This is the pre-print version of Grønning, T.

(2016) Working Without a Boss: Lattice Organization With

Direct Person-to-Person Communication at W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc., published at Sage Business
Cases. Please note that this version might differ slightly from the published version:
DOI 10.4135/9781473947542
URL http://www.sk.sagepub.com/cases/person-to-person-communication-at-wl-gore-&-associates-inc
Copyright line © Terje Grønning 2016

Working Without a Boss: Lattice Organization With Direct Person-to-

Person Communication at W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Abstract W. L. Gore & Associates, established in 1958, is renowned for several innovative products
such as the “waterproof while breathing” textile material Gore-Tex, but it is also known for its remarkable
“lattice” organizational structure. Borrowing the lattice concept from architecture and crafts, where it refers
to intertwined materials, the company operates as a system of intertwined associates in which no one is
anyone’s boss. The various activities within the company have leaders who are selected based on their
merits and abilities to attract followers. As a company with more than 10,000 employees, Gore does have
the equivalent of a chief executive officer who may be contacted by partners and others outside the
company, but in recent history, even this person has been selected from among the company’s associates.
The practices of this flat lattice organization structure, such as direct communication channels and absence
of formal bosses, exist throughout the company when it comes to running the business. The case
demonstrates that a lattice-type organization may be a tremendous asset, since it encourages communication
and innovation, but it may also create challenging complications as it seeks to respond to changes in the
company’s environment and secure channels of accountability to deal with controversies within the
company.

Sub-disciplines: Organization Studies (general) (BusMgt-13-1); Teamwork in Organizations (BusMgt-13-

17); Power in organizations (BusMgt-13-13).
Region: United States of America
Organization: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Organization size: Large (250+ employees)
Type: Indirect case – developed from information pulled from existing published resources
Level: Intermediate – the case presents a complex problem and asks the reader to evaluate potential
solutions
Industry: Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products, Manufacture of rubber and plastics products,
Manufacture of textiles, Manufacture of wearing apparel, Other manufacturing

1
Case
Learning Outcomes
The purpose of this case study is to enable students:

• to understand the characteristics of an organizational form that stands in stark contrast to the
more conventional forms of large organizations;

• to compare the characteristics of a lattice organization to those of more conventional

organizations;

• to analyze the relationships between the three roles of “associate,” “sponsor,” and “leader;”

• to critically evaluate various strengths and weaknesses of the case organization’s activities;

• to understand the basic approaches of organizational analysis.

Overview
Gore Company has more than 2,000 patents worldwide and more than 10,000 employees in 30 different
countries. The Gore Company, formally “W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.,” was established by William
(“Bill”) L. Gore together with his wife Genevieve (“Vieve”) in 1958 when Bill left the large chemical
company DuPont. He had become disillusioned by the way the potential for innovative breakthrough
seemed to be stifled there by hierarchical ways of organizing and decisions reached within a closed system
of communication in the company. When he established his own company, he wanted it to have dynamic
and informal ways of communicating and organizing that he believed could not only strengthen but form the
very basis for innovative products and a vigorous working environment. In designing the organization, he
was inspired by the ancient “lattice” crafts and architecture methods of intertwining materials. Thus, much
like the materials in latticework, each of which plays a unique and indispensable role while also supporting
the others, the associates of a lattice company would support each other. In Gore’s system, no one is anyone
else’s boss. Rather than having bosses appointed by top management, the various activities have leaders who
are chosen based on their merits and their abilities to attract followers. Although such a system may result in
tremendous benefits, there may also be significant challenges when it comes to maintaining it.

