Collaboration Rules
Abstract
Corporate leaders seeking to boost growth, learning, and innovation may find the answer in a surprising place: the Linux open-source software community. Linux is developed by an essentially volunteer, self-organizing community of thousands of programmers. Most leaders would sell their grandmothers for workforces that collaborate as efficiently, frictionlessly, and creatively as the self-styled Linux hackers. But Linux is software, and software is hardly a model for mainstream business. The authors have, nonetheless, found surprising parallels between the anarchistic, caffeinated, hirsute world of Linux hackers and the disciplined, tea-sipping, clean-cut world of Toyota engineering. Specifically, Toyota and Linux operate by rules that blend the self-organizing advantages of markets with the low transaction costs of hierarchies. In place of markets' cash and contracts and hierarchies' authority are rules about how individuals and groups work together (with rigorous discipline); how they communicate (widely and with granularity); and how leaders guide them toward a common goal (through example). Those rules, augmented by simple communication technologies and a lack of legal barriers to sharing information, create rich common knowledge, the ability to organize teams modularly, extraordinary motivation, and high levels of trust, which radically lowers transaction costs. Low transaction costs, in turn, make it profitable for organizations to perform more and smaller transactions--and so increase the pace and flexibility typical of high-performance organizations. Once the system achieves critical mass, it feeds on itself. The larger the system, the more broadly shared the knowledge, language, and work style. The greater individuals' reputational capital, the louder the applause and the stronger the motivation. The success of Linux is evidence of the power of that virtuous circle. Toyota's success is evidence that it is also powerful in conventional companies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x · Cited by 479 · see citing works
- Authors
- Evans, P., & Wolf, B.
- Venue
- Own the Future
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-01-02
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 267-274
- ISSN
- 0360-8581 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2294546440
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 32.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Engineering Management Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- IEEE Engineering Management Review
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Keywords
- Toyota Production System, self-organizing teams, transaction costs, market versus hierarchy, organizational learning, innovation, knowledge sharing, trust, reputation, leading by example, high-performance organizations
- MeSH terms
- Automobiles, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Industry, Interprofessional Relations, Leadership, Organizational Innovation, Problem Solving, Software, Organizational Culture, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review