This may sound like a very religious type of post. It could be. It could also be of business headquarters. Without getting too philosophical I just want to touch on the concept of something that may have happened in my lifetime that may be affecting thousands, even millions of people over time. Something that happens in other countries and likely happened long before I was born. The idea of creating a group entity with leadership, and then not providing or sustaining the leadership.
To describe how this looks, let’s think about a classroom space. 30 classmates split up into groups in the room, each group having its own theme and goals. Let’s say their are five groups. The teacher told the students to separate in to groups that you can organize and have a theme, purpose, goals, and get along. In this classroom, it is very likely 1-2 groups will be solid and accomplish goals almost right away, the others may or may not be as orderly, quick to “come together” or establish slowly, may not even get a goals list together they can all agree on and so forth. Within an hour… it will be clear what groups have strong leaders and which groups look more like anarchy with rotating voices of strength and guidance. This happens in society for businesses, politics, and religion. The more people understand what is going wrong, the stronger society will be. The difficulty is the theory of “survival of the fittest” is still happening. Which means the stronger groups may try to enslave the weaker ones and by doing so the smaller ones lose their goals, their identity and are blocked from “becoming fit” on their own and strong group also. They may start in anarchy, less gathered, however if they enslaved, even scattered… they’ll never develop well–lose their chance forever to gather and be its own group.
In my lifetime I have actually seen companies be created and scattered before they are known to the public–before they are transacting, trading, making deals. I’ve seen buildings built, even whole business campuses and the original people never moved in.
A THEORY:
The problem with grabbing a lot of smaller groups and forcing them to be part of one bigger group is that they lose their individuality and over time even their purpose to the larger group because of it. It means the large group is/was too big. It couldn’t manage all its talent well. It actually could not perpetuate all the small groups within its big group. So the small groups will die off and the overall large group will just focus on the “big things” that sustain it… and it may not sustain itself over generations because of the ongoing weakening due to undermining its own talent pool. When a talented group or individual has its goals and overall purpose removed, the group will eventually fail or close down–it simply has no work to do. Some companies do this every year: They evaluate what departments, divisions need to continue as they are, which need more or less funding, which need to be closed down. Companies/corporations tend to be more careful than an overall society how they handle personnel and structure–easier for them because of size.
What this means is, a big company or corporation may have very specific abilities and goals… like a big church or temple. In its bigness can do big things and have a lot of “strength in numbers”. However, a big group may not be able to help and sustain all its individuals. Individuals gather into groups to help support each other better. Which means the big group has to allow “the people” to create legal ways of sustaining themselves better. For a church or temple this could be study groups, committees, support groups. In society this would mean small businesses and organizations. A mature society would understand the concept well and be more secure in letting it happen.
If you want an Old World example: It would be a like a kingdom with one small group of blacksmiths in one building for the castle or leadership only. Realizing that the community and society of people may need services for their needs also, the ruling group or leadership… allows one or two blacksmiths to leave the castle and create a “shop” for doing this service in the community only. If they can’t release their own blacksmiths, the leadership may help get new ones trained and set up for the community. The community would have a variety of needs of this service. What can go wrong is, the leadership changes their mind and removes the “community blacksmiths” and forces them to work only for the castle or leadership. And then the leadership controls daily who can use those blacksmiths and what is paid for the services, and what services the blacksmiths can do for “common people”. The common people may find they can’t get things made as they wanted, can’t afford the prices set by the leadership and eventually the leadership could have too many blacksmiths and not enough work for them. It could get worse. Because there isn’t enough work for the talent pool of blacksmiths, some of the blacksmiths may drop their skills and find new ones to “stay relevant” to the leadership–so not only did the community of common people lose a crafts person’s services, so did the castle or leadership.