As the matter of the fact, things currently are not so bad in the whole world. A good word i'd try to spread is the spirit of creativity, individual importance and decision freedom of individuals, carried by so called "open source software" community. Open source commitment is pretty wide spread and well known to advanced computer users. It is an institution of distributed software producing crews and maybe we could learn something from their well (by my opinion) succeeded experiment.

Open source crews are committed to elevating quality of their services by letting everyone to have influence in particular service providing. The magic they are using is they practice completely open project management. This is how they do things: let say mr. X created really good project, structured it well and production of software began. But mr. X knows that he might not made perfect project guiding decisions, so he decides to make the project "open source" and shares the project entirely to public. Here comes mr. Y that is satisfied by mr. X's project, but not quite well. Mr. X has let his hands untied, so mr. Y has opportunity to freely make a "fork" of beginning project, to adjust its properties by his own commitments and to place modified project to the market by different name. Different "forks" of starting projects can coexist at the same time and the market could be used to provide feedback and decide on which fork suits best needs of public.

Spirit of creativity and individual decision making importance of every human being is simply glowing in open source committed projects while supporting friendly sharing of resources (time) invested by every previous project influencer. So in the world of computers, property of infinite resources (making software copies) is quite well used. These people bravely commit to raising quality of their products and their work is recognized by few, but devoted users (i think they hold about 3% of market share - see Linux / Windows users ratio).

But in other areas of real world, we are dealing with limited raw materials and resources, so things are little bit more complicated. Good thing that might be worth of look up to open source spirit is letting members of workgroup to choose what to do, and how to do it. This way each individual would be creatively unrestricted and would have freedom of making decisions that would shape their credibility of influence on the whole workgroup, as a part of the whole system. On the other side, each individual could have a freedom of choosing what available role in other workgroups is willing to play, or even could have a freedom to create new roles from which any other workgroup would have benefits.

Making project organization exposed to public, a new dimension of productivity can be gained, thus prolonging competence on real world market. Spirit of internal collaboration between workgroup members would be very positive (remember that workroup members are majorty versus project leaders) and that would certainly pay back in increased overall workgroup productivity. Flavor of product brands that would be born in proud healthy working environment would certainly be recognized by public.

My opinion is that closing organisational aspects of workgroups and centralizing them in strong hierarchy, an immediate but subjective efficiency is gained. Imho closed workgroups don't have a chance to be a part of market for a longer time because quality of their products is likely to be guided by subjective opinions.