Main Technologies of Gore Company

After Bill Gore left DuPont, he set out to pursue the potential of a polymer that he had been working on for
his former employer, known as PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), and also by its DuPont trademarked name
Teflon. In the early days, Gore Company developed and marketed PTFE in the form of products for use with
electrical cables. Then, in 1969, Bill Gore’s son Robert (“Bob”) W. Gore, who like his father was educated
in chemistry, found a method for stretching PTFE without breaking it, thus creating “ePTFE” (expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene). This new type of PTFE could be exploited in a variety of “stretched” uses, such as
in textiles. The pores in the material were small enough to be waterproof while still letting air through. The
widely known trademark Gore-Tex came out of these advances, and PTFE-related applications have
provided the company with a foundation ever since. Many additional products have been based on this core
technology, such as a new type of guitar string coating. Dave Myers is the Gore Company associate credited
as the originator of the idea for the string and he led the team that developed the coating. The resulting guitar
strings had equal or better sound than conventional strings and also lasted much longer because the coating
repelled grease and small particles inevitably present in guitarists’ hands. The innovation researchers Ellen
Enkel and Oliver Gassmann (2010) have highlighted how the Gore Company looked into PTFE technologies
while searching for further advantages, such as high capabilities for isolation, thermal resistance,
inflammability, and UV resistance. The result has been further diversification into such products as new
types of fabrics and components for electronic products. For example, Gore Company has developed a so-
called soil-release jacket, which is more resistant to grease and dirt. This can be beneficial for workers in
high-risk settings since the parts of the jackets designed for emitting reflection remain clean. It was
originally developed in collaboration with a railway company and is now used by most European railway
companies. The source for this kind of innovation is thus a core technological basis, rather than the product
itself.

The Lattice Organization

Bill Gore’s ideas about the lattice organization continue to be the company’s foundation even today. He
defined a lattice organization in the following way:

A lattice organization is one that involves direct transactions, self-commitment, natural

leadership, and lacks assigned or assumed authority ... Every successful organization has a
lattice organization that underlies the façade of authoritarian hierarchy. It is through these
lattice organizations that things get done, and most of us delight in going around the formal
procedures and doing things the straightforward and easy way. (W. L. Gore & Associates,
n.d., p. 2)

A lattice organization has the following attributes:

• no fixed or assigned authority;

• sponsors (mentors), not bosses;

• natural leadership defined by followership;

• person-to-person communication;
 • objectives set by those who must make things happen;

• tasks and functions organized through commitments. (W. L. Gore & Associates, n.d., p. 3)

The company also still follows four basic guiding principles of fairness, freedom, commitment, and
“waterline,” as originally articulated by Bill Gore. The fairness principle is elaborated further as urging
everyone to be fair in all circumstances and in all interactions with colleagues, with suppliers, and with
customers. Freedom consists of allowing, helping, and encouraging associates to grow in knowledge, skill,
scope of responsibility, and range of activities. Commitment is the ability to make one’s own commitments
and keep them. It is said that founder Bill Gore was especially preoccupied with the notion of commitment,
perhaps because of the frustrations he experienced with aborted projects when working for a large
corporation. With a multi-level hierarchy, it is possible for superiors to issue commands, but it is impossible
to order someone to be committed. Therefore, his philosophy was that commitment must always be seen as
self-commitment. When an associate commits himself or herself to a task or a team, the commitment should
not be broken, except under exceptional circumstances. The waterline principle entails consulting with other
associates before undertaking actions that could impact the reputation of the company or financial health of
the business, in other words, actions “below the waterline.” The waterline principle is based on an analogy
to a boat; “shooting” at the boat above the waterline might rock the boat and actions comparable to this are
accepted, whereas shooting at the boat below the waterline could sink it, and such actions are unacceptable.

These principles may still be regarded as being somewhat abstract in nature, and should be seen in
relation to what the company terms as practices and realities. The practices include the following:

compensation

leadership

vacations

stock ownership plan

work hours

responsibilities

expenditures

trade secrets

project priorities

plant size

plant clusters

financial management
 purchasing

contracts

communication

patents (W. L. Gore & Associates, n.d., p. 7)

Nine different types of “realities” in the company’s environment are considered external forces or
“reflections” for the practices, namely; economics, finances, competition, legalities, regulations, publicity,
resources, time, and culture. Gore Company recognizes that invariably practices reflect external forces or
realities such as, for example, regulations and legal issues on the one hand, but on the other hand, they are at
the same time rooted in the company’s four core principles. For example, the company has a stock
ownership plan for associates. This reflects, according to the company, the principle of fairness. The
sponsoring system reflects the principle of freedom; compensation reflects three principles—fairness,
commitment, and waterline; and trade secrets and patents both fall within the waterline domain (W. L. Gore
& Associates, n.d., p. 15).

