Since the passage of 2nd amendment, and particularly since the 1968 Handgun Control Act, state and federal politicians have attempted, and in some cases succeeded in placing controls on the importation, manufacture, sale, and storage of guns, and on certain types of ammunition. But this has not really reduced gun related crimes and deaths.
Therefore, it’s realistic to assume that these gun control initiatives have been mostly tinkering around the edges or half measures. And organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety do not go far enough.
Thus the best and most direct way to reduce the use of handguns is through a repeal of the second amendment.
The right to bear arms, also known as the second amendment, was a product of a unique time and place. Recalling this history is not important here. It’s out there for anyone who wants to do a simple google search.
But things have changed. We no longer have slavery, we have subdued the indigenous population into a largely docile and marginalized group, and we are rarely burdened by wild beasts that attack us.
In no way did the framers of the constitution ever consider that the United States would be burdened as we now are by the plague of gun violence, with its accompanying needless injuries, deaths and destruction that is experienced on the streets and in the homes of this country every day. Had the framers predicted this current state of affairs, perhaps they would have thought twice about passing the 2nd amendment. But that was then and this is now.
Thus, why can’t we institute a system of gun ownership similar to other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia or the Nordic countries. Are the citizens of those countries no less scared of government control than us.
Most other advanced industrialized countries don’t have something similar the second amendment in their constitutions. And that’s why their approach to guns is a lot saner then what exists in the United States today.
Arguments against repealing the Second Amendment are specious
Those who are against the repeal of the 2nd amendment quickly argue that:
• It will create a black market for illegal guns. But this kind of exchange already exists. Yes, there are continuing efforts by legislators and law enforcement to control this through the passage of laws and enforcement strategies, but the unregulated market still exists.
• It’s a slippery slope. First you will start with outlawing guns then you will move on to other lethal objects like knives, rocks, poison, etc. Perhaps, but not likely.
• We can’t live in a country where the only people who have access to guns are the police and the military. That’s not completely true. Again if we use the examples of other countries that are not dictatorships or authoritarian that are not obsessed about gun ownership, we see limited cases of gun ownership. Moreover, one need look no further than the British police for examples of police that do not carry guns on a regular basis. In fact there are approximately 18 countries, and one US territory, where the police do not carry guns. Are the crime rates in those countries significantly higher than they are in the United States? No.
How can we realistically repeal the Second Amendment?
Although some gun control activists have suggested that we hold a constitutional convention where the attorney generals of all states come together to work for the repeal the 2nd amendment, at this current time in US history there is not enough states who support this. That is why there are some other solutions, currently in place that are more promising.
• Continue to hold gun and ammunition manufacturers accountable and take them to court where the legal circumstances allow.
• Hit these companies with big financial penalties
• Now that the National Rifle Association is on the ropes, it’s time to finally put them out of business.
• Massive investments need to be made in educational campaigns that outline the negative effects of gun ownership.
Conclusion
Few people and constituencies are keen on repealing the 2nd amendment, that there is widespread agreement on how to do it, nor that it is going to be easy. This is not a popularity contest. But just like activist demands for prison abolition, defunding or abolishing the police, it’s high time to reconsider the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Sure, people (and organizations) will find lots of creative ways to injure, kill and threaten others. I mean they do this already. So let’s just eliminate the principle way.
Photo credit
David Mulder
Day 231. Gun control.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/28972994732_a9770df637_o-scaled.jpg19202560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-04-01 18:03:032024-02-04 04:53:45Forget gun control. It’s time to repeal the 2nd amendment
Graffiti and street art can be found in most big cities and urban environments, and on almost any type of surface. One of the less acknowledged and academically studied places where graffiti and street art exist are the numerous local, state, and national parks. These range from comparatively small areas that local governments set aside for the public use located in urban environments (e.g., the small pocket parks spread throughout a city like Washington, DC), to large swaths of land, with different types of flora, and fauna, topography, and sometimes including ancient priceless American-Indian carvings, etchings, pictographs, and petroglyphs that encompass several states (e.g., Yellowstone National Park).
