In "The Square Tower" you show that top-down and bottom-up are simply networks with different topologies. When you think about economic history, it seems evident that some kind of Hayekian combinatorial bottom-up process reigns supreme (i.e. Google in a garage). However, inside many of the most successful technology companies, there is a very deliberate top-down command-and-control style of leadership.
Do you have to specify your "level of analysis" when making the distinction between "top-down" and "bottom-up"? For instance, in my example the economy of Silicon Valley is bottoms-up while at the company level things are top-down.
lavender_goom8 karma
In "The Square Tower" you show that top-down and bottom-up are simply networks with different topologies. When you think about economic history, it seems evident that some kind of Hayekian combinatorial bottom-up process reigns supreme (i.e. Google in a garage). However, inside many of the most successful technology companies, there is a very deliberate top-down command-and-control style of leadership.
Do you have to specify your "level of analysis" when making the distinction between "top-down" and "bottom-up"? For instance, in my example the economy of Silicon Valley is bottoms-up while at the company level things are top-down.
EDIT: Fixed typo in book title :-)
View HistoryShare Link