82,891
edits
Scale paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Two, at an unobserved point, the organisation will suffer a final collapse in on itself, undone by the [[Schwarzschild radius|sheer mathematics of its own density]]. This may not be obvious to outside observers because its own gravity is now so dense no new coherent information can escape, and whatever flatulent burps do get out will be so distorted by the weft of management-speak in which all public announcements from the organisation have been infused as to be meaningless to anyone except a [[LinkedIn]] influencer. This is believed to have happened to Deutsche Bank in 2009. | Two, at an unobserved point, the organisation will suffer a final collapse in on itself, undone by the [[Schwarzschild radius|sheer mathematics of its own density]]. This may not be obvious to outside observers because its own gravity is now so dense no new coherent information can escape, and whatever flatulent burps do get out will be so distorted by the weft of management-speak in which all public announcements from the organisation have been infused as to be meaningless to anyone except a [[LinkedIn]] influencer. This is believed to have happened to Deutsche Bank in 2009. | ||
There is an equilibrium point at which a middle management layer can make itself too big to get rid of without radical and potentially life-threatening surgery, but not big enough to threaten the existence of the organisation itself. A bit like a tape worm. | |||
As Virgil would say, ''[[aegrescit medendo]]''. | As Virgil would say, ''[[aegrescit medendo]]''. | ||