P_218.doc

    The only reason you have strikes and labour unions is  that  this  group
law has been violated. Too many individuals in the group for  them  to  know
intimately their manager on afriendly co-operative basis.

    This is all Marx is about. Marx is really a protest against  too  big  a
group solved by creating a protective state (an overwhelmingly large  group)
that "rescues" the individual! So Communism is  a  mess.  For  by  making  a
state group  one  overwhelmed  the  individual  and  sure  enough  the  only
criticism of Communism that a Communist will tolerate is  that  it  has  too
big a  "bureaucracy"  by  which  he  means  too  big  a  government  for  an
individual to confront.  Communism  goes  even  further.  It  abolishes  the
individual utterly! It forces him to be a group. And that is  very  bad  for
individuals are the building block of the small group. So Marx neither  knew
nor solved the basic problem of government. He didn't know the above 2  laws
about organizations and groups so Communism, supposed  to  solve  individual
oppression, is the most individually oppressive form of Government  on  this
planet.

    How many individuals can effectively compose a group?

    It depends on the ability of the manager to handle men on an  individual
basis. This varies. But such men or women as can handle a large  number  are
very, very rare. So we take a safe answer.

    A fairly  safe  answer  is  six-the  manager  of  the  group  plus  five
individuals, one a deputy manager.

    This is determined by the answer to this question:

    How many subordinates are you willing to work  with  on  the  job?  Five
others is about all you'd care to  stretch  it.  Two  others  would  be  too
comfortable-even too dull. But you can stretch it up to five.

    Thus we could stretch out an org composed of  groups  of  six  persons-a
manager, a deputy and four-making 6 maximum in each group.

    And you now have the size of the largest building  blocks  it  takes  to
make a big org. Six persons in each.

    If we pyramid this we have (each maximum):

    5 staff members and their In-Charge as a unit;

    5 units and the section executive in a section;

    5 sections plus the department's director in a department;

    3 departments and the secretary,  a  deputy  and  a  communicator  in  a
division;

    4 divisions in a portion and the  Org  Exec  Sec  and  a  deputy  and  a
personal sec;

    3 divisions and the HCO Exec Sec plus her deputy and a personal  sec  in
the HCO portion.

    Or with a full Exec Division set up:

    4 ES Comms in an Office for the Org Exec Sec and a personal sec;

    3 ES Comms in an Office for the HCO Exec Sec and her personal sec.

    But we build downwards by groups of six if  we  expand  further,  rarely
exceeding 5 and an Executive.

    You see then that the moment the HCO Exec Sec starts handling Address in
Charge, the jump is too great as it puts Address in Charge  up  against  the
equivalent of the total executives of units and sections of  HCO!  It  makes
his group too big. It makes him too small (being  such  a  small  part).  He
gets rattled, feels oppressed, tends to snarl because he is  overwhelmed-his
group is too big so he is too small. Simple as that.

    So long as an Executive only handles 2,3,4,5 people he  can  handle  his
job because they know him. The people under him can handle their  sub-groups
so long as they contact only 2,3,4,5 people and themselves.

    For instance, so long as there are only 5 Continental Orgs, Exec Sec