Many believe that smaller is better, and once a certain size is reached, the collective nature of the group is lost. Regardless of one's beliefs on whether big is necessarily bad, it is unrealistic to expect a co-op with 150 workers to function anything like one with 15; structures tend to develop with growth, and these often appear to be encroaching hierarchy. Part of what makes participation in collectives such a valuable experience is that one gets a chance to take control over a major portion of one's life. But as the size of the group increases the individual's importance tends to decrease. Direct democracy becomes progressively more difficult, and often representative structures and even supervisory positions are created.
However, a number of approaches have been tried to counteract some of the negative effects of growth. For example, San Francisco's Rainbow grocery has divided its membership of over 150 workers into about a dozen semi-autonomous departments that each run their own internal affairs. In that case, the department functions more as a collective, and the overall business structure is that of a federation, governing issues that concern multiple departments and dealing with policy and planning issues.
Another technique is the creation of administrative positions and bodies with more checks against official power than is found in mainstream organizations. This approach is described in the next article, about the East Wind Community.
Next Article