By Alexandre Kotcherguine , Vision Officer, Investor. This article is Part 4 in a 5-part series on rethinking organisational dominance.
Having established the four archetypes and their failure modes and mitigations in the previous posts, we now turn from diagnosis to the harder question: how these competing logics can be intentionally governed within a single organisation.
A Radical Alternative: Haier's Rendanheyi Model
Perhaps the most radical experiment in organisational design comes from the Chinese home appliance manufacturer, Haier. Facing the threat of irrelevance, CEO Zhang Ruimin initiated a transformation that dismantled the company's traditional hierarchy, eliminating over 12,000 middle manager roles (11).
In its place, he instituted the "Rendanheyi" model, which reorganised the company into a network of over 4,000 autonomous "microenterprises" (MEs) (11). Each ME, typically 10-15 employees, operates as an independent, self-managing business unit responsible for its own P&L (12).
They are not just teams; they are entrepreneurial entities that contract with other MEs for services (e.g., HR, finance, manufacturing) and are directly accountable to their users (13).
This model represents a profound shift in cognitive dominance. It is an extreme form of a Product-Led organisation, where power is radically decentralised to the "Makers" in the MEs. However, it is also Vision-Led, guided by the overarching principle of "zero distance to the customer", which compels each ME to be hyper-responsive to user needs (14).
The MEs themselves form "Ecosystem Micro-Communities" (EMCs) to tackle complex user scenarios (like a "smart home" or the "internet of food") that no single ME could solve alone (15). Haier's model challenges the very notion of a monolithic firm, offering a blueprint for a dynamic, entrepreneurial ecosystem that is both highly decentralised and intensely customer-focused. It serves as a powerful example of how a legacy manufacturing company can reinvent itself to thrive in the internet era.
MakerDAO: Radical Decentralisation in Web3
While Haier demonstrates radical organisational transformation within a traditional corporate structure, MakerDAO represents an even more extreme form of decentralisation enabled by blockchain technology. As the largest decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) governing the DAI stablecoin—one of DeFi's most critical infrastructure pieces—MakerDAO operates through autonomous "Core Units" that function remarkably like Haier's microenterprises, but without any traditional management layer whatsoever (16, 17).
Each Core Unit is a self-managing team responsible for a specific function (protocol engineering, risk management, growth, oracles, legal) with its own budget, mandate, and performance metrics (18). Unlike Haier's microenterprises, which still operate within a corporate legal structure with a CEO, MakerDAO has no chief executive, no board of directors, and no management hierarchy. All strategic decisions - from protocol parameters to Core Unit budgets—are made through on-chain governance votes by MKR token holders (17). Core Units submit proposals directly to the DAO, and their continued funding depends on demonstrating value to token holders through transparent on-chain metrics (18).
This represents the purest form of Product-Led organisational design in the context of protocol development: power resides entirely with the "Makers" (Core Units building the protocol) and the "Users" (MKR holders governing it). The protocol itself is the organisation—there is no separate legal entity that "owns" MakerDAO in the traditional sense (20, 21).
Where Haier eliminated over 12,000 management roles, MakerDAO was designed from inception without any management layer.
Code, not hierarchy, coordinates collective action (19). This points to a broader trend in Web3 organisations like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound, where governance tokens replace traditional equity, smart contracts replace executives, and transparent on-chain data replaces management reporting (20). These organisations demonstrate how blockchain technology can eliminate entire categories of coordination costs that traditionally required managerial oversight.
Beyond Pure Archetypes: The Dominance Spectrum
While these four archetypes provide a clear diagnostic lens, it is crucial to recognise that few organisations exist in a pure form. Most operate on a dominance spectrum, exhibiting characteristics of multiple archetypes simultaneously. The key diagnostic question is not "Which box does my organisation fit into?" but rather, "What is the approximate blend of these cognitive logics, and is that blend intentional and fit for our purpose?" For example, a mature technology company might be 60% Structure-Led to ensure stability and scale, 30% Product-Led to drive iterative innovation in its core offerings, and 10% Vision-Led through a dedicated R&D unit exploring long-term bets. This concept of a spectrum introduces the necessary nuance for applying the framework to complex, real-world enterprises and leads directly to the challenge of managing these competing logics.
Managing the Typology: The Challenge of Organisational Ambidexterity
Many of the most successful and resilient firms are, in fact, case studies in managing contradictory logics. The concept of organisational ambidexterity provides the theoretical glue to explain this phenomenon. First articulated by scholars like Robert Duncan and James March, ambidexterity is the capacity of an organisation to simultaneously exploit existing certainties (refining, executing) and explore new possibilities (searching, innovating) (4, 5).
