The Dunbar's Number theory doesn't seem to hold as people thinks it does. Yes, organic groups become trust-sparse instead of trust-dense as they get bigger, and there may be reasons for the threshold to be around 150 in "organic groups" (i.e. those that come together without a direct purpose, such as an emerging tribe) but a corporation is not an organic group. Inorganic groups follow different rules entirely. They may fall into trust sparsity very quickly, or not at all despite scale. (Note: trust density doesn't mean everyone trusts everyone; it means that the prevailing attitude is that people trust each other to be basically valuable to the group. It's about the default setting of the "bozo bit".)
Open allocation takes work. The paradox is that it does actually require management (of a non-traditional form) but the management is exerted to protect the open allocation system (and, to some extent, to protect people from each other). You'll still have political issues in an open allocation environment. Management has to address them in a fair way without becoming extortionist or meddling as one gets when the conflict of interest between people management and project management is unaddressed.
Open allocation isn't a panacea. Open allocation has a million problems. So why do I advocate for it? Because closed allocation has all those million problems-- and a billion more that come from a corrupt, self-serving edifice ripe for abuse and that (except in an immediate, existential crisis where every decision must be made and executed fast) has no purpose.
You should think of closed allocation as like programming in assembly code instead of a higher-level language. If you actually need that extra 1% in execution speed over certain special cases, go ahead. Usually, you don't. This typically premature optimization of closed allocation will usually create incidental complexity that becomes permanent and corrodes your company.
You might argue that VC-istan is open allocation, but with extreme (and unacceptable) social inequality, bizarre income effects that can damage future jobs, and reputation-based extortions that make it, nonetheless, dystopian. It is a market culture, but a deeply manipulated one reminiscent of the blatnoy elite of the Soviets.
Open allocation takes work. The paradox is that it does actually require management (of a non-traditional form) but the management is exerted to protect the open allocation system (and, to some extent, to protect people from each other). You'll still have political issues in an open allocation environment. Management has to address them in a fair way without becoming extortionist or meddling as one gets when the conflict of interest between people management and project management is unaddressed.
Open allocation isn't a panacea. Open allocation has a million problems. So why do I advocate for it? Because closed allocation has all those million problems-- and a billion more that come from a corrupt, self-serving edifice ripe for abuse and that (except in an immediate, existential crisis where every decision must be made and executed fast) has no purpose.
You should think of closed allocation as like programming in assembly code instead of a higher-level language. If you actually need that extra 1% in execution speed over certain special cases, go ahead. Usually, you don't. This typically premature optimization of closed allocation will usually create incidental complexity that becomes permanent and corrodes your company.
You might argue that VC-istan is open allocation, but with extreme (and unacceptable) social inequality, bizarre income effects that can damage future jobs, and reputation-based extortions that make it, nonetheless, dystopian. It is a market culture, but a deeply manipulated one reminiscent of the blatnoy elite of the Soviets.