Research Case: Why Does Institutional Maturity Lie Not in Strengthening Power, but in Making the Use of Power Visible?

A Three-Layer Analysis (TLA) of Livy, History of Rome, Book 1

1. Question

Why does institutional maturity lie not in strengthening power, but in making the use of power visible?

2. Abstract

Institutional maturity does not mean strengthening power.
It means making the use of power visible.

This is because, in a mature institution, the important issue is not whether the ruler or power-holder is strong. The important issue is whether the community can understand the purpose of that power, the problem to which it is applied, and which part of OS health — A, IA, H, or V — it is trying to improve.

In an immature institution, power often concentrates in a person. A king, founder, hero, or real power-holder may decide what to see, what to treat as a problem, whom to use, and by what criteria to judge. If that person is excellent, the state may operate. However, if the basis of that judgment is invisible, the community cannot understand why an order was issued, what problem is being addressed, or what the policy is meant to improve.

In that condition, power may be strong, but the institution is not mature.

A mature institution is a state in which the community can understand how power is used. In other words, A, IA, H, and V, which are necessary to maintain OS health, are made visible. Problems are made visible. The community can also share whether those problems are being improved.

3. Method

This study follows the structure of Three-Layer Analysis, or TLA.

In Layer 1, this study organizes the fact that, in the Roman monarchy, kingship functioned as the power that started the community, while the Servian reform made population, burden, political participation, and mobilization visible.

In Layer 2, these facts are connected to structures such as kingship, the institutional maturation phase, assembly and popular approval, roles, assigned control variables, access categories, exclusive access, hollow access, and OS health.

In Layer 3, this study explains why institutional maturity does not mean strengthening power, but making the use of power understandable to the community.

4. Layer 1: Fact

In Livy, History of Rome, Book 1, kingship is described as a central force that starts, expands, and orders Rome.

In the founding period, the strong power of the king activates the community. Romulus builds the city, gathers people, and establishes the community. Numa organizes religious rites and institutions. Tullus advances military expansion. Ancus expands the city and its sphere of rule. In this phase, the strength of kingship is important for state formation.

However, when the state grows, strong kingship alone is not enough for governance. Population increases. Burdens increase. Military mobilization becomes more complex. The structure of political participation must also be organized. What becomes necessary is not only for the king to command strongly. The community must be able to understand who bears which burden, who participates politically in which order, and who is mobilized in which unit.

The Servian reform is a typical example of this institutional maturation. Servius organizes the census, property classification, classes, centuries, voting order, and tax burden. Through this, it becomes visible who bears which burden, who belongs to which military unit, and who participates politically in which order.

What is made visible here is not merely administrative information. What is made visible is how the state OS uses power to place people, distribute burdens, mobilize the army, and organize political participation.

5. Layer 2: Order

In Layer 2, this problem can be understood not as the strengthening of power, but as the visualization of the use of power.

In TLA Layer 2, kingship has the role of carrying out state foundation, expansion, and order formation in the shortest path. This is powerful in the founding period. However, kingship also has failure risks, such as usurpation, rule by private anger, rule by fear, disregard of procedures, and runaway competition within the royal house.

These failure risks do not arise because power itself is evil. They arise because the use of power is not visible to the community and is not connected to structures of correction, monitoring, and approval.

If the community cannot see what the power-holder recognizes, what problem is being addressed, and by what criteria judgment is made, the community cannot understand power. If it cannot understand power, approval easily becomes fear, silent obedience, or mere ratification rather than trust.

What becomes necessary here is institutional visualization.

The institutional maturation phase is the phase in which a large community is converted into reproducible order. As the state grows larger, it must make visible who bears which burden, who speaks in which order, and how people are mobilized.

This does not mean weakening power.
It means converting the use of power into a form that the community can understand.

In OS Organizational Design Theory R1.30.18.00, OS health is evaluated as:

A × IA × H × V

A is the recognition capability related to understanding the current situation, discovering problems, and proposing possible responses.
IA is the information structure composed of upward information arrival rate and downward information arrival rate.
H is the human resource and reward-punishment system.
V is the validity of decision criteria.

Therefore, making the use of power visible in a mature institution means creating a state in which the community can answer the following questions.

What does A recognize as the current situation?
What information does IA send upward, and what policies does it send downward?
Whom does H place in which role, and through what rewards, punishments, or evaluations does it correct behavior?
What does V define as the correct decision criterion?
What is the current problem?
To which control variable does that problem belong?
Is the problem improving?
If it is not improving, where is the blockage?

