Xenology: An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization
First Edition
© 1975-1979, 2008 Robert A. Freitas Jr. All Rights Reserved.
Robert A. Freitas Jr., Xenology: An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization, First Edition, Xenology Research Institute, Sacramento, CA, 1979; http://www.xenology.info/Xeno.htm
21.3.2 System Structure
The larger an extraterrestrial organization, the more information it must subsume within its structure in order to survive.3071 Structures which contain more information characteristically are more complex, more differentiated and specialized. (See Child,839 Melcher,1867 and Presthus.825) Fascinating theoretical work in general systems structure conducted by Ross E. McMurtrie at Princeton University has demonstrated the need for hierarchical structures in organizations. McMurtrie found that in large, randomly connected systems increases in size or connectedness between components (complexity) have a generally destabilizing effect on organizational performance. The introduction of even a crude hierarchical structure has an enormous stabilizing effect on system behavior.1735 The virtual inevitability of hierarchy is part of modern systems theory. (See Boulding,829 Laszlo,2992 and Simon,826 but compare Thayer.1868)
Large complex systems tend to decline in performance after they reach a certain size. Eventually they enter a stage of "systems crisis," which may lead to very different results: On the one hand, the systems may move toward total collapse; on the other, the Systems may be transformed. The far right column in Figure 21.1 suggests the shift in the character of a system if it is to successfully resolve the problems of Stage IV. Note that the "social product" of a bureaucracy may be defined as the improvement in well-being of the clients of a system produced by the operation of that system. The social product might be health care, education, or some other public service.
Duane Elgin and his fellow researchers2963 developed a composite description of the behavior of a hypothetical bureaucracy as it proceeds through each of the four stages of growth, as illustrated in Figure 21.1 and the text following.
Stage 1: High Growth/Era of Faith
In the "springtime" of growth, the relative level of systems comprehension is high, and the scale, complexity, and interdependence of the bureaucracies are low. There is a strong faith in the efficacy of shared values and goals. There is a belief that these values are part of the natural order, and that basic to this system’s destiny is the natural unfolding (e.g., as if by an "invisible hand") of these values. This is also a period of great vitality, innovation, and energy as economic and sociopolitical entrepreneurs are the agents of creative expression of this social order. The social leaders have considerable legitimacy, and the high performance of the system speaks of unbounded potentials.Stage II: Greatest Efficiency/Era of Reason
In the "summertime" of growth, the relative level of systems comprehension is moderate, and the scale, complexity, and interdependence of the bureaucracies have increased substantially relative to the earlier period. The systems have become sufficiently complicated that their effective functioning is not simply a matter of faith but requires the efforts of a brain trust. Creative, intellectual advisors’ bring rationality and order into the operations of the systems and become an integral aspect of leadership.The level of alienation increases, but this seemingly reflects a consequence of higher geographic and occupational mobility. Rather than a pathological condition, this era seems healthy in comparison to the parochialism of the preceding era. The level of systems performance is still increasing, but the bursts of vitality of Stage 1 have been replaced by a more methodical planning and implementation process. The costs of coordination and control are beginning to mount but can be kept within tolerable limits by the judicious use of rules and regulations to rationalize, standardize, and simplify operations.