Associates, Sponsors, and Leaders

All people who work at Gore Company are called associates, not employees or managers. Some associates
do, however, have functions as “sponsors” or “leaders.” A new hire at Gore Company starts out as an
associate within a broad job category such as human resources, research and development, or business
development. This practice is in stark contrast to most other companies, where one is hired to carry out a
relatively narrow job description. The new associate is given a sponsor, who is responsible for helping the
new associate understand and fit into the Gore system. The new associate begins working within a team or,
more likely, within several different teams during the first few months. The sponsor is not responsible for
managing the associate; instead, the associate is responsible to the current team. Sponsors “commit to being
knowledgeable about the activities, well being, progress, accomplishments, personal concerns and ambitions
of the associate sponsored” (W. L. Gore & Associates, n.d., p. 16). Each associate has at least one sponsor,
but it is possible to have more than one. Sponsors should offer encouragement, guidance on principles and
practices, feedback on performance, and guidance in personal development planning. In addition, the
sponsor functions as an advocate for the associate in compensation discussions. Finally, the sponsor acts as a
role model for the sponsored associate.

Leaders are, on the other hand, persons who have achieved this function by gaining followers. The
three main tasks of leaders are to focus on business objectives, coordinate activities, and align teams to meet
goals. Because there is a wide range of activities at Gore, there are several types of leaders: line leaders,
business leaders, functional leaders, task force leaders, and divisional leaders. The leaders should participate
in both problem definition and problem solving, acknowledge team accomplishments, and offer
encouragement. Furthermore, a leader should help in strategy formulation and, if needed, explain business
practices by offering a “big picture” viewpoint. The leader also acts as a role model through his or her
behavior. The current chief executive or leader of the company, Terri Kelly, explained in an interview with
Tina Nielsen of Director Magazine in 2010 that “Gore is designed around trying to drive individual
ownership and empowerment. We do have divisional leaders and functional leaders, but the difference is
how they behave in these roles and how they get there” (Nielsen, 2010, p. 50). Incidentally, an associate can
simultaneously be both a sponsor and a leader, but these roles will have to be separate.

Innovation at Gore
Gore Company has had technological breakthroughs as a result of long-term and systematic experiments,
such as in the case of Bob Gore’s discovery of ePTFE. When it comes to continuous innovation and the
development of surprising new opportunities of varying scales, however, the company’s approach to
innovation is to rely on the ingenuity of its associates, any of whom may come up with a valuable discovery.
Gore Company operates with a concept called “dabble time,” which is a half-day per week reserved for
associates to explore their own ideas for improving existing new products or developing entirely new
products. One successful product that emerged from dabble time tinkering is the acoustic guitar string
coating developed by Dave Myers, who was actually working as an associate within Gore’s medical
division. He had used the company’s polymer ingredient for coating his troublesome bicycle cables and then
came up with the idea that this might be used for improving guitar strings as well. Myers explained the idea
to others and ended up leading a team of associates who experimented for about three years before
developing a string prototype that held its tone quality three times longer than the strings being marketed
within the music industry. The new Elixir guitar strings eventually outdid the others in sales, even though
they were more expensive.

Such projects will not be started at all if the initial idea fails to gain the support of any other
associates. Within the company, there is a philosophy that if the initial idea fails to gain enough support to
form a team, then the idea might not be so good after all. Also, an established project may not continue
indefinitely and without any form of steering. Some projects may take considerably more time to complete
than others, but all projects must have some form of steering by way of conforming to a set of three criteria:
“real, win, worth.” At the outset, the associate taking the initiative must be able to convince the others that
there is a real demand for the proposed idea. In other words, what kinds of customers are projected? How
many customers are anticipated? Why would these customers want such a product? Is it because they might
have particular problems for which the potential product will be the solution? In the case of Elixir, the
answer to the last question was the inferiority of existing guitar strings. Winning concerns the
competitiveness of the product. Issues here include whether there are already competitors with comparable
products or whether Gore Company has technological capabilities that will stand out when compared to the
competition. Worth concerns profitability issues, such as how much it will eventually cost to produce the
product and what the profit margins will be. The ongoing project is periodically evaluated against these
three criteria by a committee consisting of associates not involved in the project itself. This is a major
difference from many other firms at which a project’s fate is determined by superiors with perhaps fleeting
grounds for acceptance or rejection. At Gore Company, such decisions result from a combination of the
commonly accepted criteria and the evaluation by a committee consisting of peers.

