The famed organizational design was merely an aspirational "wishlist" that Spotify never fully adopted. Companies copying it are chasing a fantasy primarily used for recruiting, not a proven operational model that the company itself ever ran on.
We don't write case studies on the hundreds of companies that failed while trying similar playbooks. We incorrectly attribute success to the visible strategies of survivors (like an org model) while ignoring luck, timing, and funding, which are often the real differentiators.
Despite internal failures and employees questioning why the outdated, aspirational model wasn't removed from public view, Spotify continued to leverage the hype. The vision of autonomous 'squads' was a powerful magnet for attracting talent, even if it didn't reflect the operational reality.
At Spotify, when people moved teams, they often kept their original manager. This created a chaotic web of reporting lines, making it impossible to establish clear accountability, consistent performance management, or unified team direction, ultimately undermining the model.
Founders often believe they can hire one "integrator" (like a COO) to handle all operational details. This is a myth. True scaling requires hiring specific, talented functional leaders (e.g., Head of Sales, Head of Product) who can solve a single, major business constraint, not a generalist helper.
Companies are a technology for organizing people toward a common mission. Unlike software, they're rarely perfected because the incentive is only to be better than the competition, not to reach an absolute ideal of operational excellence.
Before emulating a company like Spotify, leaders should examine its entire business. The Spotify model that underpays creators to achieve profitability reveals a culture that might not be worth replicating, regardless of its internal structure.
The success of any org model is tied to preconditions like executive backing and a collaborative culture. Simply renaming teams to "squads" and "tribes" without changing underlying behaviors is just "installing a new set of jargon" and leads to failure.
Forcing innovations to "scale" via top-down mandates often fails by robbing local teams of ownership. A better approach is to let good ideas "spread." If a solution is truly valuable, other teams will naturally adopt it. This pull-based model ensures change sticks and evolves.
A former Spotify agile coach admitted they focused too much on autonomy, which created "really dumb problems." Teams lacked standard tooling like a common version control system, proving that autonomy requires strategic guardrails and alignment to be effective at scale.
The narrative of scrappy innovation via the Spotify Model is revisionist history. The company had access to over $2 billion in cheap capital, allowing it to burn money, absorb costs, and outlast competitors—a luxury most companies attempting to copy its structure do not have.