Frequently there’s also lots of tagging inside the public restrooms (at least the men’s room), including porta potties that are located near the parking lots of these parks. Sometimes the tagging is more complicated, with cartoon like images. If there are train tracks or logging roads, running through the park, there may be tagging on the tracks or on low level rocks. Graffiti may also include letters, words, and images that are carved, chalked, chiseled. or scratched, on to trees and rocks. In terms of street art, the most frequent medium are stickers. On rare occasions will larger graffiti pieces, some with bubble letters, will be placed on rock surfaces.
Why is graffiti and street art that appears in local, state and national parks rarely studied?
In general, there is less graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks, then the walls, doors, transportation systems, and back alleys of major metropolises. A number of reasons probably exist that explain why this occurs:
• With the exception of local parks, those inclined to engage in graffiti and street art rarely visit state and national parks, or they may not have the motivation to participate in this kind of activity in these areas.
• Implicit norms shared by taggers, writers and artists. Just like, the infrequent graffiti and street art left on houses of worship (i.e., churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples), the natural environment is often considered to be sanctified and out of bounds for writers and artists to leave their mark. Unlike private (and commercial space), it’s frequently assumed that local, state, and federal parks have been set aside as protected areas to be enjoyed by all, and thus writing graffiti or street art is perceived as taboo, among graffiti and street artist community.
Why might academics refrained from studying graffiti and street art in local, state and national parks?
A handful of reasons possibly explain why academics have not produced much scholarship on graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks. This includes:
• It may not be perceived to be that interesting.
• There is less graffiti and street art in these locations. Thus,
• It may not be considered to be that big a social problem.
• Access to relevant data is resource-intensive. Unless we are talking about city parks, and unlike graffiti and street art that is put up in big cities, perpetrators rarely live near state and federal parks Notwithstanding traveling to these places is costly, based on my experience, the National Park Police and National Park Service Police do not readily share data about this kind of vandalism with qualified researchers.
Moving forward, there are some possible ways to consider tackling this subject.
Since getting interviews with people engaging in graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks is extremely difficult, researchers might start by reviewing popular news media accounts of graffiti and street art in these locations.
Alternatively investigators might try to secure interviews (or even administer surveys) with rank and file National Park Police, National Park Service Rangers, service personnel, and volunteers who may pick up trash, and help to maintain or cut trails, and visitors.
Another tactic may be a visual ethnography where over a significant period of time, an inventory of graffiti and street art is taken in selected parks, to determine its breadth, frequency, and types.
These methods may enable us to get a better sense of what kinds of graffiti and street art occur in these locations, where it is located, its content, how widespread it is, who is engaging in this activity and how agents of social control are responding to it.
Although the amount of graffiti and street art that appears in local, state, and national parks pales in comparison to that which is typically present in large urban settings, its study may enable us to have a better picture about the depth and breadth of this phenomenon and the people who engage and respond to this activity.
Photo credit:
National Park Service Photos
Chalking, carving, and scratching are all types of graffiti. Depending on the damage, it may take a significant amount of work to remove.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-03-23-at-4.23.05-PM.png338484Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-03-24 11:37:282024-01-07 12:55:47Making sense of graffiti and street art in local, state, and national parks
The 1960s were a tumultuous time in American political history. One of the legacies of this period was the publication of Albert O Hirschman’s classic and influential book, Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Declines in Firms, Organizations, and States. (1970). Although Hirschman’s book is instructive, it was primarily aimed at American political institutions that were losing their influence, and the examples that he used, are by today’s standards, a little outdated. More importantly, was the scant attention he devoted to what happens to members of organizations when they determine that there is a disconnect between the stated missions of the entities they joined, and the day to day reality of what they do.
Given the recent, so-called great resignation, where many workers are leaving their current jobs in search of more accommodating work settings, and institutions that they believe are more favorable to them, perhaps a rethinking of Hirschman’s argument is in order. Let’s start with first principles.
People (also known as members, employees, or recruits) join organizations for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the need to affiliate with like-minded individuals, to achieve mutual goals, gain valuable skills, expertise, and experience, and to earn a paycheck.
