In reading about the different organizational structures of the three companies, what stood out to me about Spotify, Airbnb, and Zappos is not only how their architecture affects where decision-making power congregates, but also how they attempt to shape company culture as a main way of increasing innovation and creativity.
Spotify’s model is the most classic agile model, aiming to give individual teams the flexibility to define their own rules while situating them within larger groups. In this framework, small cross-functional teams with different specialties own a product area, and several related teams can form a tribe. The product owner owns the deadlines but does not control the decisions; decisions instead come from classic stand-up meetings and team discussions. It champions less formality and more self-management and autonomy at the group level, with structure only to guide overall responsibility for features and project areas.
Airbnb organizes groups by function, such as design, engineering, and marketing. As opposed to the cross-functional teams that Spotify has, this is a more traditional, responsibility-focused separation. In addition, Airbnb’s more recent organization highlights an aim to have a flatter hierarchy and more holacracy. Its approach to increasing the creativity of individual contributors is to reduce hierarchy and allow them more flexibility to work remotely and take meetings outside the office. PMs are charged more with the cross-functional delivery. Their influence comes from expertise and collaboration, with less independent control over direction. However, a limitation is that different technical teams may have a harder time communicating with each other, as there is no built-in cross-functional structure like Spotify’s.
Zappos’s holacracy model is unique in that, while Airbnb embraces holacracy through reduced in-office requirements and hierarchy, Zappos made it a culture and went ahead and scrapped the structure almost entirely. Here, authority belongs to defined roles within circles rather than a hierarchical chart. That means someone doing PM work has the authority assigned to that role, rather than automatic authority over a team because of their title. With this, Zappos aims to create a more friendly and familial environment where everyone feels confident in their roles and responsibilities, enabling more innovation and creativity. However, a con is that some employees have trouble understanding what the structure even means, as most roles do not change under any model. Outside opinion also often describes the model as creating seemingly fake happiness.
For me, I would choose to work within Spotify’s model since it provides a clear structure for a team’s responsibilities while also enabling built-in cross-functional collaboration. I like the balance of having a clear purpose and enough freedom to explore how to get there. Airbnb follows a more classic company architecture, which I feel lacks flexibility and often feels rigid in practice. Zappos feels more startup-like, with plenty of room for development, but also gaps: newcomers often feel confused, and it is hard to scale with that structure.