Stage III: Severe Diseconomies/Era of Skepticism
In the "autumn" of growth, the relative level of systems comprehension is low and dropping rapidly as large, barely comprehensible bureaucracies have grown into largely incomprehensible supersystems. As leaders disavow their responsibility for error and maximize the visibility of their own increasingly modest achievements, the system’s constituency be comes increasingly disillusioned, apathetic, and cynical. Both faith in the basic soundness of the system and trust in rationality to solve the mounting problems are virtually exhausted.Leaders are more tolerated than given active support and legitimacy -- there seems little alternative than to cynically acquiesce to those leaders who say that they alone have adequate information to truly understand what is happening. Yet, the declining levels of systems performance, the crisis atmosphere that pervades the management of the system, the growing numbers of disturbing events and the loss of allegiance to basic values create a situation in which consensus falls to very low levels. Decision-makers are increasingly unable to cope with complex problems that demand superhuman abilities. Costs and problems of coordination and control are mounting rapidly, and the benefit to the constituency seems to be declining with equal rapidity; consequently people are less willing to support the actions of the bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy is becoming increasingly rigid, distant, and dysfunctional and yet insists that its constituency conform to its increasingly rationalized and standardized procedures when interacting with the system -- thereby reinforcing the apparent inhumanity of the system and further reducing the system’s legitimacy. Further, the rigidity of the system engenders a loss of resilience and, coupled with growing perturbations (many of which arise from the counter-intuitive and unexpected consequences of ill-considered policy actions), the system seems increasingly vulnerable to disruption.
Stage IV: Systems Crisis/Era of Despair, then...?
In the "winter" of growth, the relative level of systems comprehension is minimal. The systems are on the verge of chaos and collapse. There is a rapid turnover of leaders, prevailing ideology, and policy solutions -- yet nothing seems to work. Every attempt at creating order (short of a highly authoritarian structure) seems overwhelmed by growing levels of disorder. The level of systems cohesion is very low which, in turn, exacerbates the problem of system’s leaders who govern virtually without support.The rigidified bureaucracy is made somewhat more resilient by the rapid turnover of personnel and policy, but the vulnerability of the system is so high and mounting crises are of such seriousness that whatever additional resiliency has been added to the system is quickly depleted in a grinding downward spiral into bureaucratic confusion and chaos. The situation becomes simply intolerable and untenable.
From this period of systems crisis, any one of four plausible outcomes may emerge: (1) succcessful muddling through the situation (although muddling through seems more characteristic of the processes which led to Stage IV crisis conditions); (2) a descent into chaos as the size, complexity, and interdependence of the system’s problems overwhelm decision-makers; (3) an authoritarian response in an attempt to rationalize and simplify the coordination and control processes; or (4) transformation as the system evolves to a higher level of structure which is both more efficient and more simple. Which of these four outcomes is most likely to occur is impossible to say without specifying the circumstances that surround a system in Stage IV crisis conditions.
Two problems -- communications and control -- must be addressed by any alien sociopolitical system. These may be analyzed in terms of the twin concepts of hierarchy and span of control. Hierarchy represents levels of increasing managerial specialization. Each hierarchical level is comprised of supervisors of roughly equivalent responsibility. Span of control, the number of subordinates administered by each supervisor, represents increasing managerial generalization. Studies of governmental and private organizations have shown that the number of hierarchical levels and the span of control tend to increase as the whole system expands.
But span and hierarchy are also known to be inversely correlated. That is, widening the span of control necessitates decreasing the number of levels of supervision, whereas increasing the number of hierarchical levels necessitates narrowing the span of control. As one writer puts it: "An organization is in many ways like a rubber ball. If you squeeze it in one place, it bulges somewhere else."827 The traditional organization with its narrow span of supervision and many levels is shaped like an elongated pyramid and customarily is referred to as a "tall" organization. With wider spans and fewer levels, the pyramid becomes wider at the base and shorter in height. This is called a "flat" organization. The drawings in Figure 21.2 are illustrative.
It’s easy to understand the complementary nature of span and hierarchy on the basis of general systems theory. As systems become more ordered, they tend to become more specialized and centralized -- or taller. The ultimate in centralization, as shown on the next page, is the absolute vertical dominance hierarchy, in which span of control is unity and the number of levels equals the number of personnel. In this extreme case control of subordinates is maximized because each individual supervises only one subordinate and reports to only one boss. Communication is minimized since each message must change hands a maximum number of times before reaching its intended recipient. Therefore, tall organizational structures are associated with a policy emphasizing control.
