I strongly believe that there must be better organizational structures than the white-collar neo-feudalism that is the average American corporation. But I think we have enough examples to say the pure "leaderless" model is on average worse once you get above a very modest number of people.
The metaphor makes me wonder: who is the church - those who convince the masses that there's a bigger meaning to sitting around an obeying orders?
For instance, every employee could take turn at non technical but honorific positions. Regarding technical tasks, each person could also rule absolutely over many small areas of expertise that they also take responsibility for?
I hope there is no need for a fixed arbitrary hierarchy for accountability.
1) Delegation [...]
2) [Responsibility]
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. [...]
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's "property" and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. [...]
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. [...] Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. [...]
6) Diffusion of information [...]
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.[...]
There would need to have "watchers who watch the watchers" - a problem that regresses infinitely. Meanwhile even if you do a good job at that, the REAL job is done poorly if at all.