At a seminar for senior managers of the subsidiary of a Fortune 500, a participant put up his hand to ask: "Sam, what you are saying is great. I agree we should be different and bold. Can you tell us what we should do to lift this great burden of bureaucracy that is crushing us all at work?"

I was somewhat taken aback, because I had just put up some slides on the kind of things the CEO of the company (based in Rochester, New York) had said in public. They read something like this:

"There are textbook types of things that are wrong with the company. Decisions are too slow. People don't take risks.... It was so hierarchically oriented that everybody looked to the guy above him for what needed to be done.... Half the people in the world have yet to take their first picture. The opportunity is huge, and it's nothing fancy."

Quoting Niccolo Machiavelli this CEO said, "There is nothing more difficult (or more invigorating) to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."

One of this CEO's lieutenants had this to say about him: "He rarely handles a piece of paper twice and usually gives executives a decision on the spot. That's quite a change at a company where 'paralysis by analysis' had become an art.... He has a willingness to use the 80/20 rule, which holds that it's O.K. to be right just 80% of the time if you act quickly."

Obviously, the message hadn't filtered down to this subsidiary, or was being ignored. Whatever the truth might be, it was depressing to hear a senior manager say this about his organization. So I thought it over and asked the group this question, "Suppose this seminar were being attended by your subordinates, do you think the same question might have been asked?" "Yes, Yes", was the reply in chorus from everyone.

"Well, in that case, don't you guys think that you are equally responsible for the beastly burden of bureaucracy which you so dread?', I asked. "Aren't you contributing to this mess, guys? Aren't you actually fostering and nourishing the very thing that you so heartily despise?"

The point is that it is very easy for us to see how everyone else (the system, the organization, the environment, ...) is causing the problem. Everything but ourselves. That's a load of rubbish. Either you own up to your contribution to this monstrosity, or pack up and leave. Aren't we all part of the very system that is stifling and killing us? So, how come each one of us as individuals believes we are not to blame, but are collectively a bunch of idiots, perpetrating the very things we abhor? What is a system without the people in it?

The sad truth is that most of us steal our salaries, we don't earn them. We get up and go to work, spend the entire day building bureaucratic barriers, and return frustrated that nothing got done. But we are secretly pleased that we have guarded our turf well today, tomorrow is another day.

Nothing will change or improve unless each and everyone takes it upon him/herself to make a difference. If you are not willing to change, why should you expect your colleague to change? Instead of asking, "How can I make sure that I don't upset the apple cart, and survive one more day without making any mistakes?", why not ask, "What difference can I make to the division or department this week?"

Remember what Oscar Wilde said, "Most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes."

Listen to Roger Meade of Scitor: "Utilize your best judgment at all times. Ask yourself: Is it fair and reasonable? Is it honest? Does it make good business sense in the context of our established objectives? If you can answer yes to all of these then proceed. Remember you are accountable against this policy for all your actions.

"If you find that management's direction is out of touch with the reality of the situation at hand, it is your responsibility to act based upon your best judgment. Never, and I mean never, use the excuse of following orders as the rationale for following a poor course of action. This is compounding stupidity, and it is inexcusable."

Richard Perle has this to say about authority: "The question always arises as to what authority you have. The answer is you have to assume you have absolute authority until somebody tells you otherwise, until somebody stops you. Because if you try to derive your authority, your freedom of action, from any other source, you are not going to have any fun, and you are not going to get much done.

"So I operated on the theory that it was within my authority to make decisions and do things and carry them out, right up until the moment that somebody was able to prove otherwise. And it's amazing how much you can get away with, how many people will acquiesce in that, if you seem determined and you seem to know what you are doing."

If you think Roger Meade and Richard Perle are bananas, and such things cannot be done outside of the developed countries, you are simply taking the easy way out. If you are genuine about what you want to do, and are willing to put in real effort, Roger Meade and Richard Perle suddenly don't seem to be saying stupid things after all.

For 22 years, I worked for organizations that were run by the rule book. Fourteen of those years were here in the middle east. I regularly assumed absolute authority to do whatever I thought was right, and got away with it [most of the time]. Whatever else happened, I enjoyed every moment of it, and sidetracked bureaucracy as often as I liked.

Fun at work lies in the joy of creating, not just maintaining the status quo. Can you ask yourself honestly whether you add to the burden of bureaucracy or whether you can do something more than comfortably complaining about it?