To coordinate as a group of people the individuals have to donate some of their personal requisite variety (agency) to the organization so it can use it instead of them.

The organization gains agency but the individuals lose it.

But the organization can accomplish more levered things than any individual can achieve by themselves.

Who decides what the organization does?

If it's one empowered leader, that person gets to decide--it will be more likely to be coherent but it might be wrong.

If it's a bottom-up democracy, it's whatever the org can coordinate on, which might never cohere.

Its failure mode is unlikely to be egregiously, boldly wrong.

Its failure mode is more likely to be just a swirling mush of inaction.