What do you think?
Rate this book
The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations
If you cut off a spider's head, it dies; if you cut off a starfish's leg it grows a new one, and that leg can grow into an entirely new starfish. Traditional top-down organizations are like spiders, but now starfish organizations are changing the face of business and the world.
What's the hidden power behind the success of Wikipedia, craigslist, and Skype? What do eBay and General Electric have in common with the abolitionist and women's rights movements? What fundamental choice put General Motors and Toyota on vastly different paths?
Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom have discovered some unexpected answers, gripping stories, and a tapestry of unlikely connections. The Starfish and the Spider explores what happens when starfish take on spiders and reveals how established companies and institutions, from IBM to Intuit to the U.S. government, are also learning how to incorporate starfish principles to achieve success.
What's the hidden power behind the success of Wikipedia, craigslist, and Skype? What do eBay and General Electric have in common with the abolitionist and women's rights movements? What fundamental choice put General Motors and Toyota on vastly different paths?
Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom have discovered some unexpected answers, gripping stories, and a tapestry of unlikely connections. The Starfish and the Spider explores what happens when starfish take on spiders and reveals how established companies and institutions, from IBM to Intuit to the U.S. government, are also learning how to incorporate starfish principles to achieve success.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
410 people are currently reading
6677 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 506 reviews
July 25, 2013
Organizations that are not centralized are powerful and almost impossible to kill. This is the message of this book. I was hoping it would be more prescriptive, as I could benefit from learning how to adopt principles of a starfish in circumstances at work, with two librarians down in my group. How can we function better so that when someone leaves, or is on leave, we can fill in those gaps more fluidly?
The book is really more of a description of leaderless organizations, from the side of the startled, traditional organizations who lost something when coming up against them. Well known starfish and spiders are described, and methods to defeat them are suggested. This may be useful to some corporate types, but just wasn't what I was looking for.
I'm not sure a book on how to build a leadership organization can exist anyway. It might violate a rule of quantum mechanics or something, to attempt to organize anarchy.
I did like the bit that contrasted the CEO with the "catalyst," and thought aspiring change agents could learn from it. ("In a starfish, the catalyst has the power.")
I also loved this quotation and it will be going on my bulletin board:
"Starfish systems are wonderful incubators for creative, destructive, innovative, or crazy ideas. Anything goes. Good ideas will attract more people, and in a circle they'll execute the plan. Institute order and rigid structure, and while you may achieve standardization, you'll also squelch creativity. Where creativity is valuable, learning to accept chaos is a must."
The book is really more of a description of leaderless organizations, from the side of the startled, traditional organizations who lost something when coming up against them. Well known starfish and spiders are described, and methods to defeat them are suggested. This may be useful to some corporate types, but just wasn't what I was looking for.
I'm not sure a book on how to build a leadership organization can exist anyway. It might violate a rule of quantum mechanics or something, to attempt to organize anarchy.
I did like the bit that contrasted the CEO with the "catalyst," and thought aspiring change agents could learn from it. ("In a starfish, the catalyst has the power.")
I also loved this quotation and it will be going on my bulletin board:
"Starfish systems are wonderful incubators for creative, destructive, innovative, or crazy ideas. Anything goes. Good ideas will attract more people, and in a circle they'll execute the plan. Institute order and rigid structure, and while you may achieve standardization, you'll also squelch creativity. Where creativity is valuable, learning to accept chaos is a must."
March 10, 2022
“This book is about what happens when there’s no one in charge… in many arenas, a lack of traditional leadership is giving rise to powerful groups that are turning industry and society upside down. In short, there’s a revolution raging all around us… The harder you fight this hidden force the stronger it gets. The more chaotic it seems, the more resilient it is. The more you try to control it, the more unpredictable it becomes.”
This book came at the perfect time for an organization that I am helping to build - it gave language and a framework to what was already happening and showed me how to accelerate our decentralized organization faster.
SPOILER ALERT: Here are my key insights. However, what makes this book enjoyable are the stories or case studies that illuminate Brafman's and Beckstrom's points. For those, you'll want to read the whole book.
Spiders can survive if you cut off an arm, though it won’t grow back, but chop off its head and it dies. Starfish have an incredible quality to them: If you cut an arm off, most grow a new arm. And with some varieties, the animal can replicate itself from just a single piece of an arm. They can regenerate because they are a neural network of cells – for the starfish to move one of the arms must convince the other arms that it’s a good idea to do so. The starfish doesn’t have a brain, there is no central command.
Two opposite systems:
1. Centralized organization types are coercive – there’s a clear leader in charge and specific places where decisions are made. The leader is assumed to be the most knowledgeable and has the power to make key decisions. They use command-and-control (aka hierarchy) to keep order, make it efficient, and function day to day. In a healthy organization, each part, with a distinct function, is steady and helps to support the weight of the organization. They can monopolize an industry. Rules need to be set and enforced or the system collapses. Example: Spiders. The Aztecs. AT&T. A plane. NCSA browser. The government.
2. Decentralized organizations are open – there’s no clear leader, hierarchy (it’s flat), or headquarters. When and if a leader emerges, that person has little power over others so the best they can do is influence by example. That person is a spiritual and cultural leader who people follow because they want to, not because they have to. They’re not in the habit of getting rich or getting power. Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions without approvals, enabling the system to quickly adapt and respond. Anyone can do anything and everything (all the talents or gifts). There are rules and norms but they’re enforced by all the people, creating a sense of trust and community. There’s no application and if you step out, you’re always welcome back to come back. Example: Starfish. The Apaches. Skype. Peer to peer sharing networks like Napster. The Internet (e.g. Apache website software – 67% of websites run on this, Wikipedia, Craigslist). Alcoholics Anonymous.
Two types of hybrid organizations:
To benefit from decentralization a company need not radically change its structure. Appreciative inquiry is a process to decentralize an organization by asking meaningful questions across all levels of an organization, breaking down hierarchical differences. Because everyone feels they have been heard, participants become more likely to support a new plan. GM stopped short while Toyota completely embraced this model, finding the “decentralized sweet spot” – the spot on the continuum that yields the best competitive position. Just because you’re on the sweet spot now doesn’t mean it won’t shift in the future. In any industry based on information the forces of anonymity and free information flow pull the sweet spot toward decentralization. At the same time the more important the forces of security and accountability are (especially if something is unfamiliar), the more likely it is that the sweet spot will tend towards centralization.
1. Centralized company that decentralizes the customer experience. This is often necessary for survival. E.g. Ebay user ratings created a network effect (decentral) + PayPal where safety, structure, and accountability are necessary (central). Amazon (central) tapped desire for community and channeled into network of reviewers (decentral). Oprah production co (central) + her book club (decentral circles). Intuit, Google, IBM, Sun.
2. Centralized company that decentralizes internal parts of the business. They have a CEO and some hierarchy but also have starfishlike DNA. E.g. GE’s Jack Welch separated company into independent standalone units. Draper Fisher Jurvetson venture capitalist has 42 offices with 71 partners and will look at anything.
How can you tell which system something is?
1. Is there a person in charge?
2. Are there headquarters?
3. If you thump it on the head, will it die?
4. Is there a clear division of roles?
5. If you take out a unit, is the organization harmed?
6. Are knowledge and power concentrated or distributed?
7. Is the organization flexible or rigid?
8. Can you count the employees or participants?
9. Are working groups funded by the organization, or are they self-funding?
10. Do working groups communicate directly or through intermediaries?
Neither is good or bad but when we’re used to seeing something a certain way it’s hard to imagine it being any other way. “Over time industries swing from being decentralized to centralized and back again. In response to overcentralized industries or institutions, people rebel and create open systems. We call this radical swing ‘the accordion principle.’” Example: 19th c individual musicians (decentralized) -> 20th c big 5 music labels (centralized) -> 21st c Napster (decentralized).