A state in which these points are visible is a mature institution.

6. Layer 3: Insight

Institutional maturity does not mean strengthening power. It means making the use of power visible. This is because, in a mature institution, the important issue is not whether the ruler or power-holder is strong. The important issue is whether the community can understand the purpose of that power, the problem to which it is applied, and which part of A, IA, H, or V it is trying to improve.

In that condition, power may be strong, but the institution is not mature.

On the other hand, even if power is strong, if A, IA, H, and V are not visible, the community cannot understand how power is being used. Even if a king or superior says “this is for the state,” if it is unclear what reality is recognized, what information is used, whom the ruler appoints, and what decision criteria are applied, the decision appears not as public OS operation, but as personal judgment.

These risks do not arise because power itself is evil. They arise because the use of power is not visible to the community and is not connected to structures of correction, monitoring, and approval. If the community cannot see what the power-holder recognizes, what problem is being addressed, and what judgment criteria are used, the community cannot understand power. If it cannot understand power, approval easily becomes fear, silent obedience, or mere ratification.

What becomes necessary here is institutional visualization.

In TLA Layer 2, the institutional maturation phase is the phase in which a large community is converted into reproducible order. It replaces the personal ability of founders with reproducible institutions such as the census, classes, centuries, and assemblies. As the state grows larger, it must make visible who bears which burden, who speaks in which order, and how people are mobilized.

This does not mean weakening power. It means converting the use of power into a form that the community can understand.

The Servian reform is a typical example. Servius does not merely strengthen kingship. He organizes the census, property classification, classes, centuries, voting order, and tax burden. Through this, it becomes visible who bears which burden, who belongs to which military unit, and who participates politically in which order.

In other words, institutional maturity means making power visible.

Who is deciding?
By what criteria is the decision made?
Who bears the burden?
Who participates?
Who speaks first?
Who can correct?
Who can monitor?
What has improved as a result?

A mature institution is a state in which the community can understand these points.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, a role is a function assigned to a user. It is a design unit that shows which domain, variable, and form of involvement the user handles. A role consists of an assigned domain, assigned control variables, and access categories. Assigned control variables show whether a role controls A, IA, H, V, M, T, or other variables. Access categories show whether the role is involved through exclusive access, shared access, corrective access, monitoring access, or hollow access.

This shows that, in a mature institution, power is decomposed not into “person,” but into “role,” “control variable,” and “access category.”

In an immature institution, the structure is often simple: “the king decides,” “the superior decides,” or “the real power-holder decides.” In a mature institution, the structure becomes different: “this role is responsible for A,” “this role corrects IA,” “this role operates H,” “this role monitors V,” or “this role has exclusive access, while another role has corrective access.”

Through this decomposition, the community can understand how power is used.

Making the use of power visible does not mean making it clear who is superior. It means making it clear which role handles which problem, which control variable, and which access category.

For example, if A declines, the problem lies in current-state recognition, problem discovery, or response-candidate formation. If IA declines, information does not rise, policy does not descend, or correction does not arrive. If H declines, there is a problem in personnel placement, reward and punishment, departmental function, or self-correction capacity. If V declines, the decision criteria themselves have drifted away from the OS purpose.

In a mature institution, the community can understand the location of the problem in this way. Therefore, it can also share the improvement status.

Is A improving?
Is IA flowing?
Is H functioning?
Is V being made valid?
Is corrective access working?
Has monitoring access become hollow?
Is approval a real agreement rather than a formality?

Being able to share these questions is a condition of institutional maturity.

On the other hand, an institution that only strengthens power easily becomes incomprehensible to the community. Strong power can make decisions faster in the short term. However, if the use of power is invisible, the following problems arise.

Even if A is distorted, the community cannot see it.
Even if IA is blocked, the community cannot see it.
Even if H is privatized, the community cannot see it.
Even if V is replaced by personal purposes, the community cannot see it.
Even if approval procedures become mere ratification, the community cannot see it.
Even if monitors become hollow, the community cannot see it.

In this condition, the institution is not mature. It is merely moving strong power while keeping it invisible.

In OS Organizational Design Theory R1.30.18.00, exclusive access can speed up decision-making, but it also creates the danger that recognition distortion and information blocking cannot be corrected. Hollow access means a state in which a role exists institutionally, but does not function in substance. Its observation indicators include ratification meetings, formal approval, powerless audits, and blocked corrective information.

