The disadvantage of formalization in organization structure is that it is a disadvantage that the organization structure becomes an internalization of the organization’s values and habits.
This means that organizations need to have organizational structure that is consistent with the organization structure. When an organization structure becomes an internalization of the organization values and habits, it becomes a disadvantage because the organizations are not consistent with each other.
You can have an organization structure that is consistent with the organization structure and an internalization of the organization values and habits. You can have a strong, rigid organization structure with strong, rigid organizational structure. You can have a weak, fluid organization structure with weak, fluid organizational structure. And you can have an organization structure that is consistent with the internalization of the organization values and habits, which can even be inconsistent with it.
I see this a lot with “formal” methods for organizing teams in companies. But it’s also a problem. In my experience, I’ve found that when you have too rigid a structure, people naturally gravitate toward what feels right and what feels right is a lot easier to enforce. And when you have too fluid a structure, people naturally gravitate towards the organization values that feel right and that feel right is a lot easier to enforce.
That’s also why some of the best software-development companies I’ve worked with are based on formal structures that are hard to change. So I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the best software-development companies that I’ve worked with are based on formal structures that are hard to change.
I’m not saying that all software companies are structured the same way. A lot of them are structured the same way because they are based around an organization chart. But most of them are structured differently because of their organization charts. There are some software companies that are structured in a very rigid way where they are based around a very rigid organization chart. But most of the software companies Ive worked with are structured differently. For example, a good example of that is Microsoft.
The “software” in this case could be either a Windows application or a Mac application.
The only software company I can think of where the software is created in a very rigid way is Microsoft. To give you an example of that, a recent story I wrote was about a project that Microsoft had launched called Project M. This was a prototype of a data-mining program that would be able to search for patterns in large sets of data and give you recommendations based on those patterns. Project M was a very cool idea that Microsoft was using to sell their version of software.
Microsoft’s software idea was that it would be a simple, non-intrusive way for companies to share data about everything from weather to stock prices. The idea was that this data would be stored in a very simple file on a company’s internal servers and that a few people would look at this data to get the best ideas for how to improve the company.
That’s the problem with a lot of software. The problem is that it can be very hard to know what is a good idea from a very large corpus of data. If you have to go through the data to find the best idea, you have to be able to make decisions on what is going to work best. That’s why it’s important to have a very formal and systematic structure for your organization.