Expressed in the theme of this book [C. Hecksher and A. Donnellon, The Post Bureaucratic Organization, the book from which this chapter is reproduced] is a hope, a desire for a better organization than the one we have experienced for generations, the infamous bureaucracy. I am sympathetic with this hope. All of us who have studied organizations have encountered the debilitating effects of bureaucratic forms, whether managed well or not. And progress is made, as the Kennedy quote in the epigraph suggests, by dreamers who are willing to let go of the way of the past and peer into the neverland of what could be. Dreams motivate. They liberate us from the institutional constraints of history and social inertia so that we can explore new, unimaginable landscapes. But dreams also conveniently leave out the obstacles and problems that reality so rudely interjects. Thus, dreams do not guarantee success. And although the last two words “Why not” from the above quote are presumably rhetorical, one could take them literally and suggest that dreams should be scrutinized for loopholes. The answer to the question. “Why not?” may just be, “Because it won’t work.” It is not my purpose here to prejudge the viability of the post bureaucratic form. But, if it is to succeed, we must explore the obstacles to its evolution, the possible constraints to its existence. If we can anticipate the sources of resistance to its survival, we will have a better chance of nurturing it along until it can predominate among its alternatives. This chapter is built around two questions: (1) Can the ideal post bureaucratic form exist? and (2) If it could exist, would we want it to? The characteristics of interactive forms are described in the Heckscher- Applegate “Introduction” and narrowed down in the Heckscher chapter “Defining the Post-Bureaucratic Type” [in The Post-Bureaucratic Organization]. Although I see differences in the various chapters about what ideal type might entail, there are characteristics that emerge as dominant in this proposed form. Foremost among these defining characteristics is the reliance on informal relations, or associations, that cut across, or perhaps replace, formal channels established by the organization.