To the newbie, whether we are talking about a nonprofit organization like a church, academic, or governmental based organization, or a for profit entity like a corporation, often seems like a great big black box; full of unknowns, mystery and even unlimited potential and opportunity. However, over time, the subtle nuances of the organization are revealed. The member, employee, recruit, etc. learns who likes whom, who detests whom, and where the organization chooses to invest its limited resources in furtherance of its mission, etc.. The newbie may also learn, besides recognizing the formal organizational chart, where they really fit in to the big picture. They may ask themselves are they essential, or are they window-dressing.
Over time, members also realize the disconnects between what the organization claims to be its mission, goals or objectives (typically presented through formal means of communication, authorized by its leadership,, and what it really does. The purpose of the organization is also revealed in the countless informal actions that the entity engages in (especially how they deal with challenges and crises).
Undoubtedly, both internal and external landscapes change. New people are hired and occupy management and leadership positions. Competitors emerge and threaten to undermine the longevity or market position of the organization. New technologies are created and the organization needs to make a decision whether it is in their best interests to adopt and if so how and when. Alternatively, black swan events like the COVID-19 pandemic happen.
Yes, we must pay heed to organizational development. And many entities will revise their mission statement (and other similar documents) to realign with this new reality, state or telegraph what they actually do or want to accomplish, and hire better or worse leaders and managers.
What happens in these situations?
Most members, employees or recruits, if they have been with the organization over a reasonable period of time, eventually notice or determine the disconnect.
How might or do these members/employees respond? There are at least four possible paths. These individuals may:
• Become tarnished, jaded, or disgruntled. These are the people you hate to run into at the copy machine. They contribute to the bad morale that spread throughout the organization.
• Continuously confront the senior administration or leadership in public or behind closed doors. These are the organizational bomb throwers (Similar to Hirschman’s notion of Voice).
• Seek greener pastures, and if successful in this pursuit quit the organization (Similar to Hirschman’s conception of Exit). And finally, they may
• Make peace with the organization and themselves, including making a series of cost-benefit calculations about a variety of reactions and choose the best one as situations develop (Dissimilar to Hirschman’s idea of Loyalty).
What are some possible solutions for modern organizations?
Short of ignoring the previously reviewed disconnect, leaders and managers who care about their organizations, not to mention their employees, members, or recruits, have a number of options they can pursue. These alternatives are pretty basic, but if not implemented properly they can backfire. They include:
• Using well-designed and implemented feedback loops. Typically this begins with professionally commissioned surveys sent to the rank and file. The questions need to tap issues that are of primary concern to the employees/members and be worded in a manner that is meaningful.
• Repeating this exercise on a regular and basis, and the results should be shared with employees, otherwise this exercise will create or foster distrust.
• Carefully reviewing the recommendations derived from this exercise, assessing them, and selectively implementing those that will address both organizational and members needs.
• Explaining to the membership why particular initiatives were implemented or ignored and why.
Conclusions
Some organizations, despite the contradictions between stated objectives and the day to day reality manage to survive, without any attempt at realignment. As long as the entity can attract a sufficient number of new members, and shed the old ones in a relatively effortless manner, can operate for a while. Over time, however the challenges raise their ugly heads.
It’s up to the leaders and managers to be the careful stewards of their organization. They need to be sufficiently invested in the health and longevity of the entity and take important steps towards realignment or change. They can’t simply pass this important activity off to subordinates and hope for the best.
Image credit
“Untergang der Titanic”,
as conceived by Willy Stöwer, 1912
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-03-17-at-11.26.17-PM.png434641Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-03-18 07:03:052023-02-13 19:31:19Reconsidering Hirschman’s EXIT, VOICE, AND LOYALTY in the context of the great resignation
Forget gun control. It’s time to repeal the 2nd amendment
/by Jeffrey Ian RossI can hear and see them now. Chanting and standing with their pitchforks and lanterns.
“No way,” they yell. “The 2nd Amendment, just like 1 through 27 are sacred and unchangeable.”
Let’s face it. Most gun users are sane. They believe in gun safety, gun control, etc. The scholarship bears this out.
But the simple fact is too many people in this country die at the hands of guns and this is not good for the overall health, safety, and future of the United States.
