Hi @CormacRussell I saw that stream about anthropomorphising the organisation, but didn& #39;t want to kick it off again.

I agree with you, the organisation is not it& #39;s people and it& #39;s not just another community. There are many types of human groups with different constraints 1/n

... different rules, power gradients, democratic and monolithic. It is true that an organisation only really exists as a set of theories, structures, job descriptions, policies etc it only really comes to life when populated by people. And here lies the danger of the theory 2/n

... gaining some sort of personality. Everyone knows the big difference between the theory and the complex relationships of the people in action. Afterall the org has a name and a place, so it& #39;s easy to assign it with characteristics, but who does that, how is it formed 3/n

...I& #39;ve worked with plenty of people who considered the & #39;organisation& #39; to be a distant corporate identity & not them. I& #39;ve seen institutions take on a life of their own, spouting corporate values & vision as if it were not just a living being, but a deity, something ethereal 4/n

... "dangerously untouchable" my fav quote as the corporate walls turn their back on their own people, who play no part, in the personification that takes the credit for good stuff & castigates anything else. The staff have no voice let alone the people they serve. 5/n

... I know this is a little dark & not the case everywhere, but it doesn& #39;t matter. The corporate deity does not belong to staff & anything that blurs or transfers the personality of the org towards belonging to its theory & not it& #39;s people, is at the top of a slippery slope n/n