ARE RULES MADE TO BEND?

Are you using of organizational systems organically?

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that a presidential candidate reported a $900 million dollar loss in 1995.  In reporting a loss of that magnitude there also came the opportunity to avoid paying federal income taxes for 18 years.  The overall statement of the campaign's surrogates, is that the ability to do so through the following of the tax code, represents "near genius", due to the ability to be able to find various tax breaks.  Overall, it allowed the candidate to build a business, virtually unhinged by the burden of the federal tax code.  As stated, some taxes were paid over the years at all levels of government.  This comes as there have been outcries concerning the release of tax returns, which may contain further information concerning business dealings.

Well, one may ask "what does this have to do with me?  I don't have tons of money and definitely don't find loopholes in the federal tax code.  One of the things that comes with filing income taxes is the fact that organizationally, the current federal tax code does allow individuals various opportunities to write off business operations, charitable contributions and childcare expenses.  There are also other areas such as investment capital gains/losses, costs for various other investments, as well as credits for life's events.  Essentially, we all can utilize the benefits that come from the rules of the tax code. In essence, the code is the code and of course, it is organizationally prudent.

But when you begin to talk about running for the highest office in the land, does it speak to finding benefit in the existing laws or taking advantage of systems.  I have no specific opinion to this, other than to say that organizational systems have points at which maneuverability happens in larger the organizational structure.  It goes without saying that in all areas of corporate and public arenas, the idea using systems to gain an advantage helps and hurts many.  The overall capacity of organizations to create systems puts institutions at risk for possible abuse.  There is an evolution of organizational culture, which comes from rules implemented in an effort to herd both internal and external utilization.

In the research of T.C. Mawhinney, "Evolution of Organization of Organizational Cultures as Selection By Consequences", the discussion of the effects of rules on both internal and external perceptions is discussed.  Essentially, organizational modeling, (i.e. rules) result in an effort to "herd" the masses into a way of thinking, causing the process of running the organization to go "smoothly".  Unfortunately, it also lends itself to rule bending at both the internal and external consumer levels.  True indeed, those who are encouraged to abide by the rules of the organization, look for small ways to yield those rules to their advantage.  The viewpoint is that either rules are bound to happen organically and without intent for the purpose of organization, (Gaia Hypothesis) or through an intentional social bonding, which makes rules even more appealing to bend.

Are rules made to be broken...or just bent?

Just a question of the day.

TPP