People challenge me on my ability to follow through with my dreams when I've delayed my life to raise my son. They think I'm a cliche, that I'll become some housewife and settle for doing Jack's chores. But they don't know me; they don't know how broad these shoulders have become through trial; they don't know the migraines or the father. And if they don't know that, what do they really know about me at all?
“I need—” But do I really want to do this to her, to rely on Ashley when I don’t know how things are going to go with Sarah, when I can’t even pin down my feelings for a girl I just met at work, not to mention the girl I’ve loved for four years? Do I really want to be that asshole?
What's truly at stake in the discussion between hierarchies and adhocracies is the way in which projects are managed. This situation is not, though I enjoy Mark's rhetoric, a meeting of the finite and infinite, but rather a clash between an old paradigm and a new one where the business world is awaiting a widespread shift from one to the other. If we assume that these stated management problems will continue even after the widespread adoption of the new project management paradigm, are we left with the cataclysm Mark discussed in the linked entry? No; rather, we're left with an old question which wants to guarantee security in an endeavor (That is, Who is responsible for completing the project?) to a question that seems to have less though actually implies more security (Namely, Can the project be accomplished?).
Greg Freed says hello to the world of bloggers, mumbling into the hurricane.