-organizations, it appears that all such limitations would be inexistent (of course, being that Gore is a global organization, such instance is merely an exploratory speculation). One evident limitation is that, because of legal requirements, Gore has to have a president and a few other organizational actors legally responsible for the organization (1992, Section: Conclusion, 3). This takes away from the ideal of an organization where all participants are treated as equals and have no distinctive titles other than what specifies their tasks at a certain time. Another limitation is that the general absence of titles and the fluid roles may create some friction between Gore and the hierarchical cultures it comes into contact with: hierarchies' organizational participants are used to communicate to other organizational participants that would have relatively static roles and titles (1992, Section: Use with Caution, 5-6). "Sarah Clifton, an associate at the Flagstaff facility, was being pressed by some outsiders as to what her title was. She made one up and had it printed on some business cards-SUPREME COMMANDER. When Bill Gore learned what she did, he loved it and recounted the story to others" (1992, Section: Use with Caution, 4). This may appear markedly evident in instances when an individual from a hierarchical organization wishes to escalate a problem to a supervisor, a manager, a director, a vice-president, or whomever: at Gore, who takes the blame or the responsibility? I have sent an e-mail query to Gore associates on this matter, but until now I have not received a reply as far as how such limitation is handled on a day-to-day basis. According to Shipper and Manz another limitation may also be that not everyone can be a Gore associate (1992, Section: Conclusions, 6), as some individuals may not know how to be self-directed as the Gore culture requires. To me this is an obvious side-effect of centuries of hierarchical organization pervading society, which created some aberrant behavioral patterns: to use an analogy, I would not see how a wild animal would wait for orders, in place of using self-directed instincts, to seek food. Another limitation may be that the Gore system cannot be applied to all organizations, especially those where hierarchy has been an integral part of the culture for many decades and for some forms of organizations, like churches and governments, for centuries. Shipper and Manz note that "the Gore system could be adopted in most organizations, but should not be adopted blindly" and "Bill Gore argued that the lattice system should work best in start-up companies led by dynamic entrepreneurs" (1992, Section: Conclusions, 9-10). This to me appears another societal limitation more than a limitation of Gore's system, and intuitively speaking I feel that virtually any organization could be converted into a flat-organization, given the right amount of time, a gradual and progressive transformation, and more than anything else, the willingness of whomever has the decisional power to effect such a conversion. Possibly a cellular change may allow a total conversion of an entrenched hierarchical organization, where by cellular I intend a compartmentalized change that takes place initially in areas of an organization where the culture is closer to a flat-organization (like creative departments) and it progressively branches out to other areas where the hierarchical culture may be more entrenched. For an organization such as General Motors the process might take decades, but as Bill Gore noted, for smaller start-up organizations the change may be swifter or, even better, be implemented at organizational inception. Shipper and Manz also note that many critics of Gore's philosophy have often pointed out that "a lattice organization can't meet a crisis well because it takes too long to reach a consensus when there are no bosses" (1992, Section: Use with Caution, 1). However what should be noted is that W. L. Gore & Associates' Lattice Organization has a philosophy that goes hand in hand with Morgan's (1997, pp. 44-50) concepts in his book "Images of Organization" when in his section on "Contingency theory: adapting organization to environment" he discusses how the less bureaucratic and hierarchical an organization is, the easier for it to adapt to its environment. To summarize my understanding of Morgan's discussion, he basically notes that more hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations will thrive in a relatively stable environment, while organizations similar to Gore will thrive in a very unstable environment, which is usually an environment where research toward new technologies is one of the main focuses. Morgan does a good job at laying these concepts out from a theoretical perspective, however in light of the recent political, social, economic and military situation in the United States (and around the world), in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack, who is to say which environment is stable and which is unstable? If we were to take Morgan by his word, the United States government, which is obviously quite a hierarchical and bureaucratic and massive organization, should right at this time be having quite an hard time at adapting to an environment that in the past two months has changed dramatically. Since we cannot predict for sure what lays ahead of us in terms of environmental change, I would argue, along with Morgan's perspective, that any organization that decides to adopt an organic or flat structure, or as in Gore, a Lattice structure, it is more likely to survive, adapt and thrive than any hierarchical organization would. So, in light of everything mentioned above, why have hierarchical organizations to begin with? An interesting paragraph from Shipper and Manz's paper should be reported here in its entirety: Gore has gone beyond the ideal of a democratic, capitalistic organization to an egalitarian, participative, entrepreneurial society. The values of Rousseau, Locke, Smith, and Jefferson are embodied in Gore's culture and operating systems. The difference between many other economic enterprises and Gore is like

the difference between a monarchy and a participative democracy. In the former, only a few have the right to a leadership role; in the latter, anyone with the requisite skill and motivation can become a leader. Furthermore, in the former only a few can significantly profit financially; in the latter, many can profit. (1992, Section: Conclusions, 11) Such analogy reminds me of what I discussed earlier: a flat organization is a step above, in the social evolutionary scale, to a hierarchy. Just as we still live in a time when appallingly many peoples still do not have voting rights, at the same time I believe that the road to a society saturated with fair and democratic flat organizations is long and arduous, especially when many sociologists and experts still argue that hierarchy is a sine qua non for the existence of organizations. References Anfuso, D. (1999, March). Core values shape W. L. Gore's innovative culture. Workforce. Volume 78, Issue 3, p. 48(4). Dominguez, A. (1998, July 1). Bosses nowhere to be found at fabric manufacturers. The Augusta Chronicle. [Online]. Available: http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/ 070198/bus_124-4975.shtml Fortune. (2001, November 24). Best Companies to Work For. [Online]. Available: http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=list.jhtml&list_frag=list_3column_ best_companies_work_for.jhtml&list=5&_requestid=72 Hall, R. (1998). Organizations: structures, processes, and outcomes (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Shipper, F., & Manz, C. C. (Winter 1992). Employee self-management without formally designated teams: An alternative road to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, Volume 21, Issue 3. [Online with password]. Not available. Database: Academic Search Elite. W. L. Gore & Associates. (2001, November 24). Fast Facts. [Online]. Available: http://www.gore.com/corp/about/profile.html W. L. Gore & Associates. (2001, November 24). Frequently Asked Questions. [Online]. Available: http://www.gore.com/corp/about/faq.html W. L. Gore & Associates. (2001, November 24). The Lattice Organization. [Online]. Available: http://www.gore.com/corp/about/lattice.pdf