Re: Control (short)

Subject: Re: Control (short)
From: bbatorsk -at- nj -dot- devry -dot- edu
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:38:39 -0400


At 06:29 PM 6/7/00 -0700, you wrote:
>What is more "acceptable" 1) to hinder a person from his/her job 2) to
punish a
>person who disobeys for the greater good?

I hear in this the important argument between terrorism and leadership.
Terrorism, often well-intentioned, and motivated by high ideals, and
sometimes even effective, is in the long run ineffective. It substitutes
individual action on an immediate target for the long term work of moving
and changing an organization. Now, if you have no stake in what the
organization does, in the work and lives of the members oppressed and/or
sustained by the organization, then this distinction has no meaning for
you. Nevertheless, at its best, a terrorist act shows a good heart and can
ameliorate an immediate pain, but at its worst, it sacrifices the people it
proposes to help for a personal sense of success. And that puts the issue

May I suggest Per Lagerkvist's "The Dwarf" as an antidote to Ayn Rand?
IMHO, it doesn't really serve organizations or contractors in the long run
to extend the "just do it" strategy to ethically ambiguous activity.


Previous by Author: Re: Other Clients from Hell
Next by Author: Re: The Lake
Previous by Thread: Andrew breaks the rules
Next by Thread: Help Pricing

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads