Any practical person in charge of anything from time to time asks the question: “How do we do things most effectively?” When asking such a question, what does not required is a theoretical discussion about which model of organization, say socialist or capitalist, is better or whether Private Enterprise can do a better job than Public Administration.The whole big mess in this area of academic theory and slogans was beautifully summarized by a statement once made by the Sri Lankan Minister of Commerce.
“In my mind, today…. We have taken a Socialist approach, but in practice Socialism means whatever methods can be used to improve the lot of the poor. If that includes Private Enterprise then that’s good too. ”
The truth is that practical men must make all theories work. What produces the best results serves mankind best. Philosophy and intellectual entertainment is everything else.
Some believe that large organizations – large businesses or large public corporations – hold the secret to efficiency. There is a strong tendency to place one’s faith in economies and economies of scale, which large agglomerations are reputed to give. Big companies seek salvation while taking over other companies to even increase.
However, large organizations suffer from potentially fatal weaknesses. Consider only two defects.
Motivation decreases and participation decreases. People lost in massive anxieties withdraw themselves from a deep interest in what is really happening. Some major concerns are better for arousal than others, but generally bigness fosters a feeling of distance from the act. If a major concern is successful and makes a lot of money, the average worker’s heartbeat is not going to be much faster and he won’t usually sweat with a lot of pain if the anxiety ticks over or doesn’t very good. To get the most out of any man you have to convince him that his personal involvement and individual contribution are really important and this can best be achieved in small groups. Actually the group probably has to be very small. It is a cliché to state that Jesus Christ tried twelve and that it was too much.
Secondly, in any large organization there is an invaluable tendency towards bureaucracy – too much bureaucracy; too many committee meetings; too much paper and forms and questionnaires and interdepartmental memos and monthly returns and files circulating; too many pettifogging regulations; too many referrals up or down referrals before making decisions; too many settle for the lowest common denominator to get any agreement at all. Sad to say, in such an organization – whether it’s a big business, a big Corporation, or a big Ministry – even good incentives are practically ruined. Take the commendable impulse to keep everyone updated on what’s happening. That’s basically good, but in a large organization what tends to happen is that executives, managers and technical people spend a great deal of valuable time conducting countless conferences amongst themselves just to tell each other what they are doing with the result that they are all more and more prevented from doing what they are so busy explaining to each other what they are going to ‘ w do.
There is a growing school of thought that dynamic organizations, even if they are still large, must try to find ways of doing things competitively in their own right, building what is sometimes called our “intrapreneurial” units. One of the pioneering thinkers on this is Gifford Pinchot. He is quoted as saying:
“Devolution alone is not enough. In a hierarchical organization, promotions can be gained through special races, loyalty to your boss, and general political skills. Gentleness, original thinking and the ability to observe and act on the obvious do not necessarily lead to success. If we are to achieve problem solving very well in our devolved corporations, we must introduce a system that gives a decision to those who achieve successful outcomes, not to the non-criminal. Such people will be prepared to take moderate risks and will be more concerned with achieving results than gaining influence. These are among the characteristics of the successful entrepreneur. What is needed in any large corporation is not more semi-independent divisions run by tough yes men, but something akin to free-thinking entrepreneurship within the corporate organization. ”
He is very good at pronouncing extensive plans and broad theories. It’s right for people sitting in the center to issue general directives and outline great projects. But in the end, it’s people who work in small units away from the center who have to get things done. Clarity must move on to them and away from the byproduct and the oversized.
Poets are much wiser than politicians or businessmen or even scientists, engineers and computer profiles – so I’ll quote Edmund Spenser, the English English poet. (He is the one, incidentally, who spoke for all public servants in times of hard pressure when he wrote: “And all about love and nothing for reward”!) Spenser long ago recognized that small indeed not only beautiful but also vitally important when he wrote:
“How can you know these bigger secrets
Doesn’t that know the least of them all?
Can control the big cannot reach the small. ”