The Anarchist in an Organization

I miss the old days when a discussion was part of a day's work.  When you sat with your colleagues and talked problems, (project) status, ideas, concepts and the basic "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question.  The avowed openness of the proceeding seethed with agendas being forced hidden because they are too obvious when voiced out.  There was democracy and the implicit push for disagreement for the sake of disagreement.  Anarchy for the anarchy's sake.  In such an environment, ideas are floated to be shot down.  Opinions are voiced just because.

Maybe I am an anarchist in an organizational setup; not being entirely comfortable if everyone is agreeing for the sake of agreeing.  In such cases, I need to give a contrary view or opinion. 

"I will agree, but let me inform you of the alternative of this action."

There is no need to always be agreeing.  In fact, there is no real need to agree to anything.  As long as the discussion is still open, I will voice out a contrary opinion, if no one else is voicing one.  I want to have the guy beside me giving a different approach, opinion, comment or suggestion.  I want to see the holes in the ideas presented.  Sentient beings talking about a plan of action need to see the deficiencies in the plan, before agreeing to implement it.

And after the discussion is closed, an agreement is given.  And the final plan is a group plan.  After the meeting, in front of everyone else, the group plan is unanimously and unconditionally followed.  No matter what was said to the contrary during the planning.

--andoy