Since the passage of 2nd amendment, and particularly since the 1968 Handgun Control Act, state and federal politicians have attempted, and in some cases succeeded in placing controls on the importation, manufacture, sale, and storage of guns, and on certain types of ammunition. But this has not really reduced gun related crimes and deaths.
Therefore, it’s realistic to assume that these gun control initiatives have been mostly tinkering around the edges or half measures. And organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety do not go far enough.
Thus the best and most direct way to reduce the use of handguns is through a repeal of the second amendment.
The right to bear arms, also known as the second amendment, was a product of a unique time and place. Recalling this history is not important here. It’s out there for anyone who wants to do a simple google search.
But things have changed. We no longer have slavery, we have subdued the indigenous population into a largely docile and marginalized group, and we are rarely burdened by wild beasts that attack us.
In no way did the framers of the constitution ever consider that the United States would be burdened as we now are by the plague of gun violence, with its accompanying needless injuries, deaths and destruction that is experienced on the streets and in the homes of this country every day. Had the framers predicted this current state of affairs, perhaps they would have thought twice about passing the 2nd amendment. But that was then and this is now.
Thus, why can’t we institute a system of gun ownership similar to other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia or the Nordic countries. Are the citizens of those countries no less scared of government control than us.
Most other advanced industrialized countries don’t have something similar the second amendment in their constitutions. And that’s why their approach to guns is a lot saner then what exists in the United States today.
In all fairness, I’m not the first person to suggest this change, and I certainly won’t be the last. Advocating for and attempts to repeal the 2nd amendment is not unprecedented. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that the 2nd Amendment was the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people at the time. In 2018, retired Justice John Paul Stevens argued in a widely famous op-ed to abolish the 2nd Amendment. And in both 1992 and 1993 Democratic representative Major Owens entered legislation in Congress to get it repealed. And with predictable results.
Arguments against repealing the Second Amendment are specious
Those who are against the repeal of the 2nd amendment quickly argue that:
• It will create a black market for illegal guns. But this kind of exchange already exists. Yes, there are continuing efforts by legislators and law enforcement to control this through the passage of laws and enforcement strategies, but the unregulated market still exists.
• It’s a slippery slope. First you will start with outlawing guns then you will move on to other lethal objects like knives, rocks, poison, etc. Perhaps, but not likely.
• We can’t live in a country where the only people who have access to guns are the police and the military. That’s not completely true. Again if we use the examples of other countries that are not dictatorships or authoritarian that are not obsessed about gun ownership, we see limited cases of gun ownership. Moreover, one need look no further than the British police for examples of police that do not carry guns on a regular basis. In fact there are approximately 18 countries, and one US territory, where the police do not carry guns. Are the crime rates in those countries significantly higher than they are in the United States? No.
How can we realistically repeal the Second Amendment?
Although some gun control activists have suggested that we hold a constitutional convention where the attorney generals of all states come together to work for the repeal the 2nd amendment, at this current time in US history there is not enough states who support this. That is why there are some other solutions, currently in place that are more promising.
• Continue to hold gun and ammunition manufacturers accountable and take them to court where the legal circumstances allow.
• Hit these companies with big financial penalties
• Now that the National Rifle Association is on the ropes, it’s time to finally put them out of business.
• Massive investments need to be made in educational campaigns that outline the negative effects of gun ownership.
Conclusion
Few people and constituencies are keen on repealing the 2nd amendment, that there is widespread agreement on how to do it, nor that it is going to be easy. This is not a popularity contest. But just like activist demands for prison abolition, defunding or abolishing the police, it’s high time to reconsider the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Sure, people (and organizations) will find lots of creative ways to injure, kill and threaten others. I mean they do this already. So let’s just eliminate the principle way.
Photo credit
David Mulder
Day 231. Gun control.
Making sense of graffiti and street art in local, state, and national parks
/by Jeffrey Ian RossGraffiti and street art can be found in most big cities and urban environments, and on almost any type of surface. One of the less acknowledged and academically studied places where graffiti and street art exist are the numerous local, state, and national parks. These range from comparatively small areas that local governments set aside for the public use located in urban environments (e.g., the small pocket parks spread throughout a city like Washington, DC), to large swaths of land, with different types of flora, and fauna, topography, and sometimes including ancient priceless American-Indian carvings, etchings, pictographs, and petroglyphs that encompass several states (e.g., Yellowstone National Park).
