Who is truly Innovative?

Who? is truly innovative! The more an organization expands, the further ambiguity of effectiveness of high ranked persons prevails, isn’t it? That’s a typical analogy some radicals often use to seduce people to their publishments.

Then, here as well, the same analogy shows up (my lament anyway), as you know, the above statement.

Floods of power point materials, on which beautiful graphical images are abundant but at the same time no consistent and scientific logic is found, for the purpose of decision making in business process, are typical environment in modern office.

Then those who are considered high rankings are pleased at those beautiful materials, stating another ambiguous and logic-corrupted or logically immature murmur to which workaholic followers should react looks-like-keenly.

OK, sorry, it seems I have been little bit servile of my low ranked employee life.

I am not communist, and I support the effectiveness of capitalism, especially in terms of innovation. Making power point material is of cause, I think, one of the ways of being innovative.

Then, in what point, does high ranked people are considered innovative?

Scientific statement is written in quite a logical way.
I am wondering why statement made by high ranked people is always not like scientific statement.

Oh god, I should have stopped this essay earlier. Maybe I will be fired as a kind of minor rebel front against company!

High-ranked ambiguous murmur triggers, and low ranked does design, but if the trigger is badly wrong? While statements by high-ranked do not contain any scientific or say any objective basis and contains only of looks-like-sophisticated but merely sensational, how could they be considered as “Productive”?

Probably, a person who raises that kind of point would never have any bit of chance of being promoted to high-ranked because that means the person does not understand what being high-ranked is all about.

Oh———–, It was long time ago, one of high-ranked said that any documents for high-ranked should be as simple and short as possible. High-ranked were all feeling quite a nuisance and bothering at all of your (low-ranked) documents and therefore they would never be interested in such bothering documents.

Bothering documents? an expression for an attempt of convincing a king?

Oh———–, Sir, I think you should not have said such a thing! Low-ranked are working hard making efforts of simplifying but without missing any essence of any documents and they just simply trying to convince high-ranked with logical and scientific approach so that objective decision making is done therefore you do not feel any such anxiety, which means we do not need high-ranked anymore.
Please note that such a thing that is quite simple yet competitive and that gives us quite a profit will never exist.
As you know, all the persons in a past who were innovative had made a tremendous effort i.e. there were not any simplified process to attain something special.
Even a human is born throughout quite a process which even modern science has not yet well known.

Wait! OK, that’s why they said that! Objective decision making such as data driven operation may nullify the necessity of ranked organization, deteriorating the “raison d’être” of high-ranked.

High ranked often say, “Be innovative!”. “You all shall be innovative! so that revolutionary development is brought in!”, “Innovation is indispensable element for any businesspersons!”

Maybe hierarchy is necessary for any organization. But the ranks should carefully be set. Then at the same time an organization should be in a way that everyone can be innovative, and the level of innovation should be independent of the rank, putting it the other way around, being not innovative should not be on any ranks including the high ranked.

Oops I did it again! Maybe I need some natural medicine.