On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:50 +0000, 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.
Stated another way: for the statesman to become President, he must first become a politician. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA "All else being equal, you're safer traveling in a passenger vehicle that's larger and heavier than in one that's smaller and lighter." http://www.carsafety.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]