4 ms·

> Corporations are inherently stupid. Is it that groups of people are inherently stupid, or is there some facet of corporations that makes them in particular s

> Corporations are inherently stupid. Is it that groups of people are inherently stupid, or is there some facet of corporations that makes them in particular stupid?

whatshisface 6y ago
An individual person will act to the best of their ability. A group of people at bare minimum has to pay communication costs, and so will act to less than the best of the ability of its members. Furthermore, since dysfunctional organizations aren't quickly removed, the reality is usually a lot worse than the ideal. Depending on how much slack there is in the arena of competition there can be almost no limit on how dysfunctional small pockets, or even large slices, of the organization can become without leading to the death of the host.
- enioarda 6y ago
  Does that not leave out synergetic effects? While communication costs, it could also reward?
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The organization might "know" more about subject A and subject B together than expert A or B, but it will "know" less about subject A than expert A and subject B than expert B.
    - yikesshescute 6y ago
      What about subjects like “building rockets that are moon-capable”? All experts know negligible amounts about this subject, but organizations have “sufficient” knowledge.
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        That's essentially half my point. The organization might be passable at "building rockets that are moon-capable," but it's going to be worse at each individual specialized task than the individual experts that make it up. One of the C programmers is likely to look at the architecture of the control system and think "that's a dumb way to architect a control system," and he'll probably be right. The same will be true for every subsystem, and even the integrated assembly. However unless someone figures out how to reduce communication costs, that's the best anyone can do; the alternative would be to have a great control system with no rocket.
        yikesshescute 6y ago
        Is the implication that a company can spend more time and money to get each subsystem to subsystem-expert-acceptance level, or is there something about current organizational practice that makes even this impossible?
        whatshisface 6y ago
        Imagine two experts advising a leader. They're not going to fully communicate all of their expertise to him, so his decisions on topic A will probably be worse than expert A, and likewise for topic/expert B. He's going to make better decisions on joint A+B tasks that require combined and balanced knowledge, but both experts will (not incorrectly) see him as "not knowing as much about A/B as I do." You can substitute the individual leader for a group whose consensus must be obtained and get another parable illustrating the same principle.
        yikesshescute 6y ago
        So, the leader is an expert on “joint A+B tasks”? Then provided he, the leader, can identify, A tasks, B tasks and A+B tasks and correctly defer on the first two sets, won’t we get optimal decision making? And are we sure that there really are A+B tasks?
whateveracct 6y ago
Not all groups, but corporations are groups with * hierarchy * competition between people in the same tier of the hierarchy * opposing incentives throughout the hierarchy (company aims to maximize employee labor and minimize employee compensation and; employees minimize their labor and maximize their compensation) Left alone, this results in a lot of the stupidity, and that's why "building culture" is so important - a good company culture transcends this perverse base nature.
- yikesshescute 6y ago
  What are the specifics of a culture that transcends these organizational hazards? How does it work?

> Corporations are inherently stupid. Is it that groups of people are inherently stupid, or is there some facet of corporations that makes them in particular stupid?

whatshisface 6y ago

An individual person will act to the best of their ability. A group of people at bare minimum has to pay communication costs, and so will act to less than the best of the ability of its members. Furthermore, since dysfunctional organizations aren't quickly removed, the reality is usually a lot worse than the ideal. Depending on how much slack there is in the arena of competition there can be almost no limit on how dysfunctional small pockets, or even large slices, of the organization can become without leading to the death of the host.

enioarda 6y ago
Does that not leave out synergetic effects? While communication costs, it could also reward?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The organization might "know" more about subject A and subject B together than expert A or B, but it will "know" less about subject A than expert A and subject B than expert B.
  - yikesshescute 6y ago
    What about subjects like “building rockets that are moon-capable”? All experts know negligible amounts about this subject, but organizations have “sufficient” knowledge.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      That's essentially half my point. The organization might be passable at "building rockets that are moon-capable," but it's going to be worse at each individual specialized task than the individual experts that make it up. One of the C programmers is likely to look at the architecture of the control system and think "that's a dumb way to architect a control system," and he'll probably be right. The same will be true for every subsystem, and even the integrated assembly. However unless someone figures out how to reduce communication costs, that's the best anyone can do; the alternative would be to have a great control system with no rocket.
      - yikesshescute 6y ago
        Is the implication that a company can spend more time and money to get each subsystem to subsystem-expert-acceptance level, or is there something about current organizational practice that makes even this impossible?
        whatshisface 6y ago
        Imagine two experts advising a leader. They're not going to fully communicate all of their expertise to him, so his decisions on topic A will probably be worse than expert A, and likewise for topic/expert B. He's going to make better decisions on joint A+B tasks that require combined and balanced knowledge, but both experts will (not incorrectly) see him as "not knowing as much about A/B as I do." You can substitute the individual leader for a group whose consensus must be obtained and get another parable illustrating the same principle.
        yikesshescute 6y ago
        So, the leader is an expert on “joint A+B tasks”? Then provided he, the leader, can identify, A tasks, B tasks and A+B tasks and correctly defer on the first two sets, won’t we get optimal decision making? And are we sure that there really are A+B tasks?

whateveracct 6y ago

Not all groups, but corporations are groups with * hierarchy * competition between people in the same tier of the hierarchy * opposing incentives throughout the hierarchy (company aims to maximize employee labor and minimize employee compensation and; employees minimize their labor and maximize their compensation) Left alone, this results in a lot of the stupidity, and that's why "building culture" is so important - a good company culture transcends this perverse base nature.

yikesshescute 6y ago
What are the specifics of a culture that transcends these organizational hazards? How does it work?