“From the user perspective, people don’t notice or care whether they’re interacting with a spider or a starfish. As long as they’re given freedom, as long as they can do what they want to do, they’re happy.”
Principles of Decentralization
1. When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized. Their flexibility, shared power, and ambiguity make decentralized organizations immune to attacks that destroy centralized systems.
2. It’s easy to mistake starfish for spiders. Their power is easy to overlook.
3. An open system doesn’t have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system. It’s not that open systems necessarily make better decisions. It’s just that they’re able to respond more quickly because each member has access to knowledge and the ability to make direct use of it. Information and knowledge naturally filter in at the edges, closer to where the action is. E.g. Skype’s users each host a tiny portion of the directory so there is no central user listing.
4. Open systems can easily mutate. They are flexible, equal, and constantly changing – spreading, growing, shrinking, dying, and reemerging. There’s no way to tell how many members there are because there is no central command keeping tabs.
5. The decentralized organization sneaks up on you. It can grow incredibly quickly. Centralized organizations amass resources (costly infrastructure) and grow over long periods of time.
6. As industries become decentralized, overall profits decrease. It’s why you want to be on the lookout for any starfish before they take an industry by storm.
7. Put people into an open system and they’ll automatically want to contribute. Contributions are remarkably accurate. There’s something rewarding about contributing. You will get chaos but also incredible creativity.
8. When attacked centralized organizations tend to become even more centralized.
Five Foundations of a decentralized organization
“A decentralized organization stands on five legs. As with the starfish it can lose a leg or two and still survive. But when you have all the legs working together, a decentralized organization can really take off.”
1. Circles: Each group is independent and autonomous. Once you join, you’re an equal.
• “The internet has allowed circles to become virtual. The barrier to forming and joining virtual circles has become dramatically lower… so easy and seamless that most of us are members of a decentralized circle of one kind or another… They are also more amorphous and difficult to identify… Because participants aren’t spending every moment together, their bond isn’t as strong.”
• “Being in the presence of other participants adds a dimension of closeness, and a sense of ownership emerges.”
• “A circle can have a nearly unlimited number of participants… On the one hand it’s easy to join and you get diversity. On the other had when circles take on more than about 14 members the bond breaks down… This opens the door to free-riding or destructive behavior. No longer does everyone have to pull their weight.”
• “Circles aren’t lawless. Instead of rules, they depend on norms… The norms become the backbone of the circle.” Self-enforcement makes the norms even more powerful than rules. You created it. You signed up for it. You begin to trust one another.
2. The Catalyst: These people spark a new idea or initiates a circle, then get out of the way, ceding/transferring control and responsibility to the members. This person’s charisma has a subtlety to it. They naturally inspire and connect people. The tools of a catalyst are genuine interest in others, loose connections (they thrive on meeting new people and find these connections meaningful), mapping, desire to help, passion, meet people where they are, EQ (weave emotional connections into fabric of the org), trust (all they can control is whether people have personal relationships based on trust, can’t control outcome), inspiration, tolerance for ambiguity (“I don’t know.”), hands-off approach, receding. They can be useful at times within a central organization when you need agents of change – let them dream and they’ll thrive there. E.g. Granville Sharp in the anti-slavery movement in UK.
• “In chemistry, a catalyst is any element or compound that initiates a reaction without fusing into that reaction.”
• “A catalyst develops an idea, shares it with others, and leads by example.” But they walk a fine line as they don’t want to cheer so much it becomes all about them.
• “When his or her job is done, a catalyst knows it’s time to move on. Once the catalyst leaves, however, his or her presence is still felt. The catalyst is an inspirational figure who spurs others to action. Circles don’t form on their own.”
• “A catalyst’s most important relationships are based on trust and understanding.” They are great listeners, realizing how important it is to understand what people truly want. They’re able to suggest ways to channel your energy into what you’re excited about.
• It takes a specialist to not only map people but use the map to make strategic introductions between the right individuals, navigating their maps with ease and speed to make new connections and form new circles.
• They have a passion for helping people – this fuels their ability to connect people and is essential. Every time they have a conversation with someone they’re actively thinking, How can I help this person? Who can I introduce this person to? I just want to help this person, I just want to make this person better.
• They focus on listening and acknowledging, not telling people what to do but helping them find their own solutions. They assume a peer relationship and listens intently. You follow a catalyst because he understands you. When people feel heard, understood, and supported, they are more likely to change.
• “When the catalyst stays around too long and becomes absorbed into his creation, the whole structure becomes more centralized.”
• Lao-tzu said, “a leader is best when people barely know that he exists; not so good when people obey and acclaim him; worst when they despise him.”
3. Ideology: Ideology is the glue that holds decentralized organizations together. Without ideology, people wouldn’t have the motivation to remain decentralized. How strong or powerful the ideology is determines how long it lasts and if it can be replaced by a similar ideology.
• “The way to mobilize people is to share inspirational stories.”
4. The Preexisting Network: Almost every decentralized organization that has made it big was launched from a preexisting platform. e.g. Quakers for the anti-slavery movement.
• “Typically, it takes the special skills of a catalyst to enter an existing network of people, gaining their trust… but the internet is a breeding ground and launching pad for new starfish organizations… It is because of the platform it provides that we are seeing a revolution.”
5. The Champion: This person is relentless is promoting a new idea, they are the implementer. There is nothing subtle about them - they never let go and don’t do things halfway. They are inherently hyperactive. They tend to be more like salesmen than organizers or connectors. They help form new circles. E.g. Thomas Clarkson in the anti-slavery movement. (note Wilberforce was an ally and politician who got all the credit though it was really Sharp and Clarkson and the Quakers)
Strategies to combat a starfish invasion:
“Starfish are not invincible.” You can change or reduce the power of starfish or combat with another starfish.
1. Changing ideology: It takes at least a month of concerted persuasion to change someone’s ideology which is the basic DNA of an organization. You can have the most success changing the ideology of a decentralized organization if you focus on helping them but the process is subtle and gradual. People become defensive and closed off when someone tries to control or manipulate.
2. Centralize them (the Cow Approach): Give them a scarce resource so that their power shifts from symbolic to material. Once they start concentrating authoritative power over something, they want more control to protect their interests. With power over rights, the catalyst becomes a CEO and the circles become competitive.
3. Decentralize yourself: Decentralized organizations can be so resilient that it’s hard to affect their internal structure. The best opponent for a starfish organization is often another starfish.
Rules of the new world:
1. Diseconomies of scale – being small can provide a fundamental economic advantage as the cost of entering a new market dramatically decreases.
2. The network effect – the overall value of the network increases with the addition of each new member.
3. The power of chaos – in seemingly chaotic systems users are free to do what they want, incubating creative, destructive, innovative ideas. Good ideas attract people and in a circle they’ll execute the plan. Where creativity is valuable, learning to accept chaos is a must.
4. Knowledge at the edge – the best knowledge is often at the fringe of the organization.
5. Everyone wants to contribute – members have a fundamental desire to share.
6. Beware the hydra response – don’t try to cut off its head as it only proliferates.
7. Catalysts rule – they are important because they inspire people to action. At their best they connect people and maintain the drumbeat of the ideology.
8. The values are the organization – ideology is the fuel and most successful starfish organizations were started with what seemed at the time to be radical ideology.
9. Measure, monitor, and manage – when measuring a decentralized network it’s better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong. What matters is looking at circles (growing, active, independent, distributed, interconnected, mutating, more/less decentralized?).
