Harold, Yes, management structure may be the comparative advantage, but that is problematic in two ways. First, the other advantages are primary (technology, skills, resources, markets for example) and management structure is secondary. In many ways (although not the extent it is cultural) management structures can be copied and replicated most easily. Command and control, for example, is easy to replicate which is why it is so common. Second, previous discussions on this site and elsewhere suggest that management is the problem. As Umair Haque suggested no organisation works and others thought that management was the problem. So, if management is the problem, a new management structure is not going to be the solution unless it is one that removes overt management. Yet, even self-management is not sufficient. We need managers once we get beyond 5 people (or whatever the preferred span of control is) simply because of coordination issues and resource allocation issues. Now, one can argue that technological solutions through social media may reduce that, to be sure, it can and does (thus the reduced role of the middle manager pace Drucker) but it will not eliminate what management is and does. For example a team without a manager is not as effective as one with a manager (look at any professional sports team for proof of this theory). We can say that sports are different from business, but then professional sports is a business. Instead, I would argue that management is now finally coming into its full functionality as intended. Management theory has been generations ahead of the common command and control, but it is only through social media and other technological changes that it can actually function as the theory suggested or promised. We are finally learning what management is and what it does. Interesting times ahead.