This shows that strong power alone does not create institutional maturity. Exclusive access may be necessary in some situations. However, if the community cannot see in which range, for which purpose, and under which correction and monitoring that access is used, power tends to become uncorrectable monopoly rather than mature institutional operation.

In a mature institution, the exercise of power must be understandable to the community.

For the community to understand does not mean merely knowing the name of an institution.
It means understanding the state of A, IA, H, and V, which are necessary to maintain OS health.
It means sharing what the problem is, what has improved, and what remains unresolved.
It means confirming that the exercise of power is based on the OS purpose and control variables, not on personal mood or private interest.

Here lies institutional maturity.

Institutional maturity does not mean weakening power. Necessary power is maintained.

Institutional maturity does not mean blind trust in power. It means making the use of power verifiable.

Institutional maturity does not mean increasing the number of power-holders. It means decomposing power into roles, assigned domains, assigned control variables, and access categories.

Institutional maturity does not mean increasing procedures. It means using procedures so that the community can understand A, IA, H, V, problems, and improvement status.

The Roman monarchy in Livy, History of Rome, Book 1, shows this issue step by step. In the founding period, the strength of kingship starts the community. In the integration and expansion phase, kingship and military organization bring the outside inside. In the institutional maturation phase, the census, property classification, centuries, and assemblies make population, burden, political participation, and mobilization visible.

However, in the late monarchy, power turns again toward private rule, and rule by fear and disregard of procedures become stronger. This shows that, even if power is strong, institutions do not mature unless the use of power is publicly visible, corrected, monitored, and approved.

Therefore, institutional maturity lies not in strengthening power, but in making the use of power visible.

A mature institution is an institution in which the community can understand OS health. A is visible. IA is visible. H is visible. V is visible. Problems are visible. Improvement status is visible. Routes of correction and monitoring are visible. Through this, power is converted from private rule into public OS operation.

7. Implications for the Present

This structure also applies directly to modern organizations.

In modern companies, institutional maturity does not mean simply strengthening the authority of the president or executives. It also does not mean merely increasing approval flows or meetings. What matters is whether members of the organization can understand for what purpose that authority is used, which problem it is trying to solve, and which control variable it is trying to improve.

For example, if a company only says, “the president decided,” “the board decided,” or “HR decided,” the institution is not mature. In a mature institution, the following points must be visible.

Why is that decision necessary?
What problem is it trying to solve?
Is the current-state recognition A valid?
Is the information structure IA functioning?
Is the human resource and reward-punishment system H appropriate?
Does the decision criterion V fit the OS purpose?
What improved through that measure?
If it did not improve, where is the blockage?

Only when these points are shared does power become public OS operation rather than private judgment.

Modern organizations often have authority tables, job descriptions, evaluation systems, audit systems, meetings, approval flows, KPIs, and feedback systems. However, if these become mere forms, the institution is not mature.

If there is an authority table but the real power-holder is elsewhere, it is hollow.
If there is a meeting but it only ratifies decisions, it is hollow.
If there is an evaluation system but the judgment criteria are unclear, H is not functioning.
If there are KPIs but they differ from field reality, A is distorted.
If there is a reporting system but bad news does not rise, IA is blocked.
If there is an audit system but it cannot stop anything, monitoring access is not functioning.

Institutional maturity does not mean arranging these systems only on the surface. It means creating a state in which the whole organization can understand how power is used, where the problem is, what is improving, and how correction and monitoring work.

Therefore, a mature organization is not an organization that merely has a strong leader. It is an organization that can understand, verify, correct, and inherit the judgment of a strong leader.

8. Conclusion

Institutional maturity does not mean strengthening power.
Institutional maturity means making the use of power visible.

Making the use of power visible means creating a state in which the community can understand OS health. In other words, A, IA, H, V, the location of problems, improvement status, and correction and monitoring routes are made visible and shared by the whole community.

Power is necessary. However, if power is invisible, it tends toward private rule, rule by fear, hollow institutions, and uncorrectable monopoly. On the other hand, if the use of power is visible, the community can understand for what purpose, for which problem, and for which control variable that power is being used.

A mature institution is not an institution that weakens power.
It is not an institution that blindly trusts power.
It is an institution that decomposes power into roles, assigned domains, assigned control variables, and access categories, and makes them understandable to the community.