It is a dubious proposition, in my view, that a "boss-less" company can or should replace the traditional hierarchical corporation of today as the normative form of business organization.

Here are my reasons for saying this:

For all of the economist's sagacity that the author has and evidently brings to this piece, the author's underlying case against modern hierarchical corporations seems to boil down to a populist analysis that is not so much a proof as a set of ill-developed assertions.

The author claims (a) that hierarchical managements lead to "corporate serfdom" and to "Soviet-like" dominance within the framework of the corporation itself, thereby crushing creativity and wasting resources, (b) that all this is made by possible by "toxic finance," and (c) that it is all "co-dependent with political structures that are losing democratic legitimacy fast."

Corporate serfdom? Toxic finance? Co-dependent on illegitimate political structures? This lumps every early-stage startup with every mega-corporation that has ever existed and, in effect, calls them all illegitimate. And that is a political assumption about "corporations" in the abstract, not an empirical analysis, because it cannot possibly be defended as an empirical analysis. Is it serfdom to join a YC company as a founder or an employee? Is YC a toxic funder? If the answer to both is no, does all this change once startups get bigger? How about a startup that purports to offer a different form of corporate culture ala Google? Are there serfs working at Google? Is their funding toxic? Or does this just apply to a Walmart or a Standard Oil or other mega-corporation that does not specifically do creative work in the tech field? Does hierarchical management consist of simply having the normal forms of corporate government - a board of directors and corporate officers - or does it come about only when people are given authority to hire and fire, to supervise the employment of others, and to direct them in what to do in their jobs? Is this all good, efficient, and respectful of human talent and creativity when the organization is small but soulless and deadening and even "Soviet-like" only when the corporation becomes large? If there is such a distinction, where is that line crossed? And does this mean that the corporate form is not innately evil but that a large organization of whatever type, organized hierarchically in its management structure, is what brings in the evil.

What, then, does Valve offer that makes it different? It too is a corporation. It is privately owned by a few persons who have had the luxury of screening all employees so as to hire only very bright, highly self-motivated persons to do predominantly creative forms of work. Working with such employees, Valve has been able to build a successful model by which these bright, motivated employees get to choose 100% of their projects and have complete freedom on how they manage their own time and on what results they seek to achieve. It all sounds like an amazing work environment but how many businesses get to focus in this way on creative forms of work or get to screen carefully to make sure they only hire self-motivated employees? And how many businesses have the luxury of doing this without needing to raise outside capital through their early stages? Moreover (and the author himself raises this point), to what extent can this scale? Can such a model work if the company grows a thousandfold and suddenly has 40,000 employees? Of course, the model inevitably breaks down at some point along the way because the environment in which the Valve employees currently function is highly unusual if not unique.

Unless human nature should radically change owing to technological progress (a dubious assumption in my view), we can continue to expect that, in any large group, there will always be those who fail to carry their weight, those who seek to take advantage, those who are incompetent, and those who are plain bad actors making life difficult for those around them or trying to cheat the company or steal from it or whatever. A hands-off management that lets all such persons do whatever they want will very quickly find itself immersed in problems and, ultimately, some mechanism needs to be put in place by which employees are managed, are disciplined, are rewarded, are redeployed, etc. in ways that conform to the goals of the organization and not necessarily with those of each individual actor within that organization.

Every form of business organization needs people with a vision to set its model and its goals and to direct people and resources in a way that maximizes the opportunities of successfully reaching those goals. In some situations, some or even all of the impetus for this can come from those who work in common without an overriding authority. Those situations, though, are by definition highly unusual at best. Valve may be one of them and even then it has to managed at some level even by its benign oligarchs who own it. And, even if technological progress could someday supplant the need for corporations, this piece does not make the case for how that will ever be possible. It is, then, an intriguing piece (with thought-provoking elements) but suggestive and incomplete at best in its main argument about Valve and marred by populist assumptions in its broader themes about corporations generally.

Yes, this is written from the standpoint of a startup business lawyer who has dealt with corporate forms of organization for some three decades now. This may give my views an inevitable bias in that direction but it also gives me a close familiarity with how such corporate forms work. From that perspective, what the author says just doesn't ring true. Business organizations generally aren't places where free-flowing creativity will hold sway above all else. The Valve model may be great but I just don't see it being made broadly applicable to the vast majority of businesses as they operate today or as I can even conceive of them operating in the future.