"The problem lies with the illusion of a crisp distinction between an organization and an individual. The counter claim is: Problems in organizations ultimately reduce to problems with individuals."
At every step of the way, and often in iterated private bilateral discussions, any potentially accountable individual in a large organization is tolerating (and thus creating) vast inefficiency to to reduce their liability. That's not their only goal, of course, they also are looking up. The buck passing is just a way to stay safe until they are selected for advancement. What they actually want to accomplish when they get their doesn't matter, they just want to get there! By the time an objection can be raised, they've found a way to have everyone say "the sky is not blue" because the paper trail leads to that. To say otherwise would be against regulation, policy, good faith, civility, etc. So I agree, in practice, to stop this sort of random growth of nonsense, it is necessary to have a strong argument against a policy from the perspective of the health of the organization (no agendas or idealistic motives allowed!) as well a specific and relevant set of targets for blame, and to pursue it all at once. Or find something else to do. Meh. Marcus -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
