Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar. As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
rather than the individuals which is flawed.
Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the
anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that comes
from the definition of 'success' provided by that organisation environment.
The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his environment, and
you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.
I couldn't agree more. But in such flawed organisations, to attain
power to change the way things operate, requires compromising one's
principles to at least a limited degree. Once the individual becomes a
beneficiary of the system, the motivation to address the inherent flaws
becomes diminished.
Catch22.....
The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the
organisation, until the ethical base of the individual has been
appropriately compromised.
History is full of examples of nations attempting to change nations,
families attempting to change families, and individuals attempting to
bring about change in individuals, when the only way change can be
brought about in the external environment, is by way of change within
the individual.
What happens when the individual no longer exists?
Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going to
become increasingly difficult.
The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match nationalistic
ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
