OK. But that doesn't change the fact that "have to" is too strong. It would be better phrased "Most of us want to stay on top of things." In the end, of course, as we get old and fade away[*], we simply cannot keep up with things, which leads to complaining about how the world is developing. Even those who authentically try as hard as they can to either ensure their values are valued or at least to keep up with where the value lies will eventually fail. The trick is whether, as they're failing, they continue to complain ... perhaps in the mistaken belief that their complaining helps. I.e. Get off my lawn!
The wise ones will realize they do not _have_ to keep up, despite however much they may want to. And, those will also be the least likely to complain as they fade away. [*] Yes, many of us can successfully "jockey" from one role to another as our skills shift from "fast reflexes" to "wisdom of age". But even the most successful jockeys eventually fade away. On 05/11/2016 09:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > What I meant here is that in organizations there is a difference between what > is true and what is valued. So "staying on top of things" is knowing random > valued things in that instant. Someone can escalate or build consensus > around a goal up the ranks, and now they will protect that goal even if it > isn't worth protecting. In this situation, the consensus building process > is just one of susceptible individuals adding to momentum (e.g. out of fear > or ambition), not one where more eyes and brains perform something like peer > review. One can make a living as a manager just watching things escalate an > deescalate, and learn nothing about the world in the process. Same sort of > wasted motion in fashion or popular music or the world of celebrity. -- ⛧ glen ============================================================ 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
