A lot, actually. Take bureaucracy, for example: It’s likely that the word is perceived negatively by you and many others. Judging by public opinion one would be forgiven for thinking that this organizing principle has had a bad effect on society.
Yet as a principle, bureaucracy has been tremendously successful over thousands of years, evidenced by the fact that it is the mother of all incumbent systems today. During the 17th century bureaucracy, or ‘rule by office’ became an effective counter measure to governments being staffed by friends, relatives, or those of a particular social or ethnic group.
By definition a bureaucracy is rational, neutral, and merit-based. Perhaps it’s getting the blame for the effects of something else. To my mind the real enemy has and may always be self-interest.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I think you’re flat out wrong about this one Charl. I think bureaucracy, like communism is a good idea which runs aground on the implementation issues that are a product of human nature.
This occurred to me when I re-read the Wikipedia entry on Parkinson’s Law. Specifically, Parkinson describes how as a result of human nature, bureaucracy are doomed to collapse under their own weight as they grow.
Self-interest is that basic fact of human nature, and I don’t think you can abstract out this aspect. You have to take it into consideration in the design of your solution, and better even, use it as a lynchpin of the solution if you hope to succeed.
I’m fairly Darwinian in that respect, in that I believe that self-interest is built into us at a genetic level. Our ability to transcend it is rare and uneven.