Decentralized systems, on the other hand, tend to be more generalized. The ultimate flat organization, also shown in Figure 21.2, has only one hierarchical level and a span equal to the number of personnel. In this case we see that communication among subordinates is maximized because the length of the channels carrying messages is minimized (direct person-to-person in every exchange). However, control is virtually nonexistent except insofar as personnel spontaneously decide to cooperate. Therefore, short organizational structures are associated with a policy emphasizing communication.
According to Kenneth Boulding, extreme centralization fails to optimize performance because of the breakdown in the communications network. Poor communication weakens control.829 But excessive decentralization also fails to optimize because of the relative lack of coordination and uniformity of approach. Communication is inhibited because everyone is trying to talk at once. The trick seems to be to find some balance between flatness and tallness in each system and for each sociopolitical mission.3002,830 It is interesting to note that humans tend naturally to create rather tall organizations, perhaps due in part to their simian heritage as reflected by the tendency among primate troupes to segregate into vertical dominance chains. Sentient ETs derived from a carnivorous catlike species or a race of intelligent octopuses who valued individuality above all else might be predisposed to form flatter organizational structures.
Xenologists recognize that the problems of management in a galactic empire may be serious indeed. Due to the extreme system size, the number of levels and broad spans required will be enormous. Most human terrestrial organizations have spans of 10 subordinates per supervisor or less. Using this figure, a galactic empire controlling ten billion planets having ten billion inhabitants each would require at least 21 hierarchical levels of supervision. The performance of such a system may be far from spectacular. It is well-known that human organizations with more than 6-8 hierarchical levels tend to become excessively bureaucratic. Communication upwards, in the words of one writer, becomes "an exercise analogous to swimming through progressively hardening concrete."2963
Advanced biotechnology may give extraterrestrials a helping hand in this matter. The installation of individual biocybernetic implants and deep cultural databanks may make information processing somewhat easier for galactic managers. Or perhaps molecular electronic machine intellects must be constructed in order successfully to run a galaxy. If spans of 100 subordinates can be managed properly using some technological device, then the number of hierarchical levels can almost be halved -- from 21 down to 11. The structure of an interstellar empire might then be as suggested by Table 21.4.
By the very nature of the beast, the Emperor will have absolutely no contact with non-interstellar personnel. His relations with his knights would be not unlike the relationship between the United States President and the mayors and city managers of American cities. To the Galactic Emperor the starkeepers, each responsible for 100 worlds, will seem much as U.S. citizens appear to their President. Planetary governors will be viewed as "the rabble," a simple but perhaps surprising fact which may have innumerable consequences in the field of interstellar power politics.
Xenologists are also interested in another branch of organizational cybernetics known as "control loss theory." This field has major implications in large extraterrestrial systems with respect to hierarchical structural design. Economist Oliver Williamson recently devised a simple mathematical model based on the standard hierarchy/span conception of sociopolitical organizations.2964 In this model, goals are generated at the top of the hierarchy and actions to implement them are executed at the bottom. In between there are a number of supervisory levels. At each level, bosses give orders to subordinates which they in turn received from above, and which are expected to be passed on down the chain of command. According to Williamson, at each level there is a small amount of loss of control, a tiny bit of "slippage" -- orders are misinterpreted or diverted, personal power tactics take their toll, and part of the original intention of upper echelons is lost. Noise -- entropy -- creeps into the message.
Each level adds to the cumulative control loss, and the total loss ultimately emerges at the bottom as the proportion of production workers’ time that does not further organizational goals. We can get a rough idea of the efficacy of control in the hierarchical Empire outlined in Table 21.4. There are 11 levels of control, so orders change hands 10 times. If the interlevel control parameter is set at 95% -- the optimistic end of the range suggested by Williamson -- then the net control at the level of the citizenry is (0.95)10 or 60%. That is, the Emperor’s goals will only be about one-half effective. If the interlevel control parameter is set at 85%, the lower limit recommended by Williamson, then net control drops to a mere 20%. Only one-fifth of the Emperor’s plans and commands ever reach fruition at the level of the Imperial citizenry.
