Adaptive - Crowdsourcing Organizational Design

And now for something completely different.

Why Do We Have Org Charts?

Why do we have org charts? Why do we have managers enforcing these structures? The answer seems simple: to create alignment. Without them, it would be chaos, right? Without managers and org charts, how could we possibly get anything done?

One is a passive mechanism for alignment, the other is active. One enforces the other. This structure is at the heart of almost every company in the world. Yet, for reasons I still don’t understand, we haven’t questioned it enough.

Think about this—in 1854, Daniel McCallum invented the org chart. That’s nearly 170 years ago! So much has changed in the world since then, yet we’re still structuring our companies the same way.

It’s not working anymore.

Organizations Are Misaligned

We live in an era of rapid change. Platforms like AWS provide every single component some MIT graduate could use to disrupt your business overnight. The world is moving faster than ever, yet our organizations remain tragically misaligned.

I recently spoke with a colleague from a major financial institution who had five different managers in four years. When I examine teams, I find that they’re often working at cross-purposes. Even worse, weak players are protected by managers who aren’t pulling their weight, driving away the best talent.

All because of an outdated structure.

Hierarchies Are Inherently Inhuman

Org charts were originally designed for manufacturing, treating businesses like machines. They were built to extract efficiency from human beings, and for a long time, that made sense. But with the rise of the internet and digital transformation, this rigid structure is no longer viable.

What If We Didn’t Need Hierarchy?

Have you heard of Valve, the gaming company? If not, I have a task for you: Google "Valve Employee Handbook" tonight. What you’ll read about is a 400-person company that generates billions in revenue—with no management structure at all.

This is the reality. We don’t work in org charts; we work in networks.

Think about Shadow IT—those unofficial experts in your company who actually get things done. The ones who know how to navigate the mess and make things happen. Organizations are already structured as networks, but we impose a rigid hierarchy on top of them, expecting some omniscient architect to design the perfect org chart.

What If We Could Democratize Alignment?

Many of you raised your hands when I asked if you use Slack. Guess what? You’re already aligning yourselves without any help from a manager.

Slack isn't just a collaboration platform for people—it’s a collaboration platform with bots. Bots are autonomous programs that act as co-workers, automating simple tasks and enabling collaboration in ways we’ve never seen before.

Building an Agile Team Without Managers

In 2013, I started an experiment: could I create a world-class Agile development team with zero managerial oversight? Instead of managers, I built a bot that coached employees on how to coach each other. I also built an Agile administration bot.

This bot wasn’t just an assistant—it actively engaged employees, offering feedback, coaching, and guidance. It worked inside Slack, reaching out to employees and guiding them through structured feedback processes.

The Power of Instant Feedback

One of the key learnings from this experiment was the power of instant, in-the-moment feedback.

Have you ever heard of chicken sexing? It’s the process of determining the gender of a baby chick. If I handed you a chick and asked you to tell me if it was a hen or a rooster, you’d have no idea. But if an expert gave you instant feedback every time you made a guess, you’d learn incredibly fast.

The bot acted as the expert—providing instant feedback on how to give better feedback. Over time, people got better at it. The bot became less active because employees were naturally improving.

The Surprising Power of Subjective Feedback

One unexpected discovery was that subjective feedback drove the most improvement in Agile teams. We’re often taught to be objective as managers, but when people shared personal opinions and emotions, it had a stronger impact. Why? Because organizations are networks. Relationships matter. If you miss a deadline and it frustrates me, that’s valuable feedback. It builds stronger collaboration.

Visualizing Organizational Networks

By analyzing feedback patterns, we could visualize how work actually happens. It doesn’t look like a hierarchy—it looks like a network.

We created real-time visualizations showing team cohesion, performance, and alignment. Instead of managing individuals, we coached the organism—treating the team as a dynamic system rather than a rigid structure.

The Results: Massive Gains in Engagement and Performance

Did this experiment work? Oh, yes.

• Engagement scores skyrocketed—88% in year one, 87% in year two, and 92% in year three.
• Teams using this model opened up hundreds of millions of dollars in market potential.
• The teams achieved the highest concentration of skills in the entire organization.

Most importantly, employees loved their jobs. They felt connected, empowered, and motivated.

The Future: Coaching at Scale

Now, I’m working with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Rutgers to take this concept even further. By categorizing feedback and analyzing performance data, we can deliver personalized coaching at scale—not just for executives, but for every employee.

Organizations Are Already Moving This Way

If you use Slack, Microsoft Teams, or similar collaboration tools, you’re already transitioning to a networked organization. The shift is happening. We just need to recognize and harness it.

The Bottom Line

This model works. It makes organizations more agile, engaged, and effective. If we embrace this shift, we can make work more human—not less.

And the most ironic part? Bots can make us human again.

Thank you.