# An Alternative to Organizational Lock-In By:: [[Brian Heath]] 2024-06-12 Organizations are incentivized to keep you isolated from other organizations. One may be tempted to leave if one knew what was going on over the fence. Sayings like the grass isn't always greener on the other side further indicate this position. While humans tend to have higher expectations for new and different things, I suspect this bias is a feature of learning and exploration rather than a bug. The only way one tries something new is if it offers something beyond the status quo, and there is often a first-mover advantage in status and merit hierarchies. Organizations fight this urge by attempting to lock one into their worldview and systems. For some religious organizations, leaving the organization means one's soul is at risk. For employers, it's the threat of lawsuits from noncompete agreements and leaving one's work family behind. For technology ecosystems like Apple, Microsoft, and Google, it replicates all competitor features such that switching is hardly worth it. Whatever the situation, all organizations find ways to entice and keep one a member. This is how they gain and maintain power. The more members, the more power. What does an organization look like that does not entice people to stay but openly and authentically show members alternatives? There is a bit of reverse psychology here, such that providing options makes one feel more aligned with the spirit of the organization. But what about beyond this parlor trick? Are there any organizations that do not deploy this approach to achieve even more loyal membership? The answer to this question likely resides within a more profound question: are there any organizations without power? Can an organization exist without any aspiration for power, even if it is the power of solidarity? It is hard to imagine an alternative as organizing quickly boils down to power. Organization is power. Thus, we see the post-modern critique of organizations and power dynamics. But, not organizing is hardly the answer if one seeks some form of self-actualization and solidarity. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between "Big Organization" and "small organization," where small organization represents the minimal amount of organization required to achieve an intended outcome. This implies two things. First, a small organization intentionally has minimal structure and management. It relies upon self-organization principles and a shared set of beliefs. Second, small organizations cease to exist upon the achievement of the outcome. There is no redefining of the mission or strategy. The organization ends. Thus, there is no incentive to keep one isolated from the world. It's quite the opposite. The small organization wants you to reenter a better world. #### Related Items [[Organization]] [[Management]] [[Post-modern]] [[Solidarity]] [[Status Quo]] [[Hierarchy]] [[Power]] [[Metamodernism]]