10. Flatten or be flattened – fighting forces of change is at best futile and at worst counterproductive but these same forces can be harnessed for immense power (go hybrid to survive).
This book came at the perfect time for an organization that I am helping to build - it gave language and a framework to what was already happening and showed me how to accelerate our decentralized organization faster.
SPOILER ALERT: Here are my key insights. However, what makes this book enjoyable are the stories or case studies that illuminate Brafman's and Beckstrom's points. For those, you'll want to read the whole book.
Spiders can survive if you cut off an arm, though it won’t grow back, but chop off its head and it dies. Starfish have an incredible quality to them: If you cut an arm off, most grow a new arm. And with some varieties, the animal can replicate itself from just a single piece of an arm. They can regenerate because they are a neural network of cells – for the starfish to move one of the arms must convince the other arms that it’s a good idea to do so. The starfish doesn’t have a brain, there is no central command.
Two opposite systems:
1. Centralized organization types are coercive – there’s a clear leader in charge and specific places where decisions are made. The leader is assumed to be the most knowledgeable and has the power to make key decisions. They use command-and-control (aka hierarchy) to keep order, make it efficient, and function day to day. In a healthy organization, each part, with a distinct function, is steady and helps to support the weight of the organization. They can monopolize an industry. Rules need to be set and enforced or the system collapses. Example: Spiders. The Aztecs. AT&T. A plane. NCSA browser. The government.
2. Decentralized organizations are open – there’s no clear leader, hierarchy (it’s flat), or headquarters. When and if a leader emerges, that person has little power over others so the best they can do is influence by example. That person is a spiritual and cultural leader who people follow because they want to, not because they have to. They’re not in the habit of getting rich or getting power. Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions without approvals, enabling the system to quickly adapt and respond. Anyone can do anything and everything (all the talents or gifts). There are rules and norms but they’re enforced by all the people, creating a sense of trust and community. There’s no application and if you step out, you’re always welcome back to come back. Example: Starfish. The Apaches. Skype. Peer to peer sharing networks like Napster. The Internet (e.g. Apache website software – 67% of websites run on this, Wikipedia, Craigslist). Alcoholics Anonymous.
Two types of hybrid organizations:
To benefit from decentralization a company need not radically change its structure. Appreciative inquiry is a process to decentralize an organization by asking meaningful questions across all levels of an organization, breaking down hierarchical differences. Because everyone feels they have been heard, participants become more likely to support a new plan. GM stopped short while Toyota completely embraced this model, finding the “decentralized sweet spot” – the spot on the continuum that yields the best competitive position. Just because you’re on the sweet spot now doesn’t mean it won’t shift in the future. In any industry based on information the forces of anonymity and free information flow pull the sweet spot toward decentralization. At the same time the more important the forces of security and accountability are (especially if something is unfamiliar), the more likely it is that the sweet spot will tend towards centralization.
1. Centralized company that decentralizes the customer experience. This is often necessary for survival. E.g. Ebay user ratings created a network effect (decentral) + PayPal where safety, structure, and accountability are necessary (central). Amazon (central) tapped desire for community and channeled into network of reviewers (decentral). Oprah production co (central) + her book club (decentral circles). Intuit, Google, IBM, Sun.
2. Centralized company that decentralizes internal parts of the business. They have a CEO and some hierarchy but also have starfishlike DNA. E.g. GE’s Jack Welch separated company into independent standalone units. Draper Fisher Jurvetson venture capitalist has 42 offices with 71 partners and will look at anything.
How can you tell which system something is?
1. Is there a person in charge?
2. Are there headquarters?
3. If you thump it on the head, will it die?
4. Is there a clear division of roles?
5. If you take out a unit, is the organization harmed?
6. Are knowledge and power concentrated or distributed?
7. Is the organization flexible or rigid?
8. Can you count the employees or participants?
9. Are working groups funded by the organization, or are they self-funding?
10. Do working groups communicate directly or through intermediaries?
Neither is good or bad but when we’re used to seeing something a certain way it’s hard to imagine it being any other way. “Over time industries swing from being decentralized to centralized and back again. In response to overcentralized industries or institutions, people rebel and create open systems. We call this radical swing ‘the accordion principle.’” Example: 19th c individual musicians (decentralized) -> 20th c big 5 music labels (centralized) -> 21st c Napster (decentralized).
“From the user perspective, people don’t notice or care whether they’re interacting with a spider or a starfish. As long as they’re given freedom, as long as they can do what they want to do, they’re happy.”
Principles of Decentralization
1. When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized. Their flexibility, shared power, and ambiguity make decentralized organizations immune to attacks that destroy centralized systems.
2. It’s easy to mistake starfish for spiders. Their power is easy to overlook.
3. An open system doesn’t have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system. It’s not that open systems necessarily make better decisions. It’s just that they’re able to respond more quickly because each member has access to knowledge and the ability to make direct use of it. Information and knowledge naturally filter in at the edges, closer to where the action is. E.g. Skype’s users each host a tiny portion of the directory so there is no central user listing.
4. Open systems can easily mutate. They are flexible, equal, and constantly changing – spreading, growing, shrinking, dying, and reemerging. There’s no way to tell how many members there are because there is no central command keeping tabs.
5. The decentralized organization sneaks up on you. It can grow incredibly quickly. Centralized organizations amass resources (costly infrastructure) and grow over long periods of time.
6. As industries become decentralized, overall profits decrease. It’s why you want to be on the lookout for any starfish before they take an industry by storm.
7. Put people into an open system and they’ll automatically want to contribute. Contributions are remarkably accurate. There’s something rewarding about contributing. You will get chaos but also incredible creativity.
8. When attacked centralized organizations tend to become even more centralized.
Five Foundations of a decentralized organization
“A decentralized organization stands on five legs. As with the starfish it can lose a leg or two and still survive. But when you have all the legs working together, a decentralized organization can really take off.”
1. Circles: Each group is independent and autonomous. Once you join, you’re an equal.
• “The internet has allowed circles to become virtual. The barrier to forming and joining virtual circles has become dramatically lower… so easy and seamless that most of us are members of a decentralized circle of one kind or another… They are also more amorphous and difficult to identify… Because participants aren’t spending every moment together, their bond isn’t as strong.”
• “Being in the presence of other participants adds a dimension of closeness, and a sense of ownership emerges.”
• “A circle can have a nearly unlimited number of participants… On the one hand it’s easy to join and you get diversity. On the other had when circles take on more than about 14 members the bond breaks down… This opens the door to free-riding or destructive behavior. No longer does everyone have to pull their weight.”
• “Circles aren’t lawless. Instead of rules, they depend on norms… The norms become the backbone of the circle.” Self-enforcement makes the norms even more powerful than rules. You created it. You signed up for it. You begin to trust one another.
2. The Catalyst: These people spark a new idea or initiates a circle, then get out of the way, ceding/transferring control and responsibility to the members. This person’s charisma has a subtlety to it. They naturally inspire and connect people. The tools of a catalyst are genuine interest in others, loose connections (they thrive on meeting new people and find these connections meaningful), mapping, desire to help, passion, meet people where they are, EQ (weave emotional connections into fabric of the org), trust (all they can control is whether people have personal relationships based on trust, can’t control outcome), inspiration, tolerance for ambiguity (“I don’t know.”), hands-off approach, receding. They can be useful at times within a central organization when you need agents of change – let them dream and they’ll thrive there. E.g. Granville Sharp in the anti-slavery movement in UK.
• “In chemistry, a catalyst is any element or compound that initiates a reaction without fusing into that reaction.”
• “A catalyst develops an idea, shares it with others, and leads by example.” But they walk a fine line as they don’t want to cheer so much it becomes all about them.
