[spaetzleesser]

I always feel that most reorgs are done not because they lead to a fundamentally better structure but just to shake up things and break some managers' fiefdoms that are causing political problems. You could almost pick two or three structures and rotate every three years (which basically happens when leaders get replaced).

After some decades in the industry I think any organizational structure will work if people are honest with each other and leadership proactively addresses problems. I have had countless situations where I pointed out to a VP that certain functions aren't performing and are causing problems for other projects but the VP just shrugged and basically said "there is nothing we can do". Considering that corporations are basically internally run like communist planned economies they share the same pathologies like counterproductive metrics, people pretending things are great and leadership ignoring glaring problems.

[robbintt]

> Considering that corporations are basically internally run like communist planned economies

This is interesting not because of accuracy but because thinking of counter examples is really interesting. I don't study businesses much, do you know of any counter examples?

[renewiltord]

You’ll find more of the independent moving parts thing in larger orgs that Katamari Damacy like Cisco.

But Coase’s Nature of the Firm postulates that a reason for a firm is to reduce transaction costs. Running as a planned economy inside is intentional.

Since Twitter is large, you’ll see that they’re counteracting this with the GM structure. Smart imho.