I think there’s something to what you say, but your model is woefully incomplete in ways that miss much of why large bureaucratic organizations exist.
Most organizations need to scale to a point where they will encouter principal-agent problems.
Dominance hierarchies offer a partial solution to principal-agent problems in that dominance can get agents to do what their principals want.
Dominance is not bad. Most people want to be at least partially dominated because by giving up some agency they get clear goals to accomplish in exchange, and that accomplishment gives them a sense of meaning.
Also they may care about the mission of the org but not know how to achieve its goals without someone telling them what to do.
Basically what I want to say is that dominance is instrumentally useful given human psychology and the goals of many organizations, and I think most organizations don’t exist for the purpose of exerting dominance over other people except insofar as is necessary to achieve goals.
I think there’s something to what you say, but your model is woefully incomplete in ways that miss much of why large bureaucratic organizations exist.
Most organizations need to scale to a point where they will encouter principal-agent problems.
Dominance hierarchies offer a partial solution to principal-agent problems in that dominance can get agents to do what their principals want.
Dominance is not bad. Most people want to be at least partially dominated because by giving up some agency they get clear goals to accomplish in exchange, and that accomplishment gives them a sense of meaning.
Also they may care about the mission of the org but not know how to achieve its goals without someone telling them what to do.
Basically what I want to say is that dominance is instrumentally useful given human psychology and the goals of many organizations, and I think most organizations don’t exist for the purpose of exerting dominance over other people except insofar as is necessary to achieve goals.