When it comes to understanding large organizations I think a simple principle should apply:
replyThe Purpose of a System is What it Does[1].
Whether malicious or not, the system does what it does. If people wanted it to do something else they would change the system. The reality is that when corporations make mistakes that benefit them those mistakes rarely get fixed without some sort of public outcry, turning the "mistake" into a "feature".
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
Intriguing concept, but I feel it needlessly breaks language. A more narrow (and to me, less pompous) formulation would be that social groups have their own purpose, different from (though not unrelated to) the purposes of the individual members. And this collective purpose can be read best from the actions of the collective, just like the purpose of a person is best divined from their actions (actions speak louder than words).
replyMore about where I think Stafford Beer goes wrong here: https://gemini.google.com/share/9a14f90f096e
The insight for me is that the assumptions of system need to be stated, not just the intent.
replyNot really sure you gain much, either. Unless false confidence is your goal.
replyFalse confidence in what?
reply