3 ms·
No, it did apply to companies too: larger commercial operations tended to be more successful than small ones. It's just that the big ones weren't very big by m
by pg 18y ago
No, it did apply to companies too: larger commercial operations tended to be more successful than small ones. It's just that the big ones weren't very big by modern standards. (Neither were armies, though.)
Edo Japan is a pretty unique case. A famous historical curiosity, in fact. And indeed the power latent in Japanese society became visible in its unprecedentedly rapid industrialization in the second half of the 19th century.
- bokonist 18y agolarger commercial operations tended to be more successful than small ones. It's just that the big ones weren't very big by modern standards. In your essay you predict that "large organizations will probably never again play the leading role they did up till the last quarter of the twentieth century". Are you suggesting that average company size will revert to a level lower than even 1900? Or are you saying that average company size may remain roughly the same, it's just that economic dynamism will come from startups, rather than corporate laboratories?
- pg 18y agoThe latter. Big companies might get a bit smaller, but more because automation means you no longer need armies of workers than because of the shift in power to startups.
- bokonist 18y agoI find your essay a bit confusing because you never define what "success" or "better" means. There are many different ways of measuring organizational success. When you say that traditionally, bigger organizations were better, do you mean they were better: a) militarily b) in developing new technologies that make lives better c) in producing goods like trains and cars d) better at generating revenues/profits e) better at attracting the best and the brightest f) producing achievements that are remembered by historians g) all of the above It is important to clarify this, because some of these measures of success oppose each other. For instance, the Egyptian governments were great at f) but at the expense of b). I at first took your essay to define success as b) improving technology. But if so, the thesis is obviously wrong. Most of the great inventions of the industrial revolution were created by tinkerers and small enterprises, not large organizations. Just look at the development of the textile technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_clothing_and_textiles_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_clothing_and_textil... . Almost every single invention from 1600 to 1900 was developed by a startup (and many of these startups were funded by outside investors, Kleiners Perkins has nothing on the Boston Associates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boston_Associates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boston_Associates ).
- lackbeard 18y agoEdo Japan is a pretty unique case. A famous historical curiosity, in fact. And indeed the power latent in Japanese society became visible in its unprecedentedly rapid industrialization in the second half of the 19th century. Is there a particular book you read that discusses this idea? I'd be interested in reading it.
- newsycaccount 18y ago>No, it did apply to companies too: larger commercial operations tended to be more successful than small ones. How are you defining success? How well the company did per-capita (per employee)?
- kragen 18y ago> larger commercial operations tended to be more successful than small ones. It's just that the big ones weren't very big by modern standards. It seems that you have a different idea than Coase about what limited the size of companies; he believed that companies stopped getting bigger because as they got bigger, they started becoming less "successful", in the sense of "profitable". What's your alternative explanation?