This is nothing unusual, there are all kinds of management theories about the ideal workplace and how the traditional hierarchical workplace constrains creativity and thinking “outside the box”, whereas the kind of ‘collaborative’ environment they are trying at Zappos is the answer. The problem is that while there is truth to the hierarchical model having problems,for example bosses who don’t see value in employees stretching their wings, or the concept of turf protection (so if a design engineer had an idea for a better way to produce a product on an assembly line, they would be slapped around because that is 'process engineering), that also leaves out that collaborative environments like that still need structure, they still need objectives and more importantly, people pulling together, which isn’t often the case from what I have read. It assumes that everyone is curious about things outside their purview, and more importantly, feel comfortable going outside their area, and often the other problem is people don’t necessarily know what they are pulling towards. Among other things, it takes management that can both model the new structure, and also help train people into thinking around the new idea. Problem is you get a ‘visionary’ CEO who gets a brainfart, and they just dump it out there and say “here is the future”…and it often falls flat on his face, because what is a great idea in his/her head turns out to be that, good in his head.
It was the same way when the whole "team’ structure was the big paradigm being pushed as the savior for all ills. It left out the problems with teams, that often the ‘team’ didn’t control its own operations, or employees worked on the team but reported to a functional area, or more importantly, how to compensate people on the team. If you give ‘team awards’ and base everything on the functioning of the team, it means those who killed themselves to get things done end up getting the same thing that those who slacked off or coasted did, because in the oft implemented version of this, the individual basically didn’t exist. It was basically a modern day version of the socialist ideal, and it ends up not working because the major contributors end up feeling like they carry the load for those being carried along.
I have heard of the everyone gets X, that again is a modern version of what Marx proposed. In theory it sounds great, it sounds like it would get rid of jealousy and wage envy, it would mean you knew where you stood, but the problem is that it also quite honestly takes away incentive, it is much like the unionized model of working where pay is based on seniority. If someone is really talented, and really puts out, they are getting the same thing as someone who works 9-5 with an hour lunch each day, and what incentive would they have to do that? more importantly, it kind of limits any sense of mobility or achievement, it makes everyone into a member of the proletariat, rather than feeling like what they are doing is appreciated.
The other problem is you have to sell people on change. Something like 90% of restructurings that work are when a company has its back against the wall, and in large part it is because people at that point know there is a problem and are willing to fix it. A lot of places jump in and assume everyone will just follow, but it doesn’t work like that.
Personally, my take is that the hierarchical model has problems with it, it is true that for example in most corporations “thinking outside the box” is not job 1, and also that in a lot of cases you have a lot of timeservers and people who advanced because they had rabbis, not because they necessarily were all that good. Likewise, rigid hierarchy and siloing of tasks doesn’t work well, but the key there is in changing the mentality of the managers to allow freedom to collaborate and such.Big companies do do that, 3M is legendary for it, the problem is most companies are still often run by 19th century models of feudalism or something akin to that. Rather than rewarding outside thinking and collaboration, they often penalize people who don’t fit into the managers narrow definition of the job, and if companies are serious about change it is the ones running things who have the biggest job, it is to reward those who follow the new ideas and encourage their employees, and it also is to correct and if necessary, get rid of those who insist on the old ways.
However, when it is done openly, it is quite stupid, because it creates resentment.