The Fallacy of Personifying Organizations

Introduction

Imagine this: A major scandal breaks out at a large corporation. Perhaps it’s a pharmaceutical company accused of price gouging, a social media giant embroiled in a privacy breach, or a government agency botching a disaster relief response. Almost immediately, people demand to know who is responsible. The CEO, a select group of executives, or even an imagined secretive cabal becomes the target of blame.

But what if the real answer is more complex? What if these institutions don’t operate like an individual making a conscious decision, but more like machines following their internal programming? We often conceptualize businesses, governments, and organizations as if they have agency, morality, or intent—almost as if they were a single person. In reality, they are vast, complex systems driven by internal incentives, processes, and inertia that make their actions almost inevitable, regardless of who is at the helm.

This misunderstanding leads to misplaced outrage, ineffective calls for change, and a failure to grasp how power actually operates. This article will explore why we instinctively personify organizations, how they actually function, and why even well-intentioned individuals within these structures struggle to change their course.

The Human Tendency to Personify Organizations

Humans have an innate tendency to assign human-like qualities to non-human entities. This is why we name our cars, get emotionally attached to fictional characters, and yell at our computers when they crash. It’s also why we think of companies, political parties, and governments as singular beings with desires, motivations, and intentions.

Take phrases like:

• “Facebook is spying on us.”
• “The government doesn’t care about the middle class.”
• “Wall Street is rigged against the average investor.”

These statements imply a level of coordination, singular intent, and agency that rarely exists. In reality:

• Facebook is a conglomerate of thousands of employees, each performing their role within a larger system designed to maximize user engagement and advertising revenue.
• “The government” is a collection of competing interests, bureaucrats, agencies, and elected officials who often work against each other.
• “Wall Street” is not a single entity conspiring against the public but a network of financial institutions following profit incentives within regulatory structures.

We anthropomorphize these entities because it simplifies the world. It’s much easier to blame a greedy CEO or a corrupt politician than to analyze the complex systems that drive decision-making. However, this mindset obscures the real mechanisms of power and makes change more difficult.

How Organizations Function More Like Machines

Rather than thinking of organizations as individuals with intentions, it’s more useful to think of them as machines with inputs, outputs, and momentum. The people inside these machines play roles similar to gears in a larger system. The machine runs not based on the personal morality of its participants, but on its structural incentives and internal processes.

Consider the following examples:

• Big Pharma and Drug Pricing: People assume pharmaceutical companies set high drug prices because a handful of executives are heartless and greedy. While greed exists, the real reason is systemic: the companies operate within a for-profit model, answer to shareholders, and must fund expensive R&D processes. Even a CEO who personally believes in making drugs affordable would struggle to change this without fundamentally altering the financial structure of the industry.
• Bureaucracy in Government Agencies: Many assume that FEMA’s failure during Hurricane Katrina was due to incompetence or apathy at the top. But the reality was more complex: bureaucratic red tape, fragmented responsibilities between federal and state governments, and misaligned incentives led to delayed responses and inefficient aid distribution. The machine of government agencies, not any one person’s failure, created the catastrophe.
• Corporate Social Responsibility vs. Profit Motive: People often pressure corporations to be more ethical, sustainable, or socially responsible. But companies operate under the logic of their system: they must prioritize profits or risk losing investors. If an oil company CEO decided overnight to pivot entirely to renewable energy, they’d likely be ousted by their board. The machine resists drastic change, even when individuals inside it want reform.

The “Evil Genius” Myth and Why It Persists

Pop culture and history love the idea of a singular evil mastermind. The notion of a group of executives meeting in a dark room, laughing as they plan the suffering of consumers, is compelling and easy to digest. But real-world decisions are usually shaped by systemic forces rather than intentional malevolence.

• Conspiracy Theories and Simplification: People are drawn to conspiracy theories because they provide a clear enemy. It’s more emotionally satisfying to believe the 2008 financial crash was caused by a small group of bankers scheming rather than a system-wide failure driven by risky lending practices, financial deregulation, and mass speculative behavior.
• The Role of Media Narratives: Journalists often personalize stories by focusing on specific individuals, reinforcing the idea that organizations have singular intent. Headlines like “CEO X is Destroying the Economy” tell a clearer story than “The Complex Incentive Structures of the Economy Are Leading to Widespread Harm.”

The Power and Danger of System Momentum

Once a machine is in motion, it becomes difficult to change—even when the people within it recognize the problem.

• Fossil Fuel Dependence: Many employees at oil companies are well aware of climate change’s dangers. But the global economy, infrastructure, and market incentives make it nearly impossible to shift away overnight. Even if all executives agreed to pivot, massive structural changes would be required for meaningful action.
• Political Gridlock: Politicians often campaign on bold ideas but find themselves trapped by systemic constraints. A newly elected leader might want healthcare reform, but lobbying, legislative procedures, and entrenched interests slow down or block change.
• The Amazon Labor Model: Amazon’s grueling warehouse conditions aren’t the result of a single person’s cruelty but an optimization process designed to maximize efficiency. Even if Jeff Bezos had a moral awakening and wanted to slow things down, the competitive forces of e-commerce would make it difficult.

Can We Change the Machine?

If organizations are machines rather than people, how do we create meaningful change? The key is systemic reform rather than focusing on individual scapegoats.

• Changing Incentives: Reforming corporate tax codes, restructuring financial incentives, or passing legislation that alters market dynamics can push the machine in a new direction.
• Regulatory Adjustments: Stronger consumer protections, environmental regulations, or workplace safety laws can nudge businesses toward ethical behavior without relying on the morality of individual executives.
• Grassroots Movements: Public pressure, collective action, and shifts in consumer behavior can gradually change the trajectory of institutions.

Conclusion

Organizations aren’t singular, malevolent beings; they are systems with momentum. Understanding this can help us focus on real solutions rather than misguided outrage at individual figures. By shifting our perspective, we can engage in smarter activism, demand systemic reforms, and work toward meaningful change without falling into the trap of conspiracy thinking or oversimplification.

So next time you hear someone say, “The government is corrupt” or “Big Tech is out to get us,” ask: Is it really a singular intent driving these actions, or is it the machine running as designed? Only by understanding the system can we ever hope to change it.