• “When his or her job is done, a catalyst knows it’s time to move on. Once the catalyst leaves, however, his or her presence is still felt. The catalyst is an inspirational figure who spurs others to action. Circles don’t form on their own.”
• “A catalyst’s most important relationships are based on trust and understanding.” They are great listeners, realizing how important it is to understand what people truly want. They’re able to suggest ways to channel your energy into what you’re excited about.
• It takes a specialist to not only map people but use the map to make strategic introductions between the right individuals, navigating their maps with ease and speed to make new connections and form new circles.
• They have a passion for helping people – this fuels their ability to connect people and is essential. Every time they have a conversation with someone they’re actively thinking, How can I help this person? Who can I introduce this person to? I just want to help this person, I just want to make this person better.
• They focus on listening and acknowledging, not telling people what to do but helping them find their own solutions. They assume a peer relationship and listens intently. You follow a catalyst because he understands you. When people feel heard, understood, and supported, they are more likely to change.
• “When the catalyst stays around too long and becomes absorbed into his creation, the whole structure becomes more centralized.”
• Lao-tzu said, “a leader is best when people barely know that he exists; not so good when people obey and acclaim him; worst when they despise him.”
3. Ideology: Ideology is the glue that holds decentralized organizations together. Without ideology, people wouldn’t have the motivation to remain decentralized. How strong or powerful the ideology is determines how long it lasts and if it can be replaced by a similar ideology.
• “The way to mobilize people is to share inspirational stories.”
4. The Preexisting Network: Almost every decentralized organization that has made it big was launched from a preexisting platform. e.g. Quakers for the anti-slavery movement.
• “Typically, it takes the special skills of a catalyst to enter an existing network of people, gaining their trust… but the internet is a breeding ground and launching pad for new starfish organizations… It is because of the platform it provides that we are seeing a revolution.”
5. The Champion: This person is relentless is promoting a new idea, they are the implementer. There is nothing subtle about them - they never let go and don’t do things halfway. They are inherently hyperactive. They tend to be more like salesmen than organizers or connectors. They help form new circles. E.g. Thomas Clarkson in the anti-slavery movement. (note Wilberforce was an ally and politician who got all the credit though it was really Sharp and Clarkson and the Quakers)
Strategies to combat a starfish invasion:
“Starfish are not invincible.” You can change or reduce the power of starfish or combat with another starfish.
1. Changing ideology: It takes at least a month of concerted persuasion to change someone’s ideology which is the basic DNA of an organization. You can have the most success changing the ideology of a decentralized organization if you focus on helping them but the process is subtle and gradual. People become defensive and closed off when someone tries to control or manipulate.
2. Centralize them (the Cow Approach): Give them a scarce resource so that their power shifts from symbolic to material. Once they start concentrating authoritative power over something, they want more control to protect their interests. With power over rights, the catalyst becomes a CEO and the circles become competitive.
3. Decentralize yourself: Decentralized organizations can be so resilient that it’s hard to affect their internal structure. The best opponent for a starfish organization is often another starfish.
Rules of the new world:
1. Diseconomies of scale – being small can provide a fundamental economic advantage as the cost of entering a new market dramatically decreases.
2. The network effect – the overall value of the network increases with the addition of each new member.
3. The power of chaos – in seemingly chaotic systems users are free to do what they want, incubating creative, destructive, innovative ideas. Good ideas attract people and in a circle they’ll execute the plan. Where creativity is valuable, learning to accept chaos is a must.
4. Knowledge at the edge – the best knowledge is often at the fringe of the organization.
5. Everyone wants to contribute – members have a fundamental desire to share.
6. Beware the hydra response – don’t try to cut off its head as it only proliferates.
7. Catalysts rule – they are important because they inspire people to action. At their best they connect people and maintain the drumbeat of the ideology.
8. The values are the organization – ideology is the fuel and most successful starfish organizations were started with what seemed at the time to be radical ideology.
9. Measure, monitor, and manage – when measuring a decentralized network it’s better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong. What matters is looking at circles (growing, active, independent, distributed, interconnected, mutating, more/less decentralized?).
10. Flatten or be flattened – fighting forces of change is at best futile and at worst counterproductive but these same forces can be harnessed for immense power (go hybrid to survive).
April 12, 2009
I read this book a while ago, but a recent conversation caused me to revisit it. It's a pretty interesting read, but doesn't, to my mind, provide any major insights. It is true that de-centralized organizations are really hard to topple. The authors make this point again and again, coming back repeatedly to Napster and online file sharing as their prime example.
The thing is, that all the successful organizations they profile started with pretty low stakes. How many kids came up with ideas for software in their dorm rooms? Probably thousands, a few succeeded. Those who didn't surely mostly went on to live perfectly good lives. Free music doesn't work out? So what? Your auction site (eBay) fails? Again, people just go back to yard sales. Craig's list may be responsible for destroying newspapers, but it's by accident. The stakes didn't start there. The only organization with high stakes from the start was AA, and the stakes were only high to the alcoholics, many of whom society had already written off.
So--does this model of anarchistic leadership have anything to teach us about high stakes organizations? I don't know, the authors never go there. They do brush on organizations that are de-centralized, but that doesn't mean leaderless.
The thing is, that all the successful organizations they profile started with pretty low stakes. How many kids came up with ideas for software in their dorm rooms? Probably thousands, a few succeeded. Those who didn't surely mostly went on to live perfectly good lives. Free music doesn't work out? So what? Your auction site (eBay) fails? Again, people just go back to yard sales. Craig's list may be responsible for destroying newspapers, but it's by accident. The stakes didn't start there. The only organization with high stakes from the start was AA, and the stakes were only high to the alcoholics, many of whom society had already written off.
So--does this model of anarchistic leadership have anything to teach us about high stakes organizations? I don't know, the authors never go there. They do brush on organizations that are de-centralized, but that doesn't mean leaderless.
December 14, 2015
Great! I wish Brafman had written this, and I could have read it, decades ago.
Brafman's thesis is that a centrally controlled organization is slowed by that central control, and can be paralyzed if something interferes with that system, while organizations that share a philosophy and goal, a knowledge base, and a methodology, but are not centrally managed, can't be stopped by a single point of failure. For one example, compare the dismal performance of centrally controlled industries and economies such as those under many totalitarian governments and the much more dynamic and successful performance of economies where no one is in charge. It's the reason that big businesses often do better with a franchise model than a wholly-owned model. For the best example of all, just look at the Internet - it was specifically designed to be impossible to knock out by destroying any node or section (by DARPA, as it was originally a Cold War project intended to survive a possible nuclear strike by the USSR.)
This bears closely on politics, warfare, and terrorism as well. This is the model that Al Qaeda made famous in that realm by supplying training, resources, and information to ideologically driven terrorist groups worldwide without trying to choose or direct most of their operations. Applying these principles in a more legitimate and more limited way, the most responsive and effective military organizations are those that push decision-making authority down to the lowest practicable level, often the corporals or PFCs on the spot, telling them what the higher-ups want to happen but leaving it to them to work out the 'how' because they have the best picture of what's happening where they are. It's how the Wehrmacht worked, how the Israeli military works, how the U.S. Marine Corps works, and how special forces worldwide work, among other examples.
This model is the future of all large enterprises, I think, as events keep moving faster and the volume of information on any given topic keeps growing to the point where no central leadership can stay on top of it, even with computers and artificial intelligence. If - as many predict - humanity starts moving industries into space to use the resources in asteroids near Earth and in the main belt between Mars and Jupiter, it will become even more necessary - it's hard to micromanage when your phone calls have a lag time of hours each way.
