Precedents, patterns, and why scale changes everything
BOTTOM LINE The largest Western self-management experiment before Bayer was Zappos. They had 8 years as “best place to work,” 1,500 employees, and voluntary departures. They still quietly retreated from holacracy. Bayer has 60× the scale, a trust deficit, and involuntary layoffs. The precedent doesn’t predict failure—but it does predict which patterns to watch.
The Pattern
2014. Tony Hsieh, Zappos CEO, announces the company will eliminate all job titles, managers, and hierarchy. Self-organising “circles” will replace traditional structure. Employees who don’t want to participate can take a buyout.
14-18% departed voluntarily. The remaining 1,300 employees embarked on what became the most documented self-management experiment in Western corporate history.
By 2017, Zappos had “quietly backed away” from pure holacracy. They’d been dropped from Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For after 8 consecutive years. Turnover hit 29% in one year. And the company that pioneered radical self-management had evolved into something much more conventional.
What to Observe: The Failure Patterns
Zappos revealed four failure modes that CIRCA-CLEAR now maps to specific conditions:
- Decision paralysis despite empowerment. “You’re empowered to act, but no one wants to be the first to do it.” This signals unresolved Insecure conditions—structural permission without psychological safety.
- Compliance contradictions forcing ghost hierarchies. SOX requirements meant reporting relationships existed for audit purposes only. The flat structure was cosmetic. This signals unresolved Contradictory conditions—incompatible mandates creating workarounds.
- Process overwhelming humanity. One employee described it as “being part of a code, operating within an algorithm optimised for machines, but not for humans.” Agility lever without Empathy foundation.
- Best people departing. The 29% turnover wasn’t random. It was selective. The people with options left. The people without them stayed. Classic Insecure condition outcome.
The Scale Problem
Zappos had 1,500 employees. Bayer has 90,000.
That’s not 60× harder. Coordination complexity scales exponentially with headcount. Every decision that required informal alignment at Zappos requires formal process at Bayer’s scale.
| Zappos Holacracy | Bayer DSO |
| ~1,500 employees | ~90,000 employees |
| E-commerce (light regulation) | Pharma + Agriculture (FDA, EMA) |
| 8 years as “Best Place to Work” | Stock at 20-year low, Monsanto trauma |
| Voluntary buyout offered | 13,500+ involuntary layoffs |
| 5+ year implementation | 2-year company-wide deadline |
The Early Wins
To be fair: Bayer is producing results.
- A product team brought a billion-dollar drug to market a year faster than typical
- Consumer Health in Southeast Asia moved launch dates forward 5-9 months
- €500 million in savings in 2024, on track for €2 billion annually
- Crop Science R&D reduced managers from 150 to 25
These matter. They represent the “small wins made visible” that CIRCA-CLEAR’s Agility lever prescribes. The question isn’t whether DSO can produce wins. It’s whether those wins indicate sustainable capability building or early-stage success that may not compound.
| PRACTITIONER MOVE Track early wins differently. Don’t just count them—track whether they compound. Is the team that achieved the win still intact? Did the pattern spread to adjacent teams? Are the conditions that enabled success being replicated, or was it heroic effort that can’t scale? Early wins that depend on exceptional individuals signal capability theatre, not capability building. |
The Warning Signals
From employee Q&A sessions reported in July 2024:
On compensation: “How are we going to compare ourselves and make the correct benchmark if the DSO is unique to Bayer?”
On retention: “Please explain how you plan to retain and attract top talent with no compensation adjustments happening over the next 18 months. Don’t you expect this to cause a mass exodus of talent?”
On workload: “As we are shedding people resources and are extremely limited in financial resources, why are we not resetting commitments?”
These are Human Pulse signals. They don’t appear on quarterly reports. But they predict outcomes before financial metrics confirm them.
The Haier Difference
Corporate Rebels devoted an entire book to Haier—Start-up Factory—calling CEO Zhang Ruimin ‘arguably the leading management strategist of modern times.’ Their deep-dive into RenDanHeYi reveals why the model works: it evolved over decades through continuous experimentation, not compressed implementation.
Bayer explicitly draws inspiration from Haier’s RenDanHeYi model. But the comparison requires caveats:
- Timeline: Haier’s journey began around 2005. They’ve had nearly two decades to build capability.
- Starting point: Haier transformed from relative stability. Bayer transforms from crisis.
- Cultural context: Chinese manufacturing differs fundamentally from German pharmaceutical regulation.
Both models require cultural shift. Haier’s journey aligned employee value with customer value over two decades. DSO attempts similar alignment in two years.
As Corporate Rebels emphasise throughout their research: there is no holy grail, no one-size-fits-all. Every organisation must experiment to find what works—but experimentation requires time that compressed timelines don’t allow.
Guardrail Pair
For any organisation attempting self-management transformation, the book’s core metrics apply:
- ThroughFlow: Work completion quality—what percentage of started work actually finishes to standard?
- Human Pulse: Team sustainability—”On a scale of 1-5, how sustainable was this week?”
If ThroughFlow improves while Human Pulse declines, you’re optimising the wrong thing. The book is explicit: rollback when Human Pulse declines significantly, even if throughput improves. Speed without sustainability produces the Zappos pattern—best people leaving, quality collapsing, capability debt destroying future throughput.g. Speed without safety produces decision paralysis—the Zappos pattern.
What Comes Next
In Part 3, we’ll examine what published sources can’t capture: ground-level observations from 15+ years of watching Bayer’s transformation unfold—including direct experience of the restructuring’s human cost. The precedents suggest a pattern: self-management works when trust precedes structure. Bayer is testing whether that sequence can be inverted
Introducing the series The Case Study That Didn’t Make the Book
1) The Diagnostic Question Bayer Isn’t Asking
2) What Zappos Learned That Bayer Hasn’t—Yet
3) The Human Pulse Signals Published Metrics Can’t Capture
Some material is too good for the cutting room floor. This is that material.
Neil A. Walker is the author of Thriving in Turbulence: The CIRCA-CLEAR Framework for Navigating Organisational Change, available today on Leanpub and on Amazon on Thanksgiving Day. He has spent 30 years recovering failing transformation projects across financial services, government, and many other sectors.
Leave a Reply