Challenges That the Gore Company has Experienced

Gore Company has been included numerous times in the Fortune list of “The 100 Best Companies to Work
for in America.” Articles with detailed descriptions and praise have appeared in magazines such as Fast
Company and Workforce Management. One prominent management theorist and consultant, Gary Hamel,
included an entire chapter about Gore Company in his book The Future of Management (Hamel & Breen,
2007), which highlighted the main features of the lattice organization and offered recommendations to other
companies about how to emulate some of these features. For example, one problem many companies might
be struggling with is the issue of how to enroll everyone as an innovator. Hamel and Breen recommend,
based on the Gore Company experience, that one should do away with hierarchy, continually reinforce the
belief that innovation can come from anyone, and collocate employees with diverse skills to facilitate the
creative process. They describe Gore Company as a case of “innovation democracy” because everyone
communicates directly, selects their own leaders, and respects each others’ decisions.

Bill Gore has written that alternatives to the lattice may be exceedingly tempting for organizations in
order to attempt reaching increased levels of efficiency:

The simplicity and order of an authoritarian organization make it an almost irresistible

temptation. Yet it is counter to the principles of individual freedom and smothers the creative
growth of man. Freedom requires orderly restraint. The restraints imposed by the need for
cooperation are minimized with a lattice organization. (W. L. Gore & Associates, n.d., p. 13)

Thus, Gore Company has identified four areas where it has experienced challenges and seen solutions to
these challenges: First, there is a need for well-defined objectives. In other words, “associates must
understand the objectives of the organization and their businesses in order to make wise judgments about
their own commitments” (W. L. Gore & Associates, n.d., p. 15).

Second, there have to be decisions, and not a state of continuous undetermined processes: “Complete
consensus can never be reached” (W. L. Gore & Associates, n.d., p. 15). However, one should also be aware
that different decision-making styles may be required in different situations.
 Third, by definition, a lattice organization structure requires that people actually know each other. To
achieve this goal, the Gore Company limits the size of teams in order to facilitate direct communication. In
addition, each Gore Company site contains only a small number of teams, in order to promote interaction
between associates and the pursuit of common goals. Also, in some locations, production takes place in
multiple small plants clustered together rather than in one large factory. The teams may in those cases
pursue their day-to-day work within their own mini-plant, but may also collaborate occasionally with
associates or the teams in another nearby mini-plant if this makes sense in connection with, for example, a
development project. Such clustering thus encourages interaction among unrelated teams.

Fourth, the company is keen to keep its compensation process fair. The company uses a peer-ranking
system for determining the level of compensation. In this system, associates rank each other twice a year on
the extent to which they contribute to the success of the enterprise. Several assessments from different
sources are put together, and a committee assigns pay level according to the rankings. The company also
looks at the pay level of other companies as a form of benchmarking in order to ensure competitiveness at an
industry level.

Tensions and Opportunities with a Lattice Structure

There are many possible tensions, as well as opportunities, when implementing and maintaining a lattice
organization structure. For example, companies may encounter difficulty when seeking legitimacy from
outside partners or clients (“Who is the boss, really?”), even though things may function well internally. A
related potential tension may appear when an organization tries to implement a flat lattice organization, but
some persons continue to exercise some sort of power on an informal basis. In other words, the lattice
organization appears to be bossless, but in reality, “managers” still exist in a more ambiguous form.

A lattice organization discards managers and the explicit roles of this echelon, replacing them with a
system of sponsorship and ad hoc leadership. Such a system may produce confusion about who is actually in
charge in connection to important decisions (“Who decides, really?”) unless there are some alternative
procedures for determining the course to be taken in cases of conflict or indecision in, for example, an
innovation project.