Personally, this is the management model I've always preferred. When I was a company commander in the Marine Corps (over twenty years ago now) I had detachments scattered around southern California at times, as well as doing widely varied tasks at Camp Pendleton where we were based. My approach, which I learned from outstanding leaders I'd had, was to let my people know what needed to happen, let them figure out how, run interference for them, and make sure they got credit for their achievements when all was finished. Worked like a dream, and it was a whole lot easier and got better results than the micromanaging approach my predecessor and successor in that job felt they had to take.
Brafman's thesis is that a centrally controlled organization is slowed by that central control, and can be paralyzed if something interferes with that system, while organizations that share a philosophy and goal, a knowledge base, and a methodology, but are not centrally managed, can't be stopped by a single point of failure. For one example, compare the dismal performance of centrally controlled industries and economies such as those under many totalitarian governments and the much more dynamic and successful performance of economies where no one is in charge. It's the reason that big businesses often do better with a franchise model than a wholly-owned model. For the best example of all, just look at the Internet - it was specifically designed to be impossible to knock out by destroying any node or section (by DARPA, as it was originally a Cold War project intended to survive a possible nuclear strike by the USSR.)
This bears closely on politics, warfare, and terrorism as well. This is the model that Al Qaeda made famous in that realm by supplying training, resources, and information to ideologically driven terrorist groups worldwide without trying to choose or direct most of their operations. Applying these principles in a more legitimate and more limited way, the most responsive and effective military organizations are those that push decision-making authority down to the lowest practicable level, often the corporals or PFCs on the spot, telling them what the higher-ups want to happen but leaving it to them to work out the 'how' because they have the best picture of what's happening where they are. It's how the Wehrmacht worked, how the Israeli military works, how the U.S. Marine Corps works, and how special forces worldwide work, among other examples.
This model is the future of all large enterprises, I think, as events keep moving faster and the volume of information on any given topic keeps growing to the point where no central leadership can stay on top of it, even with computers and artificial intelligence. If - as many predict - humanity starts moving industries into space to use the resources in asteroids near Earth and in the main belt between Mars and Jupiter, it will become even more necessary - it's hard to micromanage when your phone calls have a lag time of hours each way.
Personally, this is the management model I've always preferred. When I was a company commander in the Marine Corps (over twenty years ago now) I had detachments scattered around southern California at times, as well as doing widely varied tasks at Camp Pendleton where we were based. My approach, which I learned from outstanding leaders I'd had, was to let my people know what needed to happen, let them figure out how, run interference for them, and make sure they got credit for their achievements when all was finished. Worked like a dream, and it was a whole lot easier and got better results than the micromanaging approach my predecessor and successor in that job felt they had to take.
July 1, 2023
My husband and I read this one together. This was such a fascinating book to read. And honestly, by the end, I was so impressed not only with the information but also how well written it was. What a masterful job! My husband’s input is: “In my opinion, this would be required reading for anyone who wants to be a business, church, or organizational leader.”
November 3, 2016
I am happy I finally scratched this one off the list. Starfish and the Spider studies very distributed organizations. What the heck does that mean? Good question. We have been fighting them for decades. Terrorists. They operate in small, loosely networked cells. There really is no "leadership" per se. There are just cells and cells and cells. We wipe one out....there is usually another one the next day. One would say this is job security run rampant for us military types. Others would say these are very dangerous organizations. Ones that could pull of highjacking of jetliners for the use as missiles on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The one theme stressed over and over again is that these organizations are extremely difficult to destroy. There is no head...so targets are elusive. The is no Command and Control system. The US War Machine is a honed weapon that shattered the 4th largest army in the world in 1991. Again, the same machine was even better perfected and took down Iraq in a matter of weeks. Yet, the Machine is not geared to fight a small group of extremists huddled around a campfire in the remote wilderness. Don't get me wrong, I am not a doomsday guy here. The Taliban and Al Qaeda networks have paid dearly. One needs only to watch a FLIR video of the Apache Gunships in Afghanistan to see what the Machine can do. The other resonant them is that of regeneration much like a starfish. We do have victories. Our folks are completing missions and taking bad guys down. Yet, there are more bad guys. And that has been what we have seen. The Taliban can take some punishment. We saw this before. We saw this in Vietnam. We can change the dates and delete Al Qaeda and replace with Viet Cong and we have the same thing. Overall the message of the book is clear: be ready for some long nights and some tough times when dealing with loosely distributed, leaderless organizations.
December 18, 2011
Определено най-вдъхновяващата книга, която някога съм чел!
http://knigazateb.com/knigi/nehudojes...
Тя е радикална, вдъхновяваща и обсебваща. И е от онези книги, които могат да накарат всеки да промени навиците си и дори бизнеса си, рискувайки всичо в името на една привидно щура идея. Мога съвсем честно да си призная, че тя промени и мен. Вече съм само редактор „Новини“ в сайта, който създадох и след това развих заедно с няколко души, но това ме прави още по-щастлив!
Двамата автори имат много проста теза - организациите от типа "морска звезда" - без йерархична структура и без ясно изразено "мозъчно" ядро на управление са много по-гъвкави и устойчиви от организациите от типа "паяк", където решенията се взимат в щаб-квартира и всичко може бързо да свърши при смяна на лидера (виждали сме го прекалено много пъти).
Ори и Род дават доста много примери за отворени организации, в които никой не знае кой е създател или просто никой не стои начело. Не пропускат да опишат и че отношенията от типа "морска звезда" са причината музикалният бизнес да се промени из основи през последните години - просто защото peer-to-peer технологиите го наложиха. Има наистина много примери, въпреки че книгата е писана 2005 година и не успява да проследи докрай всички проявления на управлениския "морска звезда"-ефект през последните години.
Брейфман и Бекстрьом разбира се не твърдят, че в организациите от типа "морска звезда" всичко се случва от само себе си - лидер винаги е нужен, поне един. Те наричат този лидер "катализатор", който обаче дава пример на останалите със своите действия вместо да ги принуждава да вършат нещо насила.
http://knigazateb.com/knigi/nehudojes...
Тя е радикална, вдъхновяваща и обсебваща. И е от онези книги, които могат да накарат всеки да промени навиците си и дори бизнеса си, рискувайки всичо в името на една привидно щура идея. Мога съвсем честно да си призная, че тя промени и мен. Вече съм само редактор „Новини“ в сайта, който създадох и след това развих заедно с няколко души, но това ме прави още по-щастлив!
Двамата автори имат много проста теза - организациите от типа "морска звезда" - без йерархична структура и без ясно изразено "мозъчно" ядро на управление са много по-гъвкави и устойчиви от организациите от типа "паяк", където решенията се взимат в щаб-квартира и всичко може бързо да свърши при смяна на лидера (виждали сме го прекалено много пъти).
Ори и Род дават доста много примери за отворени организации, в които никой не знае кой е създател или просто никой не стои начело. Не пропускат да опишат и че отношенията от типа "морска звезда" са причината музикалният бизнес да се промени из основи през последните години - просто защото peer-to-peer технологиите го наложиха. Има наистина много примери, въпреки че книгата е писана 2005 година и не успява да проследи докрай всички проявления на управлениския "морска звезда"-ефект през последните години.
Брейфман и Бекстрьом разбира се не твърдят, че в организациите от типа "морска звезда" всичко се случва от само себе си - лидер винаги е нужен, поне един. Те наричат този лидер "катализатор", който обаче дава пример на останалите със своите действия вместо да ги принуждава да вършат нещо насила.