What does graffiti and street art in local, state and national parks look like?
The majority of graffiti that appears in these locations are tags, a moniker of sorts, typically done with white or black indelible marker pens on the front or back of “man-made” signs, posts, and culverts. Occasionally, numerous statues, memorials, and plaques are covered with graffiti. This kind of visual resistance appeared to increase during the Black Lives Matter protests, in the spring and summer of 2020 as a reaction to the death of George Floyd, an unarmed African-American man, at the hands of a white Milwaukee police officer.
Frequently there’s also lots of tagging inside the public restrooms (at least the men’s room), including porta potties that are located near the parking lots of these parks. Sometimes the tagging is more complicated, with cartoon like images. If there are train tracks or logging roads, running through the park, there may be tagging on the tracks or on low level rocks. Graffiti may also include letters, words, and images that are carved, chalked, chiseled. or scratched, on to trees and rocks. In terms of street art, the most frequent medium are stickers. On rare occasions will larger graffiti pieces, some with bubble letters, will be placed on rock surfaces.
Why is graffiti and street art that appears in local, state and national parks rarely studied?
In general, there is less graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks, then the walls, doors, transportation systems, and back alleys of major metropolises. A number of reasons probably exist that explain why this occurs:
• With the exception of local parks, those inclined to engage in graffiti and street art rarely visit state and national parks, or they may not have the motivation to participate in this kind of activity in these areas.
• Implicit norms shared by taggers, writers and artists. Just like, the infrequent graffiti and street art left on houses of worship (i.e., churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples), the natural environment is often considered to be sanctified and out of bounds for writers and artists to leave their mark. Unlike private (and commercial space), it’s frequently assumed that local, state, and federal parks have been set aside as protected areas to be enjoyed by all, and thus writing graffiti or street art is perceived as taboo, among graffiti and street artist community.
Why might academics refrained from studying graffiti and street art in local, state and national parks?
A handful of reasons possibly explain why academics have not produced much scholarship on graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks. This includes:
• It may not be perceived to be that interesting.
• There is less graffiti and street art in these locations. Thus,
• It may not be considered to be that big a social problem.
• Access to relevant data is resource-intensive. Unless we are talking about city parks, and unlike graffiti and street art that is put up in big cities, perpetrators rarely live near state and federal parks Notwithstanding traveling to these places is costly, based on my experience, the National Park Police and National Park Service Police do not readily share data about this kind of vandalism with qualified researchers.
How might researchers study this subject?
Moving forward, there are some possible ways to consider tackling this subject.
Since getting interviews with people engaging in graffiti and street art in local, state and federal parks is extremely difficult, researchers might start by reviewing popular news media accounts of graffiti and street art in these locations.
Alternatively investigators might try to secure interviews (or even administer surveys) with rank and file National Park Police, National Park Service Rangers, service personnel, and volunteers who may pick up trash, and help to maintain or cut trails, and visitors.
Another tactic may be a visual ethnography where over a significant period of time, an inventory of graffiti and street art is taken in selected parks, to determine its breadth, frequency, and types.
These methods may enable us to get a better sense of what kinds of graffiti and street art occur in these locations, where it is located, its content, how widespread it is, who is engaging in this activity and how agents of social control are responding to it.
Although the amount of graffiti and street art that appears in local, state, and national parks pales in comparison to that which is typically present in large urban settings, its study may enable us to have a better picture about the depth and breadth of this phenomenon and the people who engage and respond to this activity.
Photo credit:
National Park Service Photos
Chalking, carving, and scratching are all types of graffiti. Depending on the damage, it may take a significant amount of work to remove.
Reconsidering Hirschman’s EXIT, VOICE, AND LOYALTY in the context of the great resignation
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThe 1960s were a tumultuous time in American political history. One of the legacies of this period was the publication of Albert O Hirschman’s classic and influential book, Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Declines in Firms, Organizations, and States. (1970). Although Hirschman’s book is instructive, it was primarily aimed at American political institutions that were losing their influence, and the examples that he used, are by today’s standards, a little outdated. More importantly, was the scant attention he devoted to what happens to members of organizations when they determine that there is a disconnect between the stated missions of the entities they joined, and the day to day reality of what they do.