This directly maps onto the cognitive typology:
The central challenge for modern enterprises is not to choose one pure archetype, but to design an ambidextrous organisation that can manage the inherent tensions between exploitation and exploration (4, 5, 6). This elevates the analysis from a descriptive typology to a normative theory of organisational resilience.
Power, Politics, and Epistemic Authority
The concept of "cognitive dominance" is fundamentally a theory of organisational power. The typology is not merely a structural classification; it is a political framework that explains how epistemic authority - the right to define what is true and valuable - is distributed and exercised (7). Understanding these power dynamics is crucial for diagnosing an organisation's true nature and for any leader attempting to enact change.
· Power in the Vision-Led Firm: Power is charismatic and expert-based, concentrated in the "Thinker" or a small group of visionaries. This power is not derived from a formal position alone but from the ability to articulate a compelling future and create a coherent intellectual framework that others find meaningful. It is maintained through narrative control and is often resistant to contradictory data, which is framed as noise rather than a valid challenge to the vision. The primary political risk is the creation of an echo chamber where the visionary's authority becomes absolute, leading to the brittleness and insularity previously described (8, 9).
· Power in the Product-Led Firm: Power is decentralised, meritocratic, and evidence-based. It resides with the "Makers" who can demonstrate results through empirical data, such as user engagement metrics and A/B tests. This is a form of expert power derived from successful execution and a deep understanding of the user. The political landscape is one of competing hypotheses that are resolved not by hierarchical authority but by experimentation. Influence is gained by building products that create a self-sustaining growth flywheel, making one's contribution undeniably valuable to the organisation (1).
· Power in the Sales-Led Firm: Power is resource-dependent and network-based. The "Sellers" control the flow of revenue, which is the organisation's lifeblood. Their power stems from their external network and their direct control over customer relationships. This gives them significant leverage in internal negotiations, particularly over the product roadmap. The political environment can become transactional, where product decisions are made to secure specific contracts, and influence is determined by quota attainment and the size of one's deal pipeline (2).
· Power in the Structure-Led Firm: Power is formal, legitimate, and rooted in the hierarchy itself, aligning with Weber's concept of rational-legal authority (3). "Managers" derive power from their position in the org chart, their control over information flow, their authority in resource allocation, and their role in performance reviews and career progression. The political landscape is defined by navigating these formal structures. Influence is often a function of managing a larger team or budget and successfully manoeuvring through established processes and committees (3).
· Power in Web3 DAOs: Power is algorithmic and token-weighted, distributed among token holders who vote on-chain. Unlike traditional organisations where power derives from position, expertise, or resource control, DAO power is purely mathematical - proportional to token holdings and encoded in smart contracts (20, 21). This creates a unique form of "plutocratic meritocracy" where influence is earned through capital commitment and demonstrated value creation (rewarded with tokens), but exercised through transparent, immutable voting mechanisms. While often framed as a meritocratic outcome of capital commitment, token-weighted governance remains structurally vulnerable to capture and disengagement unless explicitly constrained by non-financial governance mechanisms. The political landscape is radically transparent: all votes, proposals, and treasury transactions are publicly visible on-chain. This eliminates the opacity that characterises traditional power structures but introduces new challenges around voter participation, plutocratic concentration, and the tension between token-holder interests and protocol health (21). Power shifts are executed through code upgrades rather than boardroom coups, making governance more transparent but also more technically complex.
Understanding these power dynamics reveals why the traditional managerial function must fundamentally evolve.
The Managerial Function Reconsidered
The solution to managerial primacy is not the wholesale elimination of managers, but a fundamental redefinition of their purpose from control to enablement.
This redefined managerial function does not restore Structure-Led dominance; it exists only as a subordinate enabling layer within Vision-Led and Product-Led systems.
The Manager as Cultivator of Psychological Safety
The manager's evolving role from controller to enabler should be explicitly grounded in the extensive research on psychological safety. As noted by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, this is the primary condition for the learning and experimentation that drives innovation. The redefined manager's core cognitive contribution is not to have the answers, but to create the conditions for their team to find them. Their key performance indicators should shift from measuring compliance to measuring the team's innovative capacity and psychological health.
The Re-allocation of Managerial Work in Adaptive Systems
In many adaptive organizations at scale, the work of a traditional middle manager is reallocated. As described by McKinsey and others, this work is often split into three distinct roles:
· The Chapter Lead: A functional leader focused on capability building - hiring, developing, and coaching experts in a specific domain.