July 3, 2013
This book has the clue to the answer as to what we are to do about the corporations and the government ruining our country. It is OUR country. All of ours. Armed revolution is not the answer. It never works in the long run. We must do something that does work. Read this book and start thinking how it applies to everyday life. Remember geographic locations are real and people are real. Governments and "nations" are not real. They are made up, just like high school football teams, clouds, or Captain Jack Sparrow. If we do not acknowledge the reality of something, at a very profound level we put ourselves on a different vibrational level, the way television or radio waves go right through you but can't touch you. There used not to be any "Texas," for example. It's just a made up cookie cutter shape, kind of cool, as if the shape is something real, like the shape of a daisy or a turtle. But
it's simple made up, like the McDonald's logo. The name is made up too. The mispronunciation of the name of a now extinct (want to guess why) Indian tribe.
These things I am saying are not in this book. I am just expressing the thoughts that came to me after I read this cool book.
Lorna Pryor
it's simple made up, like the McDonald's logo. The name is made up too. The mispronunciation of the name of a now extinct (want to guess why) Indian tribe.
These things I am saying are not in this book. I am just expressing the thoughts that came to me after I read this cool book.
Lorna Pryor
April 2, 2010
If you liked this book, you will also like The Cluetrain Manifesto. While I enjoyed the book, it felt to lack the weight of a definitive work. It seemed like they had a theory and found a few examples that would support it rather than deeply studying a phenomenon and finding the intrinsic nature of it. I also think that the authors allowed their politics (not a capital P) slip into the book just enough to reinforce that feeling that they had an agenda rather than reporting on a world-changing agenda. That being said, I did find the book to be an easy read and enjoyable.
January 13, 2019
Excellent!
August 6, 2025
A fun book with some indicative insights into organizations, with leaders and without. Lots of food for thought here.
June 22, 2009
Decentralized organizations can attain levels of power and flexibility unimaginable for tradition organizations. You just have to be willing to give up power over the goals.
quick book on the power of decentralization. goes well with brave new war.
Quotes:
"When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized."
"Although the small P2P companies don't have many resources at their disposal, they're able to react and mutate at a frighteningly quick pace."
"Because they are autonomous, the units of a decentralized organization are almost always self-funding. In open organizations, there is often no central well of money."
"You follow someone - because you respect their skills and you like the results you get, not because the boss told you to."
"A catalyst gets a decentralized organization going and then cedes control to the members."
"By creating circles, tapping into an ideology whose time had come, drawing upon a pre-existing network, and joining forces with a champion, Stanton changed the course of history in the most Mary Poppins of ways. She set the events in action, inspired a movement, and then let go."
"Like you, they'd begin by mapping out all the people they know who might contribute. But they'd think about which people in their network could become advocates."
"When confronted with an aggressive push, most people shut down and become even less likely to change. Rogers practiced a different approach. Rather than suggesting ways for his client to change, he would acknowledge their experience...When people feel heard, when they feel understood and supported, they are more likely to change. A catalysts doesn't prescribe a solution, nor does he hit you over the head with one. Instead, he assumes a peer relationship and listens intently. You don't follow a catalysts because you have to - you follow a catalysts because he understands you. When we give advice to someone, we automatically create a power hierarchy. The advice-giver is superior to the recipient."
"When attacked, centralized organizations tend to become even more centralized."
"Once the Nant'ans had possession of a scarce resource - cows - their power shifted from symbolic to material. Where previously, the Nant'ans had led by example, now they could reward and punish tribe members by giving and withholding this resource. The cows changed everything. Once the Nant'ans gained authoritative power, they began fighting each other for seats on newly created tribal councils and started behaving more and more like would-be "presidents of the Internet"...The power structure, once flat, became hierarchical, with power concentrated at the top...Once people gain a right to property, be it cows or book royalties, they quickly seek out a centralized to protect their interests."
"The moment you introduce property rights into the equation, everything changes: the starfish organization turns into a spider. If you really want to centralize an organization, hand property rights to the catalyst and tell him to distribute resources as he sees fit. With power over property rights, the catalysts turns into a CEO and circles become competitive."
"Buyers were reluctant to switch to a new auction site where sellers didn't have a proven track record; they preferred to stay at eBay. Likewise, sellers with established positive ratings on eBay had a huge incentive to stay on the site rather than go elsewhere and start anew."
quick book on the power of decentralization. goes well with brave new war.
Quotes:
"When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized."
"Although the small P2P companies don't have many resources at their disposal, they're able to react and mutate at a frighteningly quick pace."
"Because they are autonomous, the units of a decentralized organization are almost always self-funding. In open organizations, there is often no central well of money."
"You follow someone - because you respect their skills and you like the results you get, not because the boss told you to."
"A catalyst gets a decentralized organization going and then cedes control to the members."
"By creating circles, tapping into an ideology whose time had come, drawing upon a pre-existing network, and joining forces with a champion, Stanton changed the course of history in the most Mary Poppins of ways. She set the events in action, inspired a movement, and then let go."
"Like you, they'd begin by mapping out all the people they know who might contribute. But they'd think about which people in their network could become advocates."
"When confronted with an aggressive push, most people shut down and become even less likely to change. Rogers practiced a different approach. Rather than suggesting ways for his client to change, he would acknowledge their experience...When people feel heard, when they feel understood and supported, they are more likely to change. A catalysts doesn't prescribe a solution, nor does he hit you over the head with one. Instead, he assumes a peer relationship and listens intently. You don't follow a catalysts because you have to - you follow a catalysts because he understands you. When we give advice to someone, we automatically create a power hierarchy. The advice-giver is superior to the recipient."
"When attacked, centralized organizations tend to become even more centralized."
"Once the Nant'ans had possession of a scarce resource - cows - their power shifted from symbolic to material. Where previously, the Nant'ans had led by example, now they could reward and punish tribe members by giving and withholding this resource. The cows changed everything. Once the Nant'ans gained authoritative power, they began fighting each other for seats on newly created tribal councils and started behaving more and more like would-be "presidents of the Internet"...The power structure, once flat, became hierarchical, with power concentrated at the top...Once people gain a right to property, be it cows or book royalties, they quickly seek out a centralized to protect their interests."
"The moment you introduce property rights into the equation, everything changes: the starfish organization turns into a spider. If you really want to centralize an organization, hand property rights to the catalyst and tell him to distribute resources as he sees fit. With power over property rights, the catalysts turns into a CEO and circles become competitive."
"Buyers were reluctant to switch to a new auction site where sellers didn't have a proven track record; they preferred to stay at eBay. Likewise, sellers with established positive ratings on eBay had a huge incentive to stay on the site rather than go elsewhere and start anew."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 8, 2015
This is one of those books that makes me feel both wowed and sad at the same time. This book gives great examples of the power of decentralization and letting the team or organization run itself. At the same time, it points out the weaknesses of very centralized organizations. Through these I see characteristics of teams I've been on and the way I want to work and the shortcomings of teams I'm on and been on and realize why they struggled.
The authors demonstrate the difference between starfish organisations, with multiple autonomous limbs, and spiders, hierarchical organizations with a single clear leader.
I read scenarios about Toyota, GM, Craigslist, P2P file sharing and the Apache and wonder why is it that hard for some teams to do this?
Starfish teams are empowered teams and that drives success. Those are the teams I want to be on.
I am in the early stages of a long project at work, in a spider organization that is trying to be more nimble and deliver faster. I'll try to impart these on the project team.
I strongly recommend this book and I'm thankful that it was recommended to me.
The authors demonstrate the difference between starfish organisations, with multiple autonomous limbs, and spiders, hierarchical organizations with a single clear leader.
I read scenarios about Toyota, GM, Craigslist, P2P file sharing and the Apache and wonder why is it that hard for some teams to do this?
Starfish teams are empowered teams and that drives success. Those are the teams I want to be on.