Similarly, there might be tensions between day-to-day smooth running of routines, on the one hand,
and the resolution of discontent or grievances at the workplace level on the other hand (“I am, after all, the
one who knows best and should have been the leader!” or “Why isn’t John fired, ‘cause he never
contributes!”), unless there are some kind of structured procedures in place. Thus, although the organization
may function and thrive without a layer of superiors, a lack of alternative procedures may produce critical
tensions within the organization.
 Furthermore, a lattice organization exists within its wider surroundings, where more conventional
systems for career development operate, and in maintaining a true lattice-type structure, it must continuously
uphold transparency and legitimacy when it comes to the way associates are treated and how they may grow
within the organization (“What are the career opportunities here, really?”). Otherwise, there may be
difficulties in attracting as well as retaining talented associates, who may be tempted by the possibility of
switching to the more conventional career systems available elsewhere.

Also, an organization might experience problems especially when it has transitioned from a more
conventional hierarchical, matrix-based, or network-based organizational structure to a lattice organizational
structure, when it comes to experiencing the realities of empowerment and distributed power. It is far from
certain that all employees will immediately have the ability and self-discipline needed to function in such an
organization, and persons who were previously managers will also need to face new “powerless” realities. A
considerable amount of training and organizational learning may be necessary, both in implementation as
well as in subsequent maintenance of the new organizational form.

Management scholar Robert M. Grant (2008) was fascinated by and greatly respected the Gore
Company’s remarkable achievements and its implementation of the lattice structure; however, he believed
that its flexibility in work assignments and rapid differentiation into diverse products may have been
possible because of a core technological capability that many other companies lack. Without such a core
capability, other companies may find that Gore Company practices or similar initiatives do not work. These
companies may need more structured and somewhat more layered systems for coordination and control of
activities than is seen at Gore. However, direct communication and informal work processes are important in
fostering creative activities and should be implemented in some way or the other.

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the main differences between Gore Company’s organizational structure and other
predominant approaches (as you know them)?

2. What might have been the main challenges the Gore Company faced in upholding its original
organization structure throughout the years?

3. How does the process of becoming a “leader” at Gore Company compare to the process at other
companies that you know of?

4. What might be the challenges in handling the cases of any associates who express discontent at Gore
Company? For example, how could the company respond when a person thinks that he or she should be
chosen as leader, but isn’t? What are some of the challenges in addressing a situation where one associate
never seems to contribute, and other associates complain about that?

5. Do you agree with Gary Hamel and Bill Breen that the lattice organization at Gore Company is a
“democratic” form of innovation process?

6. Do you think that the organizational practices at Gore would change drastically if the company were
to be listed on the stock exchange? Why do you think they would or would not change?

7. Which elements in Gore’s model are compelling to you? Explain. Which elements of the Gore model
are least compelling to you? Explain.

8. Can you guess the famous management theorist who inspired Bill Gore? (Hint: His major work was
published shortly after the establishment of Gore Company.)

References
Enkel, E., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Creative imitation: Exploring the case of cross‐industry innovation.
R&D Management, 40(3), 256–270. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9310.2010.00591.x

Grant, R. M. (2008). The future of management: Where is Gary Hamel leading us? Long Range Planning
41, 469–482. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.003

Hamel, G., & Breen, B. (2007). Building an innovation democracy: W. L. Gore. In The future of
management (Ch. 5). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Nielsen, T. (2010, February). Company profile: W. L. Gore. Director Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.gore.com/MungoBlobs/381/294/director-article.pdf

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (n.d.). The lattice organization. Newark, DE: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
A detailed powerpoint presentation with comments originally downloaded from W. L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. by Robert W. Boozer and available at http://folk.uio.no/terjegro/materials/Gore_lattice.pdf

Further Resources
Carney, B. M., & Getz, I. (2009). Freedom, Inc.: Free your employees and let them lead your business to
higher productivity, profits, and growth. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Deutschmann, A. (2004). The fabric of creativity. Fast Company, 89, 54–62.

Gore, B. (2008). The early days of W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Newark, DE: W. L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kiger, P. J. (2006). Power of the individual. Workforce Management, 85(4), 1.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1995). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high-
performing companies. New York: Wiley.

Manz, C. C., Shipper, F., & Stewart, G. L. (2009). Everyone a team leader: Shared influence at W. L. Gore
& Associates. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 239–244. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.006

Townsend, D. R., & Harder, J. (2000). W. L. Gore & Associates [Case no. UVA-OB-0700]. Charlottesville,
VA: Darden Business Publishing.

