← Back

Jordan Nodes: Cohesion and the Myth of the Great Man

The “Great Man Theory” has long been dismissed by historians as myth: societies and organizations are products of broad structural forces, not lone individuals. But the clean dismissal creates a contradiction. If individuals don’t matter, why do we hold leaders legally and socially accountable for outcomes?

The answer is that while most systems distribute causality, some systems are Jordan-sensitive: their cohesion depends on a single irreplaceable actor. These actors are Jordan Nodes.

Defining a Jordan Node

In General Theory of Cohesion terms:

Every component C_i has an action vector A⃗_i(t).
Together, these vectors produce the system vector field V⃗ (r⃗, t), which must stay aligned with external environment demands.
Alignment is measured by the cohesion cost function:

C_{align} = f (V (r, t), Environment (t))

A Jordan Node is a component C_j such that:

Δ C_{align} (\neg C_{j}) ≫ Δ C_{align} (\neg C_{i}), for all i \neq j

In plain language: remove this one node, and cohesion collapses far more than if any other component is removed.

The Jordan Example

1997–98 Chicago Bulls: 62–20 record, NBA champions.
1998–99 Bulls (Jordan retires): 13–37 record.

Here:

‖ A⃗ _Jordan‖ was disproportionately large.
The adjacency field L_{x_j}(t) lacked redundancy, no other player could substitute his contribution.
Removing Jordan pushed C_align above a collapse threshold.

This is a clean natural experiment: same coach, same structure, mostly the same players. One node removed, outcome destroyed.

General Properties of Jordan Nodes

Magnitude dominance: ‖ A⃗ _j‖ ≫ peers. In the Bulls case: scoring, defense, leadership.
Low substitutability: L_{x_j}(t) has no nearby vectors to replicate A⃗ _j. No bench or peer player could fill the gap.
System fragility: cohesion Ψ(B) is hypersensitive to state change in C_j. The Bulls’ ability to align with the competitive NBA environment collapsed.

Beyond Basketball

Steve Jobs (Apple, 1997–2011): his action vector realigned Apple’s system field toward design-led consumer tech; substitutability was near zero.
Henry VIII (English Reformation): one personal pivot redrew the boundary conditions of church and state.
Linus Torvalds (early Linux): until maintainership decentralized, Torvalds was a single choke point in the kernel’s adjacency field.

Cohesion Implications

High Jordan-node systems: fast, adaptive, but fragile. Cohesion depends on one node.
Low Jordan-node systems: slower, but robust. Cohesion spreads across redundant vectors.

This reframes the Great Man debate:

Carlyle’s claim (all history is great men) is false.
The opposite claim (individuals don’t matter) is also false.
The truth is contingent: some systems instantiate Jordan Nodes, and their removal or role change empirically alters outcomes.

The Takeaway

Jordan Nodes show that the “great man” is not a myth everywhere, nor a law everywhere. It is a structural property of certain systems:

Jordan Node ⟺ Δ C_{align} (\neg C_{j}) ≫ Δ C_{align} (\neg C_{i})

When systems depend on such nodes, accountability is ontological. The system collapses or changes entirely when the node is gone.

Systems could be considered

Jordan-sensitive: Dependent but decisive
Jordan-robust: Resilient but less competitive

Cohesion theory says you can choose which system to build.