I am in the early stages of a long project at work, in a spider organization that is trying to be more nimble and deliver faster. I'll try to impart these on the project team.
I strongly recommend this book and I'm thankful that it was recommended to me.
April 29, 2018
I gave this book 3 stars because it is a little outdated in the examples they use to reinforce their idea of a decentralized (starfish) organization. With those handful of examples they continued to ride them hard though the book.
That’s not to say it’s not worth a quick read as there are a few good messages that come across in the book if you pay attention. There is an example about an individual that builds networks of people and it gives great insight on what is going through their mind to build those networks. For me, that is something that led me deeper to considering how I can bring additional value to those in my established network of professional associations and develop powerful new ones.
Just keep in mind it is written in 2005, but it still has some good business messages.
That’s not to say it’s not worth a quick read as there are a few good messages that come across in the book if you pay attention. There is an example about an individual that builds networks of people and it gives great insight on what is going through their mind to build those networks. For me, that is something that led me deeper to considering how I can bring additional value to those in my established network of professional associations and develop powerful new ones.
Just keep in mind it is written in 2005, but it still has some good business messages.
September 9, 2012
A great contributor to my learning about distributed networks. Using existing platforms to build from was my biggest ah-ha. I didn't know I had so much to thank the Quakers for. I'm also pretty excited about reading the essays of the abolitionists. I can see platforms everywhere now and it's helping me think about how I can further decentralize a few new business models I'm working on.
An unexpected bonus/drag: this book was also a lens into US foreign affairs. When I read the chapter on centralizing decentralized networks, our history of manipulation was crystal clear. All I wrote in the margin was "ick".
An unexpected bonus/drag: this book was also a lens into US foreign affairs. When I read the chapter on centralizing decentralized networks, our history of manipulation was crystal clear. All I wrote in the margin was "ick".
December 26, 2022
من أراد القراءة في إدارة الشركات فعليه بالكتاب📖
عندما تقرأ عنوان الكتاب تشعر بأنك ستقرأ عن الحيوانات، لكن ما إن تبدأ وتفهم ما يقصده الكاتب من العنوان تعلم بأن الكاتب يعني بذلك " إذا قُطع رأس العنكبوت تموت، وإذا قُطع طرف من أطراف نجم البحر ينمو طرف مكانه ويتحوَّل الطرف المبتور إلى نجمة بحر جديدة"
هذا ما حدث ويحدث في عالم الشركات فالكتاب يدمج بين العنكبوت ونجم البحر ويتخذ منهم مثالين على العديد من الشركات التي تتخذ من المركزية ثقافة لها وشركات تتخذ من اللامركزية مبدأ أساسي لها.
قصص تاريخية يستشهد بها الكتاب عن شركات ومنظمات لامركزية اطاحت بالشركات المركزية من العرش.
الكتاب غريب في عنوانه ، مثير في مضمونه، جميل في امثلته الواقعية.
#كتب #اعمال #شركات #إدارة
عندما تقرأ عنوان الكتاب تشعر بأنك ستقرأ عن الحيوانات، لكن ما إن تبدأ وتفهم ما يقصده الكاتب من العنوان تعلم بأن الكاتب يعني بذلك " إذا قُطع رأس العنكبوت تموت، وإذا قُطع طرف من أطراف نجم البحر ينمو طرف مكانه ويتحوَّل الطرف المبتور إلى نجمة بحر جديدة"
هذا ما حدث ويحدث في عالم الشركات فالكتاب يدمج بين العنكبوت ونجم البحر ويتخذ منهم مثالين على العديد من الشركات التي تتخذ من المركزية ثقافة لها وشركات تتخذ من اللامركزية مبدأ أساسي لها.
قصص تاريخية يستشهد بها الكتاب عن شركات ومنظمات لامركزية اطاحت بالشركات المركزية من العرش.
الكتاب غريب في عنوانه ، مثير في مضمونه، جميل في امثلته الواقعية.
#كتب #اعمال #شركات #إدارة
May 24, 2018
Informal, short, and light on detail. Some (rather scattered) good examples of organizations at various levels of centralization, including some discussion near the end on organizations featuring a mixture of centralized and decentralized features. Not very meaty, but easy to digest and containing some food for thought.
December 8, 2019
Highly inspiring on how distributed control works and great stories around it. Made me think different on organizational design and how to use distribution as strength to build an adaptive system.
Before the book I thought I was already progressive and after it I saw multiple inspiring ways to grow and look different.
Before the book I thought I was already progressive and after it I saw multiple inspiring ways to grow and look different.
March 5, 2021
The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations
by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom
3.5 out of 5 stars
Surely, I never thought I could finish reading this book. Lately, I have a difficulty to read a book, moreover a non-fiction one. So, when I tried to read this book and felt to enjoy it, I just couldn't believe that I end up reading it until the end.
The main discussion from this book is about centralized and decentralized organization. The author used the analogue of starfish and spider to explain it. To be honest, I am very glad because I can easily understand the concept of it. I can see why the author emphasized the greatness of the decentralized organization, or in this case, you can name it as a starfish organization.
After explaining the characteristic of the starfish organization with a lot of case study, start from Apache, Napster, Skype, etc., Brafman also told us about how a starfish organization can be "defeated" and to some extent makes a hybrid organization is more favourable. I said favourable because, with the hybrid organization, you still can gain profit and also maintaining the sustainability of the organization.
One thing that I realized from this book is the crucial role of the catalyst in every starfish organization. I don't know why but this person sounds like a saint who can save the earth. I think, in this opportunistic world, moreover, if someone wants to implement the concept of starfish organization in a business environment, the catalyst would be really easy to be "manipulated". Once the catalyst got power for the materialistic thing, the organization will no longer become a starfish. They will, in the end, become a centralized-spider-organization.
Someday, if I have more time, I would like to make a long review of this book on my blog. Hope I will make it :)
by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom
3.5 out of 5 stars
Surely, I never thought I could finish reading this book. Lately, I have a difficulty to read a book, moreover a non-fiction one. So, when I tried to read this book and felt to enjoy it, I just couldn't believe that I end up reading it until the end.
The main discussion from this book is about centralized and decentralized organization. The author used the analogue of starfish and spider to explain it. To be honest, I am very glad because I can easily understand the concept of it. I can see why the author emphasized the greatness of the decentralized organization, or in this case, you can name it as a starfish organization.
After explaining the characteristic of the starfish organization with a lot of case study, start from Apache, Napster, Skype, etc., Brafman also told us about how a starfish organization can be "defeated" and to some extent makes a hybrid organization is more favourable. I said favourable because, with the hybrid organization, you still can gain profit and also maintaining the sustainability of the organization.
One thing that I realized from this book is the crucial role of the catalyst in every starfish organization. I don't know why but this person sounds like a saint who can save the earth. I think, in this opportunistic world, moreover, if someone wants to implement the concept of starfish organization in a business environment, the catalyst would be really easy to be "manipulated". Once the catalyst got power for the materialistic thing, the organization will no longer become a starfish. They will, in the end, become a centralized-spider-organization.
Someday, if I have more time, I would like to make a long review of this book on my blog. Hope I will make it :)
April 27, 2023
This book encompasses exactly what it sets out to be: A reference point. The examples are meticulous and easy to follow, the authors make their points flow like a play rather than a lecture. Using their own personal experience in conjunction with interviews, the practice of decentralization is demonstrated in numerous ways. The role of a catalyst in a decentralized organization was perhaps the most informative part of the book. The catalyst instills the ideologies of the decentralized organization; then takes a back seat in the operation and performance and serves as a motivation for the small circles that operate within. I have seen a lot of reviews stating that the examples provided are “outdated” and “repetitive”. Although true, the point of the examples is to instill these revolutionary ideas in your brain. I feel as if anyone who poorly rated this book was viewing it as a history lesson, instead of using the book in a practical setting. The blueprint for identifying/creating decentralized organizations established by the authors is to be employed in your own life. Whether it be in your own organization, or if you work in a government setting for example and you’re trying to disrupt a starfish organization. If you view the book as a blueprint for these concepts rather than a lecture, I highly recommend reading it!