Given the recent, so-called great resignation, where many workers are leaving their current jobs in search of more accommodating work settings, and institutions that they believe are more favorable to them, perhaps a rethinking of Hirschman’s argument is in order. Let’s start with first principles.
People (also known as members, employees, or recruits) join organizations for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the need to affiliate with like-minded individuals, to achieve mutual goals, gain valuable skills, expertise, and experience, and to earn a paycheck.
To the newbie, whether we are talking about a nonprofit organization like a church, academic, or governmental based organization, or a for profit entity like a corporation, often seems like a great big black box; full of unknowns, mystery and even unlimited potential and opportunity. However, over time, the subtle nuances of the organization are revealed. The member, employee, recruit, etc. learns who likes whom, who detests whom, and where the organization chooses to invest its limited resources in furtherance of its mission, etc.. The newbie may also learn, besides recognizing the formal organizational chart, where they really fit in to the big picture. They may ask themselves are they essential, or are they window-dressing.
Over time, members also realize the disconnects between what the organization claims to be its mission, goals or objectives (typically presented through formal means of communication, authorized by its leadership,, and what it really does. The purpose of the organization is also revealed in the countless informal actions that the entity engages in (especially how they deal with challenges and crises).
Undoubtedly, both internal and external landscapes change. New people are hired and occupy management and leadership positions. Competitors emerge and threaten to undermine the longevity or market position of the organization. New technologies are created and the organization needs to make a decision whether it is in their best interests to adopt and if so how and when. Alternatively, black swan events like the COVID-19 pandemic happen.
Yes, we must pay heed to organizational development. And many entities will revise their mission statement (and other similar documents) to realign with this new reality, state or telegraph what they actually do or want to accomplish, and hire better or worse leaders and managers.
What happens in these situations?
Most members, employees or recruits, if they have been with the organization over a reasonable period of time, eventually notice or determine the disconnect.
How might or do these members/employees respond? There are at least four possible paths. These individuals may:
• Become tarnished, jaded, or disgruntled. These are the people you hate to run into at the copy machine. They contribute to the bad morale that spread throughout the organization.
• Continuously confront the senior administration or leadership in public or behind closed doors. These are the organizational bomb throwers (Similar to Hirschman’s notion of Voice).
• Seek greener pastures, and if successful in this pursuit quit the organization (Similar to Hirschman’s conception of Exit). And finally, they may
• Make peace with the organization and themselves, including making a series of cost-benefit calculations about a variety of reactions and choose the best one as situations develop (Dissimilar to Hirschman’s idea of Loyalty).
What are some possible solutions for modern organizations?
Short of ignoring the previously reviewed disconnect, leaders and managers who care about their organizations, not to mention their employees, members, or recruits, have a number of options they can pursue. These alternatives are pretty basic, but if not implemented properly they can backfire. They include:
• Using well-designed and implemented feedback loops. Typically this begins with professionally commissioned surveys sent to the rank and file. The questions need to tap issues that are of primary concern to the employees/members and be worded in a manner that is meaningful.
• Repeating this exercise on a regular and basis, and the results should be shared with employees, otherwise this exercise will create or foster distrust.
• Carefully reviewing the recommendations derived from this exercise, assessing them, and selectively implementing those that will address both organizational and members needs.
• Explaining to the membership why particular initiatives were implemented or ignored and why.
Conclusions
Some organizations, despite the contradictions between stated objectives and the day to day reality manage to survive, without any attempt at realignment. As long as the entity can attract a sufficient number of new members, and shed the old ones in a relatively effortless manner, can operate for a while. Over time, however the challenges raise their ugly heads.
It’s up to the leaders and managers to be the careful stewards of their organization. They need to be sufficiently invested in the health and longevity of the entity and take important steps towards realignment or change. They can’t simply pass this important activity off to subordinates and hope for the best.
Image credit
“Untergang der Titanic”,
as conceived by Willy Stöwer, 1912