Peter B. Evans has used Williamson’s control loss model to compare the behavior of several different hierarchical structures.840 According to Evans, higher efficiencies can be achieved at low cost by switching to a "multiple hierarchy" -- a system in which there is more than one channel of control and communication between upper and lower echelons. The simplest organization of this form is the dual hierarchy (Figure 21.3). Using control loss theory, Evans shows that dual hierarchies will always achieve superior control than unitary hierarchies, all else being equal.
Figure 21.3 Dual Hierarchy of the Modified Galactic Empire
X, Y = Imperial Bureaucracy
C = Imperial Citizenry
So let us assume that the Galactic Emperor creates a complete second hierarchy of ministers, senators, and so forth on down to the centurion class. (Both classes of centurions watch over the same citizenry.) This plan requires the expansion of the Imperial Administration by only 1%, or the additional hiring of 0.01% of the general population of the Empire to new bureaucratic positions. Thus, costs are minimal.
How about benefits? Since the Emperor is a benevolent and capable leader, he orders his engineers to produce a hideously expensive but superior electronic implant and personally assumes supervision of the two independent cabinets, totaling 200 subordinates. What kind of control has he now? An interlevel control parameter of 95% gives a net organizational efficiency of 84%, an improvement of 40% over the unitary hierarchy. A parameter of 85% achieves a net efficiency of 35%, an improvement of more than 80%.
The superiority of dual hierarchies is well-known in business and public administration. Line-and-staff dual systems have been used in large companies since the late 19th century.2970 The idea of dual hierarchies with parallel channels of access are familiar to students of bureaucratic structures in Communist societies2967,2968 and large multinational corporations in Western societies.2969,1746
Higher-order multiple hierarchies are not uncommon. One study of the Bureau of Employment Security showed that regional offices served not as end points for the tree-like branching of a unitary hierarchy, but rather as points of convergence for several parallel hierarchies.835 Industrial research, such as the description of the Milo fractionating plant in the late 1950’s, demonstrated the existence of no less than six parallel channels of access from the central office to the plant in addition to the obvious chain of command running through the plant manager.2966 Apparently multiple channels enhance control while increasing the potential for conflict (e.g., who does the emperor believe when reports disagree, which chain of communication is more reliable, etc.?). But, notes Evans:
The disadvantage of this potential for conflict may be outweighed by the necessity of greater control in service organizations like the Bureau of Employment Security, where measures of output are more vague, or in cases like the Milo head office, where surveillance must be from a distance.810
In xenological terms, the benefits of multiple hierarchies will become most apparent when sociopolitical units are separated by interstellar distances or when extraterrestrial organizational goals are vague and unfocused Still another governmental format which may be adopted by ETs is called "hierarchical lattice structure." Harrison C. White’s analysis of a small manufacturing firm (Figure 21.4) showed that this structure is far more complex than simple parallel hierarchies.2965 The system involves a complex lattice of hierarchical links which provides a startling multiplicity of communicative pathways to the top.
Figure 21.4 Lattice Structure of a Small Manufacturing Organization840
Lattice structures are difficult to analyze properly using present cybernetic theory. From the viewpoint of control loss models, the large number of alternative channels of information should serve to centralize power near the top and improve net systemic efficiency. But consider the position of the scheduler in the reproduction of White’s organizational diagram (three pages previous). This individual has more interlinkages than the president of the firm! Asks Evans:
Are positions at which channels intersect from both above and below -- like the scheduler in White’s manufacturing organization-powerful because of their centrality to the network, or oppressed because of the multiple sources of control directed at them?840
Final word on the comparative benefits and costs of various structural forms that may be utilized by extraterrestrial governments awaits the development of a more sophisticated and complete theory of organizational cybernetics.3071,2975
Last updated on 6 July 2013