Web Resources
Ciccarelli, Maura C. (2010). Lattice vs. ladder. Human Resource Executive Online, November 1, 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=533324255

Deloitte Development LLC (2011). The corporate lattice minibook. New York, NY: Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited. Retrieved from http://latticemcc.com/downloads/Mini-
books/843212TheCorporateLatticeMinibook2011.pdfFinley, K. (2014). Why workers can suffer in bossless
companies like GitHub. Wired, March 20, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2014/03/tyranny-
flatness/

Hoovers (2009). W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Profile. Short Hills, NJ. Retrieved from http://www.hi-tech-
mfg.com/jeff/Research/Company_specific/Medical/W.L.%20Gore%20&%20Associates.pdf

Puranam, P. (2014). What “boss-less” firms can teach us. Retrieved from
http://www.knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/what-boss-less-firms-can-teach-us-3307

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. A team-based, flat lattice organization. Retrieved from
http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/culture/index.html

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Read about Gore. Retrieved from

http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/fastfacts/read_about_gore.html

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Matt’s story. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE39DbfPTwg

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Sponsors. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzyyxyRjN6o

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. The Gore experience. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AhCqmdVAF8
Teaching Notes
Case Summary
This case is about a manufacturing company that is known for developing a wide range of innovative
materials, components, and products. It is not listed on the stock exchange, and owners and management are
therefore not influenced by shareholders when it comes to implementing specific managerial practices. The
lattice form of organization is very unusual in large organizations and entails delegation of a substantial
amount of influence to the level of each and every associate in the company. This decentralized form of
organization may entail advantages as well as serious challenges to the firm’s activities.

Teaching Objectives
• Explore organization structure and “organizational behavior” in a real-life context.

• Support course content related to the status differences and communication differences between co-
workers.

• Illustrate how organizational structure is not a given, but can to a certain degree be chosen, and invite
reflections on the benefits and challenges of such choices.

Target Group
The target group for this case study is primarily undergraduate students in human resources management,
innovation studies, organizational behavior, organizational sociology, strategic management, or related
courses, but may be adapted to master’s degree-level classes as well.

Suggested Solutions to Discussion Questions

1. What are the main differences between Gore Company’s organizational structure and other
predominant approaches (as you know them)?

Other organizations may be hierarchical with defined channels of authority, or matrix organizations with
horizontal and vertical layers and distributed leadership.

2. What might have been the main challenges to upholding the features of Gore Company’s original
organization structure throughout the years?

Gaining legitimacy from outside partners; ensuring that all associates understand and share in the company’s
objectives; ensuring that real decisions are made at an appropriate time; keeping the small company
atmosphere even when the company is growing in order to ensure that people know each other; upholding
the peer review-based compensation process as well as operating without standard systems for advancement
and career trajectories.

3. How does one become a “leader” at Gore Company, and how does this process compare to the
process at other companies that you might know of?

Leaders are selected when a person has followers for their ideas, skills, or experience. Compare this with
formal systems for evaluation and subsequent advancement to higher position at other companies.

4. What might be the challenges to handling the case of any associates who express discontent at Gore
Company? For example, how could the company respond when a person thinks that he or she should be
chosen as leader, but isn’t? What are some of the challenges of addressing a situation where one associate
never seems to contribute, and other associates complain about that?

One challenge might be to uphold the spirit in the team in question, and another to actually handle the
problem in the absence of a formalized boss. Negotiations and problem-solving between associate, sponsor,
and leader seems to be a feasible first attempt.

5. Do you agree with Gary Hamel and Bill Breen that the lattice organization at Gore Company is a
“democratic” form of innovation process?

In terms of mutual respect and collaboration the term could be used, but what happens when hypothetically a
majority of associates want to alter a practice or a cluster of practices in favor of, for example, a more
hierarchical structure? Will tradition prevail in favor of a democratic majority?

6. Do you think that the Gore Company’s organizational practices would change drastically if the
company were to be listed on the stock exchange? Why do you think they would or would not change?