August 4, 2020
Interesting breakdown and analysis of centralised and decentralised organisations. At about the halfway mark, I realised that the analysis succeeded because it was anecdotal. There are some insights to be had, but it really requires someone deeply dedicated to implementation to be able to bring those insights to fruition.
Overall the book was an easy, light read, laid out with interesting stories. However, the depth that one expects from an instructive book is missing. This is both a good and bad thing; on the one hand, if the book is serving as an introduction to a topic, this is the right note to strike and easy to consume without a great deal of cogitation. On the other hand, this approach necessitates oversimplification and skimming through other factors and thus not presenting a full picture.
Or perhaps I am spoiled after reading the two tomes of Siddhartha Mukherjee. Those took me weeks to wade through, but every sentence and paragraph demanded great expectations of my ability to understand. It was a mental workout, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. This book wasn't, but as I said before, not necessarily a bad thing.
Overall the book was an easy, light read, laid out with interesting stories. However, the depth that one expects from an instructive book is missing. This is both a good and bad thing; on the one hand, if the book is serving as an introduction to a topic, this is the right note to strike and easy to consume without a great deal of cogitation. On the other hand, this approach necessitates oversimplification and skimming through other factors and thus not presenting a full picture.
Or perhaps I am spoiled after reading the two tomes of Siddhartha Mukherjee. Those took me weeks to wade through, but every sentence and paragraph demanded great expectations of my ability to understand. It was a mental workout, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. This book wasn't, but as I said before, not necessarily a bad thing.
July 5, 2020
If I had to explain the book concisely, I'd say apply the following quote in business, and you've got yourself the summary of the book - "If you cut off a spider’s leg, it’s crippled; if you cut off its head, it dies. But if you cut off a starfish’s leg it grows a new one, and the old leg can grow into an entirely new starfish."
Essentially, the book talks about the power of decentralization in large businesses, and how it can prove to work wonders for its growth. The author takes up case studies of various industries that were once top in their field, and ones which rose up from nothing. How some succeded with the help of decentralization, and how the others died, not being able to take up the challenge. But then again, sticking to one model isn't the best strategy, so the way of taking up a hybrid structure is explained.
The key learning from the book is that the markets are everchanging, and even if one thing works for someone, the other might work better, and the businesses have to be open to even infrastructural changes in order to thrive in the industry.
I picked this book up on a whim, and I can't be happier with the decision. "Highly insightful" would probably be the best way to describe it. Even though the text is dated now (since it was published in 2006), the principles still apply, and if you do a bit of your own research within the current industry scenario, you can find many more interesting things than the book enlists.
Ciao
Ash
Essentially, the book talks about the power of decentralization in large businesses, and how it can prove to work wonders for its growth. The author takes up case studies of various industries that were once top in their field, and ones which rose up from nothing. How some succeded with the help of decentralization, and how the others died, not being able to take up the challenge. But then again, sticking to one model isn't the best strategy, so the way of taking up a hybrid structure is explained.
The key learning from the book is that the markets are everchanging, and even if one thing works for someone, the other might work better, and the businesses have to be open to even infrastructural changes in order to thrive in the industry.
I picked this book up on a whim, and I can't be happier with the decision. "Highly insightful" would probably be the best way to describe it. Even though the text is dated now (since it was published in 2006), the principles still apply, and if you do a bit of your own research within the current industry scenario, you can find many more interesting things than the book enlists.
Ciao
Ash
Read
February 23, 2025Read this because it's on a leadership book list at the college where I work.
When I saw the title, I figured this would be a dire read, sort of what happens when business folks find a metaphor they like and tack on a bunch of clichés. As I started reading it, I worried that it would turn into an apologetic for techbro libertarian utopianism.
It's not either of those things. It's an interesting discussion of the ways centralized and decentralized organizations work. It was published in 2006, so most of the examples, especially in the tech realm, are woefully out of date. It's on the border of being a good article padded out to book length. For all that, though, it was a useful discussion. I thought the chapter on how to counter decentralization was insightful, though the implications were more grim than the tone of the book would imply.
When I saw the title, I figured this would be a dire read, sort of what happens when business folks find a metaphor they like and tack on a bunch of clichés. As I started reading it, I worried that it would turn into an apologetic for techbro libertarian utopianism.
It's not either of those things. It's an interesting discussion of the ways centralized and decentralized organizations work. It was published in 2006, so most of the examples, especially in the tech realm, are woefully out of date. It's on the border of being a good article padded out to book length. For all that, though, it was a useful discussion. I thought the chapter on how to counter decentralization was insightful, though the implications were more grim than the tone of the book would imply.
January 31, 2021
Probably more original when it first came out (before decentralized systems became so popular), this touts the benefits of loosely led organizations that rely on network effects. It's written in the mould of Malcolm Gladwell's style of making arguments through chronicling interesting characters, but less witty. I would have also appreciated more focus on the systems than the "catalysts", even if that contradicts traditional "business book style". It's reasonably short, but could have achieved the same in half the pages.
Solid idea, but longer than it needed to be and too much of a focus on individuals than the systems.
Solid idea, but longer than it needed to be and too much of a focus on individuals than the systems.
November 18, 2021
This was a fascinating read. I gave it four stars because each chapter made its point fairly early on, and essentially the entire book could’ve been about 100 pages shorter and still had the same affect. I enjoyed reading and interacting with this book with my biblical worldview glasses on, noticing parallels and comparisons to how decentralized components of Christianity have made it so powerful throughout the years. Many Christian leaders have been murdered, imprisoned and persecuted and yet the church only grows stronger. But I also enjoyed learning of how centralized and decentralized characteristics have contributed to the success and failures of various companies be they brick and mortar institutions or Internet-based platforms. This is definitely not a life transforming read, but it was fascinating and I look forward to discussing this with others in the future.
February 11, 2019
Well written and easy to read book about big ideas. They use case studies and historical examples to make their framework accessible. They also offer practical advice on how to work with decentralized structures like differentiating your catalyst from your champion and understanding the different roles the two of them play.
February 20, 2020
Decentralize, empower your employees by granting them autonomy, establish guidelines and limits but not hard and fast regulations (commanders intent for those with military backgrounds), don’t be afraid to adapt, reward successful ideas but don’t punish bad ones.
I don’t think all of the ideas in this book are applicable or have enough successful examples to be proven, but it has enough good ideas to be read or listened to. 5.5 hour listen.
I don’t think all of the ideas in this book are applicable or have enough successful examples to be proven, but it has enough good ideas to be read or listened to. 5.5 hour listen.
August 11, 2020
Excellent read. Reads a lot like a Malcolm Gladwell book, but with more of an emphasis on a single concept of “Starfish Organizations” directly relating to business and organizations. These concepts are relevant to me in the Marine Corps because the idea of “decentralization” is paramount in USMC doctrine. Would recommend to anyone trying to improve their business and/or organization.
January 9, 2024
Such a leadership shake-up and re-viewing of age old systems kind of read. A challenging, inspiring must-read for anyone.. even for, or maybe especially for, ministers in today’s age. Instant favorite to revisit soon!
October 24, 2018
Must read if you like to understand how civilizations, society and organizations operate, the deeper pattern and meaning behind the structure and working of these social institutions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 506 reviews