· The Tribe Lead: A business leader focused on value creation - setting strategy and defining outcomes for a specific product or customer journey.
· The Squad Lead: An enabler focused on team process and removing impediments, but not a traditional "boss".
This model provides a practical blueprint for deconstructing the monolithic managerial role into more specialised functions that better support an innovative, adaptive organisation. By intentionally governing these competing logics and redefining management as enablement, organisations can cultivate the adaptive capacity required to thrive in the complexity of the 21st century.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only. Crypto-assets are high-risk. Please do your own research.
References:
1. Productled.org (n.d.) 'What is Product-Led Growth?' Available at: https://productled.org/ (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
2. Operatus.io (n.d.) 'What is Sales-Led Growth?' Available at: https://www.operatus.io/blog/sales-led-growth (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
3. Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, eds. G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Duncan, R. (1976) 'The Ambidextrous Organisation: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation', in Killman, R.H., Pondy, L.R. and Sleven, D. (eds.) The Management of Organisation. New York: North Holland, pp. 167-188. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348802123_Ambidextrous_Organization_Literature_Review(Accessed: 9 December 2025).
5. March, J.G. (1991) 'Exploration and Exploitation in Organisational Learning', Organisation Science, 2(1), pp. 71-87. Available at: http://www.iot.ntnu.no/innovation/norsi-pims-courses/Levinthal/March%20(1991).pdf (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
6. O'Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2004) 'The Ambidextrous Organisation', Harvard Business Review, 82(4), pp. 74-81. Available at: http://www.iot.ntnu.no/innovation/norsi-pims-courses/tushman/O%C3%86Reilly%20%26%20Tushman%20(2004).pdf (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
7. Boonstra, J.J. and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K.M. (1998) 'Power Dynamics and Organizational Change: A Comparison of Perspectives.' European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), pp. 97-120. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/135943298398826 (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
8. Van den Steen, E. (2013) 'Tesla Motors.' Harvard Business School Case 714-413, August 2013. Available at: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=45377 (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
9. Edmondson, A.C. (1999) 'Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.' Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), pp. 350-383. Available at: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=2959 (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
10. Bradshaw, P. and Boonstra, J. (2008) 'Power Dynamics in Organizational Change.' In: Boonstra, J. (ed.) Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 279-300.
11. McKinsey & Company (n.d.) 'Shattering the status quo: A conversation with Haier's Zhang Ruimin'. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/shattering-the-status-quo-a-conversation-with-haiers-zhang-ruimin (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
12. Besana, S. (n.d.) 'Haier's model: 'RenDanHeYi' for a new organizational humanism', Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@stefanobesana/haiers-model-rendanheyi-for-a-new-organizational-humanism-and-for-designing-our-future-of-work-898ca2186d15 (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
13. Amazing Workplaces (n.d.) 'Haier's Radical Experiment: How Self-Management Unleashed Innovation and Growth'. Available at: https://amazingworkplaces.co/haiers-radical-experiment-how-self-management-unleashed-innovation-and-growth/ (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
14. Zero Blockers (n.d.) 'Haier's Microenterprise Ownership Model'. Available at: https://www.zeroblockers.com/case-studies/haier-microenterprise-ownership (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
15. IMD (n.d.) 'How Haier works: How culture has shaped the world's leading home appliance maker'. Available at: https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/innovation/how-haier-works-how-culture-has-shaped-the-worlds-leading-home-appliance-maker/ (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
16. Corporate Rebels (n.d.) 'Why Haier Introduced Ecosystems And How They Work'. Available at: https://www.corporate-rebels.com/blog/why-haier-introduced-ecosystems-and-how-they-work (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
17. MakerDAO (n.d.) 'Maker Governance'. Available at: https://makerdao.com/en/governance (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
18. MakerDAO Forum (n.d.) 'Core Unit Operating Model'. Available at: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/core-unit-operating-model/12258 (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
19. MakerDAO (n.d.) 'MIP39: Core Unit Framework'. Available at: https://mips.makerdao.com/mips/details/MIP39 (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
20. a16z crypto (n.d.) 'Can DAOs Be Structured as Legal Entities?' Available at: https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/dao-legal-frameworks/ (Accessed: 9 December 2025).
21. Consensys (n.d.) 'What is a DAO and How Do They Work?' Available at: https://consensys.io/blockchain-use-cases/decentralized-autonomous-organizations (Accessed: 9 December 2025).