With the shares not open to public trade, they are owned and controlled by a select few, including associates,
whereas trading on the stock exchange and the resulting “external” shareholders might introduce a
perspective which is less patient when it comes to “dabble time” practices and long-term risky development
projects and is in contrast more interested in short-term profits.

7. Which elements in Gore’s model are compelling to you? Explain. Which elements of the Gore model
are least compelling to you? Explain.

Explanations should be arguments, and not only emotional spontaneous expressions. Some might argue that
direct lines of communication are conducive to innovation. Others might argue that direct lines of
communication may result in excessive amounts of time used for negotiations, etc.

8. Can you guess the famous management theorist who Bill Gore was inspired by? (Hint: his major
work was published shortly after the establishment of Gore Company.)
Bill Gore’s views on organizing were inspired in part by Douglas McGregor’s The Human Side of
Enterprise, first published in 1960. McGregor emphasized that people were inherently self-motivated to
work, in contrast to a view stating that people inherently disliked work, resulting in the need for extensive
direction and control.

Teaching Approach and Strategy

The case can be used:

• as a group project or individual student assignment in which students conduct organizational

structure and strategy analysis;

• as a written assessment;

• to show application of organization theory concepts in a real situation;

• to illustrate organization theory concepts that have been taught in class;

• as the basis of a role-play where students try out a situation where nobody is anybody’s boss.

Teaching Resources: Further Reading

Daft, R. L. (2013). Developing global teams to meet 21st century challenges at W. L. Gore & Associates. In
Organization theory and design, 11th edition (Ch. 1.0 Integrative case). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Hitt, M. R., Ireland, D., & Hoskisson, R. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship. In Strategic management:
Concepts and cases, 7th edition (Ch. 13). Mason, OH: Thompson Higher Education.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1993). In it together: Crossing boundaries in groups. In The TeamNet factor (Ch.
4). Essex Junction, VT: Oliver Wright Publications.

Lussier, R. N. (2015). Managing team work. In Management fundamentals: Concepts, applications, & skill
development, 6th edition (Ch. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maitland, A., & Thomson, P. (2011). Turning convention on its head. In Future work: How businesses can
adapt and thrive in the new world of work (Ch. 3). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shaer, M. (2013, June 16). The boss stops here (Can a bossless office work?), New York Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.nymag.com/news/features/bossless-jobs-2013–6/

Silverman, R. E. (2012, June 19). Who’s the boss? There isn’t one. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303379204577474953586383604

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2014). Organizational structure and design. In Organizational behavior:
Tools for success, 2nd edition (Ch. 14). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Tambe, N. (2013). W. L. Gore: A case study in work environment redesign. New York, NY: Deloitte
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.dupress.com/articles/w-l-gore/

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (2010). Associates’ standards of ethical conduct. Newark, DE: W. L. Gore &
Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.gore.com/MungoBlobs/916/642/Gore_Ethics 4.5.12.pdf

Teaching Resources: Videos

A conversation with Gary Hamel: Transformation of leadership, step-by-step. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mCmecrnLUM

Huffington Post. (Originally aired on June 17, 2013). How does this work? The bossless office. Retrieved
from http://live.huffingtonpost.com/#r/segment/how-does-this-work-the-bossless-
office/51b78050fe34441e87000622

I, tomato: Morning Star’s radical approach to management. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqUBdX1d3ok

Kelly, T. (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) (2009, December 9). Nurturing a vibrant culture to drive
innovation. At MIT Sloan School of Management. Retrieved from http://www.techtv.mit.edu/videos/16462-
nurturing-a-vibrant-culture-to-drive-innovation

Rethinking the structure of corporations: Michael Yaziji at TEDx Lausanne. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eRwOM9iqVo

Social architecture in action at W. L. Gore. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDht4qZP98

Terri Kelly: W. L. Gore’s original management model. Video uploaded by Mlabvideo

(http://www.managementexchange.com/) retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47yk2upT7tM

The corporate lattice: A new model of career advancement. Molly Anderson, Director of Talent, Deloitte
Services LP. Video uploaded by Center for the Study of the Workplace retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZJy9ObG7Tw

W. L. Gore & Associates. (2012). Commitment to innovation. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YowJcczw_xQ