Sunday, August 3, 2008

Rant about Change

Bureacracy. Not everyones favorite modus operandi, but arguably the most efficient. Done properly, Bureacracy can ensure things get done, information gets dissemilated, and people actually produce quality work.

Its a sad day when we have to resort to such tactics in BB.

A sad day indeed.

Its not that I can complain though. IMO, this was a needed move. We, in a sense, brought it upon ourselves, in our complacency, lack of fore-sight and general laziness.

It is strange, sometimes, how an entire organisation usually runs on the spirit of a single person. It is something that is so common, its never noticed, because the efficiency of the spirit that is designated to such a last is such that it never needs to be noticed. It is like the wind in the trees, or water flowing downwards. It just is.

We dont notice these people. But they notice us. They watch us all the time, and think. See the problems, the crooks, the little loose screws that might come undone sometime in the future. And with care, concern and utmost silence, they tighten the screw.

Until there comes a day when they're more screws to be tightened than screwdrivers. Or hands to hold the screwdriver. And when they fall, it all comes crashing down.

We never notice them. So we take for granted things are working as they are. Nothing's changing - the pressure is the same. Who cares that the pipe over there is channeling three times more steam than pipes one and two? As long as the overall pressure is the same, it should be fine, right?

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Our spirits have not left. They have not snapped yet. We, as a group, have more spirits than most organisations have. And in a way, it has caused the spirits themselves to lose focus. When so many spirits exist, more and more would begin to retun to rest. And eventually, we would be left with no more spirits, to tighten the screws again.

Such people...I admire. In a way, I wish to become like them. However, it is one thing for a rock to mold itself into a pillar, and quite another for fragile clay. It is when the clay breaks that people do take notice. And that is something that must never happen. Never happen at all.


Change of topic, I went to type-logic (Myer-briggs) again, and looked around the types. And somehow, to my amusment and somewhat horror, I found I might have switched types.

I say types because no one should or can be classified into a single sterotypical role, and no number of paragraphs, systems or descriptions should ever be considered to fully define a person. Psychological was never meant to be a precise or accurate science, and it still isnt. Very good estimates, yes, but precision? No one can be sure of that.

Anyway, I find myself falling into the catergories of thinkers. People whom, as some say, are capable of good insight and forethought. Granted, I am capable of thought, but how does that make me any diferent from the billions of other possible type combinations out there?

Do I really possess as much insight as my ego thinks it does? My inner voice says no (if it is my inner voice.)

I just don't want to think of it that way. Else I'll probably go crazy. A friend told me, in response to the previous post, that we all "analyze a byproduct of lit". Granted, that was paraphrased, but the meaning was generally there.

And once again, I ask: Do I analyze deeply? More than others? Why should I be concerned about wheter it was more than others?

Subconciously, I'm a competitive jerk, that's why. And subconciously, I really, really want to be someone special.

Then again, don't we all?

1 comment:

corrax said...

Plus, the way the questions are answered also depends on the context you're doing it in mind. Is it with your friends, by yourself, with classmates, family, et cetera. A practice used with the Big Five personality test is to answer the quiz, each time with a different context in mind, and adding it up.

Not surprising that it's the case. We present different "I"s to the different faces of the world.