The title may sound poetic, but what follows is something I have thought about quite seriously.
The trigger for writing this article was an exchange with students.
In the chat tool of a project (an extracurricular activity) where I serve as an advisor,
someone raised the question: “Do general theories of organization really apply to student groups?”
It is true that many organizational theories are written with “corporate organizations” in mind.
However, I believe that student organizations operate under a set of premises that are fundamentally different from those of companies.
If I add together the years I spent in student groups and the years I have watched them as an advisor,
I have spent a fair amount of time observing this “gap.”
Based on that experience, whenever I try to talk about companies and student organizations within the same framework,
I always feel that there are parts that cannot be fully explained.
It is not just a matter of age or experience; the flow of time, the sources of motivation, the way knowledge is handled,
and the mechanisms through which roles emerge—all of these basic elements that make organizations work are, at a fundamental level, different.
In this article, I do not want to simply cut those differences into two opposing poles.
Instead, I take the principles behind those differences as a clue
to rethink the very nature of organizations.
The article has become quite long, so if you only want the main points, I recommend jumping ahead to #Summary .
Time as seen from organizational structure
There are many differences between companies and student groups,
but here I would like to focus on one dimension in particular: “time.”
First, companies are structured on the assumption of “permanence.”
- Continuity beyond individuals (people change, but the organization remains)
- A layered structure of accumulated knowledge (experiences stacking up in layers)
- The ability to invest in the future (decisions made with a 10–20 year horizon)
This time structure based on permanence generates a certain “heaviness.”
The weight of history and responsibility, and even resistance to change, all gather there.
In contrast, student organizations seem to be structured on the assumption of “cyclicality.”
It may be hard to picture, but imagine a structure where “generations circulate in cycles.”
- An eternal present (the current generation is always at the center)
- A reset-type knowledge structure (memories are reset every 3–4 years)
- The freshness of repeatedly “starting from the beginning”
This time structure based on cyclicality produces a kind of “lightness.”
Freedom from the past, a sense of open possibility, and a certain instability all come with it.
The “heaviness” of companies and the “lightness” of student groups.
I suspect this difference is one of the reasons why student groups cannot simply copy how companies operate,
and companies cannot simply copy how student groups operate.
Once the structure of time differs, the way an organization moves also changes.
So how does that difference in time structure influence the “motivation” of the people who take part in it?
Different sources of motivation
Working in a company. Being active in a student organization.
This difference can be framed as a difference in the source of motivation.
Corporate organizations operate under the “principle of exchange” in a market economy.
In other words, they are based on the equivalent exchange of labor and compensation.
- Clear contractual relationships
- Measurable contributions and rewards
- Rational calculability
In this setting, it is natural to think of people who work in companies as “homo economicus.”
What about student organizations?
Since there is basically no system of wages or promotion, most students act based on intrinsic motivation.
This is an activity not governed by the “principle of exchange,” but by one-sided giving.
In other words, it is based on the “principle of gift.”
- Contributions that do not seek return
- The creation of value that cannot be measured
- Passion that may appear irrational
In this sense, I feel it is more appropriate to regard students as “homo ludens,” the human who plays.
Once the source of motivation differs, the way the organization takes shape will naturally differ as well.
And that difference in motivation also affects how roles come into being.
Next, I would like to look at how the roles that support an organization are formed.
Fixed roles and fluid roles
In companies, roles are defined in the form of “job duties.”
Clear boundaries exist, responsibility is clearly located, and greater depth of expertise is demanded.
In student organizations, roles are often generated depending on the “situation.”
Boundaries are blurry, responsibility is shared and diffused.
This, in turn, can lead to greater diversity.
The way roles come into being is also closely related to how knowledge is handled.
So next, I will consider how organizations accumulate and transmit knowledge.
How knowledge is handled
I have written about knowledge before in “Essentials for Information Transfer
.”
However, when I compare companies with student organizations, I feel that the way knowledge itself is “handled” is different.
In companies, knowledge is often treated as an “asset.”
That is, knowledge is handled as an “object.”
Manuals, databases, patents, and so on take this form.
By contrast, in student organizations, knowledge tends to be remembered as “experience.”
The “embodied” aspect of knowledge matters more.
- Things you only understand once you try
- Wisdom that cannot truly be owned
- Sensations that are hard to convey
These are mostly tied to individuals.
In this sense, the treatment of knowledge itself may be fundamentally different.
And the way knowledge is handled is closely connected to how organizational culture is formed.
So let us look at the features of organizational culture in companies and student organizations.
The paradox of organizational culture
Many companies and student organizations emphasize “organizational culture.”
At a glance, it may seem obvious that the cultures of the two are completely different, but I do not think it is that simple.
Rather, I suspect that corporate culture and the culture of student groups mirror each other while sharing the same underlying structure.
- Corporate culture
- Continuing to change by remaining unchanged
- Innovation emerging from within tradition
- Stability giving birth to flexibility
- Student group culture
- Remaining unchanged by continuing to change
- Tradition emerging from within innovation
- Instability giving birth to resilience
Seen in this way, corporate culture contains aspects that resemble student culture,
and the culture of student groups also contains elements that resemble corporate culture.
Once we go as far as culture, the “structural differences” between the two appear in sharper relief.
Taking this difference into account, I would like to think one step deeper about what organizations themselves are.
How organizations exist / their essence
Taking the discussion so far into account,
comparing companies and student groups ultimately leads us to the question:
“What is an organization?”
Beyond permanence and cycles
If companies and student groups differ in how they experience time,
is there anything that lies between those two patterns?
I suspect that beyond them lies a “spiral-like temporality.”
Consider a startup, for example.
Especially in student-founded ventures, they must retain the “lightness” of student groups,
while at the same time presenting the “permanence” of a company to investors and clients.
In such a case, “time” can be divided into three types.
- Quantitative time: homogeneous, measurable clock time (such as the fiscal year of a company)
- Qualitative time: heterogeneous, experienced time (the “intense present” of student groups)
- Spiral time: a structure that embeds qualitative time within quantitative time
If I were to implement this “spiral time” in practice, it would take the form of a “generation-succession project.”
- First generation: creation of the prototype (the fervor typical of student groups)
- Second generation: systematization (structured activities in a corporate style)
- Third generation: re-creation (reframing the spirit of the first generation in a new context)
- Fourth generation: meta-integration (integrating the experiences of all generations)
Each generation negates the previous one, yet also preserves it.
In this way, they can refer to the past while at the same time producing new activity.
The value of creative giving
Companies operate under a “principle of exchange,” while student organizations operate under a “principle of gift.”
Between these, I think the idea of “creative gift” becomes important.
Open-source communities provide a good example.
- The pursuit of reputation (yet without monetization)
- The joy of technical challenge (yet without monetary reward)
- A sense of belonging to the community (yet without an employment relationship)
This is a flow of value that is neither simple gifting nor simple exchange.
The sociologist Marcel Mauss said that gift-giving involves three obligations:
- The obligation to give
- The obligation to receive
- The obligation to reciprocate
To this, I feel we must add a “fourth obligation”: the obligation to imagine—
that is, the obligation to transform what one has received and then pass it on.
In the real world, I see this appearing in value-creation type internships, the MIT Media Lab, OSS culture, and similar contexts.
The dialogical nature of roles
In companies, roles are fixed as “job duties,”
while in student organizations, roles are generated fluidly depending on the “situation.”
However, I would like to avoid treating roles as a simple binary.
Instead, I want to think of them as something that is “generated through dialogue.”
Roles are not simply handed down in advance; they are something that come into view within relationships.
- Roles are not fixed; they are updated through mutual interaction
- Roles do not belong to individuals as attributes; they arise within relationships
- Roles are not just the division of labor; they are the co-editing of meaning
The ambiguity of roles in student organizations may look like a weakness,
but it is also a source of creativity.
On the other hand, in companies, the burden of justification required to cross role boundaries
can make emergent behavior harder.
As something that integrates the contradictions between the two,
I see the idea of the “dialogical nature of roles.”
Roles are neither purely fixed nor purely fluid; they are continually updated within relationships.
A perspective beyond binary oppositions
Up to this point, I have contrasted companies with student organizations,
but in reality most organizations do not fit completely into either category.
Many organizations—university labs, NPOs, OSS communities—sit somewhere “in between.”
- Cyclicality and permanence coexist
- Exchange and gift intersect
- Fixity and fluidity exist at the same time
Organizations mix these elements in their own unique ratios and hold together while constantly wavering.
For this reason, the relevant question is not “Is it a company or a student group?”
Rather, it becomes:
“In what proportions does this organization mix these elements,
and how does that mixture change over time?”
From this perspective, the diversity of organizational forms is not something to be understood as a binary,
but as a “continuum.”
And once we adopt this understanding,
the question “What is an organization?” arises again, in a more concrete way.
Essence / way of being
Once we acknowledge this continuous spectrum,
organizations can no longer be understood as “static structures.”
Whether they are companies, student groups, OSS projects, or research labs,
what runs through all of them is the editing of time, the generation of roles, and the transformation of value.
An organization moves back and forth between permanence and cyclicality,
adjusts the balance between exchange and gift,
weaves together fixed roles and fluid roles,
treats knowledge both as asset and as experience,
and passes value onward while transforming it.
All of these processes together make up the “existence” of the organization as an ongoing activity.
In that sense, I suspect that an organization is
“a place that integrates oppositions and continually works with contradictions.”
It keeps being reborn while continuing to exist.
It builds up layers while also forgetting.
It is fixed, yet fluid.
It is rational, yet driven by passion.
It is exchanging, yet also gifting.
Perhaps the essence of organizations lies in this
dynamic way of being that continuously manages and adjusts such contradictions.
And because those contradictions exist,
organizations can grow, create, and keep changing.
Summary
This has been a long discussion, beginning from a comparison between companies and student groups,
and then rethinking organizations from the perspectives of time, motivation, knowledge, roles, culture, and value.
Let me summarize the key points.
- Companies are structured on permanence; student organizations are structured on cyclicality
- Differences in time structure give rise to “heaviness” and “lightness”
- Motivation contrasts as the principle of exchange versus the principle of gift
- Knowledge is handled both as asset and as experience
- Roles are not fixed but are generated through dialogue
- Creative gift circulates value while transforming it
- Spiral time is a useful model for understanding contemporary organizations
- Organizations are better understood as a continuum than as a binary
- The essence of organizations lies in their ability to manage contradictions and continuously update meaning
Whether we are looking at companies, student organizations, OSS projects, or research labs,
all of them are engaged in this ongoing work of “editing contradictions.”
Whether an organization continues to live is not determined
simply by its power to persist or the lightness of its cycles.
It depends on whether it can handle its contradictions
and keep updating the meanings that sustain it.
I would like to think of organizations as “places where time, relationships, and meaning are edited.”
And like a spiral that slowly climbs upward,
the process of gradually moving to a higher vantage point is what I would call organizational growth.