Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
My general proposition is that when systems, like corporations, become 'too big' that due to the internal dynamics of bigness they come to act overall at a mediocre level of intelligence.
This does seem to be the case. This and other related problems are described in C. N. Parkinson's witty masterpiece "Parkinson's Law and Other Studies of Administration."
The problem is, some tasks can only be done by large organizations, such as armies, national governments, or automobile manufacturers. They cannot be done on a small scale. It is true that some tasks and parts of the organization can be subdivided, and they can be given some autonomy, as people here have suggested. In the end though, the subdivisions must come together because. A giant automobile company can only make a small number of different models, and an army must be run in coordinated fashion with a clear set of goals, which can only be decided by a single commanding general. The general must be skilled, or no matter how large and well equipped the army is, it will lose.
The Union army was larger than the Confederate army, but it lost for the first 2 years of the war because it was badly led. Later, it had difficulty winning because it was so large, it became unwieldy. It took too long for orders and information to pass through the ranks, and too long to move the mass of men and equipment. Still, it is hard to imagine the Union could have won more easily by sending half the men home. Better too big than too little.
- Jed
