Sunday, July 10, 2005

War and corporate culture remarkably similar

There is a term called "rules of combat." These are evolved between two groups and never are set in stone by any arbitrary committee, since they change with the differing groups, weapons and ethical base. When the colonists encountered the Amerindians, they also met with a completely different method and practice of fighting, both individually and in groups. When these colonists, who had to defend against such methods, then encountered the British, the European methods of classic warfare (such as standing in noble ranks) subjected these Brits to huge losses until they modified their own operational patterns.

Modern-day terrorists and criminals include the innocent bystanders in their tactics (much as the Allieds did with Dresden firebombings, the Axis in their London raids and Americans with Hiroshima/Nagasaki).

Similarly, in any corporate situation, how people treat each other is defined by both a group-level agreement and the personal agreements each has with others he personally has to deal with. Corporate structures reflect (and perhaps Machiavellian) agreements between various niche communities within the overall corporate structure. Ultimately, the survival of the organization depends on the leader, his/her vision and the immediate support of the main executives and the internal discipline those executives can and will exert below them to accomplish the vision of that leader.

How this is accomplished is through the agreements internal within the organization and external with the various and often rapid escalation of arms and strategies between them and their competitor(s).

These differ only in that corporations have to work under organized laws of the parent nation which keeps them safe and able to operate their commerce activities.

Terrorists have proclaimed themselves independent of the various national agreements which have maintained a fragile peace - of sorts - where multinational corporations have been able to be established and prosper.

Terrorists have thus kicked out the earlier agreements, such as the Geneva Accords, which held various organizations to (supposedly) treat enemy participants with some sort of decency (though the records of this implementation don't show constant or consistent application by all state-signees).

The meaning of this is that we have again entered into establishing some sort of operating basis between the civilized (quaint term) nations, their commerce organizations and these radical fundamentalist extremists.

Good luck.

Means some long-held works might or might not have to be suspended (bent)_ in order to rein in these various factions which are hell-bent to bring down the various corporate/commercial/economic systems which keep them alive. The Patriot Act (which moves some tools used previously for financial criminal apprehension into/across law enforcement/military lines) is simply a tool which enables these various changes in the rules of engagement to be facilitated. Seems we can nail down these extremists by controlling their financial arrangements - odd, they can't survive independent of the commerce system that they fight.

And so the world continues on in its various trips around that Sun of ours.

And so we evolve our
Post a Comment