>but someone somewhere has to have a goal, or the whole enterprise is a colossal waste of time and resources.
free economies overall perform very well without having anybody setting goals. In healthy environments productive activity can very well be emergent without any sort of dictat.
In fact long plans and visions at big companies are often exactly what makes them slow, they operate like old tankers that set course on some pre-planned direction and aren't flexible enough to switch course simply because they organise decisions top-down.
free economies overall perform very well without having anybody setting goals. In healthy environments productive activity can very well be emergent without any sort of dictat
My understanding is that internal corporate stuff tends to not be subject to the same market forces that are what make free economies work well.
Top-down decisionmaking is actually efficient, big companies are slow in spite of, not because of it. The slowness comes partly from bureaucracy, but partly arises because big companies have something to lose.
The rapid reaction of small companies only looks like movement on the macroscale. In reality, it's a series of births and deaths. They don't move much at all, but they die fast and get formed even faster compared to big ones. And that forming part usually involves individuals with goals.
free economies overall perform very well without having anybody setting goals. In healthy environments productive activity can very well be emergent without any sort of dictat.
In fact long plans and visions at big companies are often exactly what makes them slow, they operate like old tankers that set course on some pre-planned direction and aren't flexible enough to switch course simply because they organise decisions top-down.