A secret battle between synergy and particularity is raging beneath the surfaces of societies all the time. Here are some of the consequences.

All mergers and acquisitions are based on the idea that economies of scale will drive down costs across the board and produce synergies between organizations. This assumption is so ingrained in our thinking that few people stop to ask why most takeovers fail.

In any group activity there’s a hierarchy of decisionmaking. Each person in the structure gets a bagload of responsibilities based on various assumptions, and the empire-building of their predecessors. Like cream in a milk bottle, decisions have a strong tendency to rise up the hierarchy, stopping only when the number of assumptions needed to take them exceeds common sense.

Notice the word “exceeds”. This isn’t a rational process, it’s pushed purely by ego and vanity.

The result is that most decisions in any organization (business or governmental) produce a one-size-fits-all outcome which gives a false sense of synergy, while destroying efficiency and particularity.

“Particularity” may sound odd here but, in reality, it’s the crux of the well-being of any complex infrastructure. It means decisions are made with few assumptions and with a “size”, or scale, that fits the need of every case.

Modern Western countries are one-size-fits-all societies. It’s our weakest link and the point where our enemies concentrate their attacks. They know most decisions, whether laws, regulations, red tape, whatever, are unpopular and largely unworkable, because they lack particularity and precision-relevance to the case.

Thus we need armies of lawyers to sort things out, over long periods of time. We also have to throw huge amounts of national and business capital at problems just to keep them afloat.

Politburo orders are always wrong. EU “directives” are never right for most people. Decisions taken on 10 Downing Street’s sofa have been proved disastrous time and again. White House decisions are hardly spangled with success. Microsoft, and even lucky Google, make crass moves all the time which go totally pear-shaped.

If every decision were taken at the point of maximum competence, or very near to it, there would be few assumptions to make, and the outcome would be as close to perfect as it’s possible to reach.

So here’s The Syntagma Principle: Particularity means never having to make assumptions. If you’re making assumptions, the decision shouldn’t be taken at your pay grade.

You may be wondering why Superdemocracy — the art of corporate governance — is included in 21st-century Phi network magazine. The answer is that the 21st century is being built on “soft” sciences.

In computer technology, the hardware is the least of it nowadays. Software rules the technological roost and has since Bill Gates made Microsoft the most successful company in the world.

Software is deferred design, and so complex are the tasks computers perform now, much of the design is deferred to the user’s choice — a good example of Superdemocracy at work.

Similarly, in corporate governance and the adminstration of nation states, decision-making is becoming more complex in an increasingly technical world. Politicians and civil servants no longer have the skills and knowledge to take most modern decisions. They still do, of course, and make an unholy mess of almost everything they touch.

In Britain, we’re informed that a government-ordered computer system for the National Health Service is unlikely ever to work. Some £20 billion ($38bn) has been spent on it. Other expensive systems for the Farming and Environmental department and the Passport Office have all been flops.

Soft technology skills are vital in the 21st century if anything is to work. The art of government and corporate governance are prime examples. Superdemocracy is the supreme science that must be learned by our masters if we are to compete against the newly resurgent developing nations.

Of course, delegation has always been important to efficient working. But refined delegation to the the point of maximum competence is an art yet to be mastered by most administrators.