I'm now on the third audio segment of Atlas Shrugged (there are seven segments in total). Ayn Rand's fictional world is starting to grind to a halt under the dual stimulation of excessive regulations passed by self-serving government regulators and a lack of qualified engineers (due largely to a series of mysterious retirements).
While I do not think that Atlas Shrugged models the real world (nor am I sure that it is intended to) I do think that the political maneuvering described in the book is quite common not just in government but also in business.
Rand has her protagonists describe those who attempt to use guilt, sympathy or social connections as a way to profit from the work of others as "looters". It seems like many of the looters in Atlas Shrugged can be found apologizing for their failures. "It's not my fault," one character says, having bankrupted a savings and loan through inadvisably liberal loan policies. Another character, bowing to social pressure to purchase services in a manner which benefits a friend but which is more expensive and less reliable than the alternative says when he is unable to deliver an order on time, "it's not my fault."
I've seen this before, in places where I've worked. It seems to be a sign of some kind of organizational cancer. Instead of working together to resolve the issue, two group leaders traded recriminations. One leader said "the software you delivered is buggy and failed to address our needs" and the other responded with "you didn't supply us with decent requirements and didn't respond promptly when we had questions about your business practices". Really, both were at fault, with one failing to allocate enough time to design and requirements analysis and the other not recognizing the importance of communicating with the development staff.
What I would have liked to have seen was both groups saying "OK, we had problems. Let's talk about what we did wrong and what we should do differently next time." However, I think it was convenient to both groups to be able to say, "it wasn't our fault. We would have done just fine had the other group met its obligations." I think they played this "blame game" so that they would have an excuse at hand should other problems surface later on. How would Hank Reardon fare in such an environment? I doubt he would emerge as CEO of a big company due to his unwillingness to protect himself from political traps. Then again, perhaps that is Rand's point.
While I do not think that Atlas Shrugged models the real world (nor am I sure that it is intended to) I do think that the political maneuvering described in the book is quite common not just in government but also in business.
Rand has her protagonists describe those who attempt to use guilt, sympathy or social connections as a way to profit from the work of others as "looters". It seems like many of the looters in Atlas Shrugged can be found apologizing for their failures. "It's not my fault," one character says, having bankrupted a savings and loan through inadvisably liberal loan policies. Another character, bowing to social pressure to purchase services in a manner which benefits a friend but which is more expensive and less reliable than the alternative says when he is unable to deliver an order on time, "it's not my fault."
I've seen this before, in places where I've worked. It seems to be a sign of some kind of organizational cancer. Instead of working together to resolve the issue, two group leaders traded recriminations. One leader said "the software you delivered is buggy and failed to address our needs" and the other responded with "you didn't supply us with decent requirements and didn't respond promptly when we had questions about your business practices". Really, both were at fault, with one failing to allocate enough time to design and requirements analysis and the other not recognizing the importance of communicating with the development staff.
What I would have liked to have seen was both groups saying "OK, we had problems. Let's talk about what we did wrong and what we should do differently next time." However, I think it was convenient to both groups to be able to say, "it wasn't our fault. We would have done just fine had the other group met its obligations." I think they played this "blame game" so that they would have an excuse at hand should other problems surface later on. How would Hank Reardon fare in such an environment? I doubt he would emerge as CEO of a big company due to his unwillingness to protect himself from political traps. Then again, perhaps that is Rand's point.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home