A story headlined "It Wasn't Me," in the October 10^th issue of The Economist suggests that instead of declaring banks "too big to fail," we should recognize such institutions as "too big to run." The story notes that many ousted bank executives seemed to have no idea what went on in the numerous divisions ostensibly reporting to them. "Bank of America's assets are now ten times those of Exxon Mobil, America's most valuable firm. A balance sheet of $2.3 trillion is beyond the ken of mere mortals."

Most of us run businesses considerably smaller than Bank of America - or even Exxon. A good way for us "mere mortals" to keep track of things is to enlist more of our coworkers to review expenditures - by signing or approving checks. I know that check generation and bill paying can be automated, but the time saved sometimes deprives us of valuable oversight and coworker education. Few things help coworkers appreciate the business more than reviewing a month's checks, and understanding - in very concrete terms - the real costs of doing business.

Fresh eyes lead to fresh questions, or questions that seem fresh because no one has bothered to ask them for so long. Is this really the best deal on server maintenance? Are we still using this marketing service? Why did we cut two checks for the same invoice? There's something about handling the actual checks that communicates so much more than a spreadsheet or ledger can.

Inviting coworkers to participate in the bill paying process shows that you trust them to help you run the business, and you're eager for money-saving ideas.

I've heard stories of coworkers so shocked at the cost of janitorial services that they volunteered to provide those services themselves. I also know of a company that provided Friday lunches for coworkers. (We used to do the same thing at Kinko's offices, and the owner of this company is a former Kinkoid.). The company also asked coworkers to review check runs, so they knew exactly how much the Friday lunches cost. During a slowdown in sales, several coworkers complained that the company should not be spending money on perks - even the relatively inexpensive Friday lunches. The owner was touched, but argued that the value of the lunches far exceeded their cost. His evidence? This valuable discussion of money-saving ideas took place over pizza on a Friday afternoon, with every coworker and manager present and participating.

I understand the cost savings of automation, especially for numbers-intensive departments like accounts payable.  But reintroducing personal oversight into the process provides additional value no computer can calculate. For one thing, it motivates people to simplify their business. As an investor, I've always been wary of overcomplicated behemoths like General Electric. It's not that the company is too big, but that it is too complex a web of unrelated businesses.

Banking and brokerage should not be so complicated, but as Calvin Trillin observes in an excellent New York Times editorial, Wall Street got into trouble when student loan debt drove top students to Wall Street, formerly the destination for the bottom third of his class. "That's when you started reading about these geniuses from M.I.T. and Caltech who instead of going to graduate school in physics went to Wall Street to calculate arbitrage odds." They overcomplicated the business, far beyond the understanding of their own supervisors. The Economist notes that "Citigroup's boss reportedly learned of its $43 billion of toxic assets only in September 2007."

I cannot speak for those billions, but I've always said if you take care of the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves. When the boss doesn't even understand where his enormous bonuses are coming from, I'd like to know who's been signing all the checks?