> More people == More politics. Not quite that pessimistic. I don't remember who but someone summarised it as "if you are willing to try many ideas at the same

> More people == More politics. Not quite that pessimistic. I don't remember who but someone summarised it as "if you are willing to try many ideas at the same time, you grow innovators. If you are willing to try one idea at a time, you grow politicians." Basically if you want to force the entire organisation to dance to the exact same beat, you'll get politicians competing for which beat to dance to. If you accept some disparity and divergence in goals, and have decentralised systems and processes in place to loosely realign efforts, you can have many people and not so much politics. (Is that inefficient? Maybe, but no worse than the alternative. Besides, perfect alignment of effort implies that someone knows what the future will look like -- never mind that different people have different opinions on this. If looking for a small trinket on a parking lot, would you rather illuminate with floodlight or laser pointer?)