I don't like to speak in absolutes, but we have two outcomes for the future. An institution either succeeds or it fails. I'm not going to speculate on the outco

I don't like to speak in absolutes, but we have two outcomes for the future. An institution either succeeds or it fails. I'm not going to speculate on the outcome which I believe is more likely for my company because it's irrelevant to the thought experiment I'm about to present. In the event the institution fails, everything is reset to zero and the talent and resources are redistributed in the World. Value is destroyed, but undesirable aspects are too. You can judge if that is a net positive or net negative outcome. The other outcome is that the institution weathers a storm and succeeds either way. Under this scenario, there are two new scenarios: (a) the institution survives with all the good, well meaning people you agree with on board, helping steer it into the future; or (b) those encouraging the good, well-meaning people to abandon the institution, leaving those that remain to steer that institution into the future. Ignore what you want to happen for a moment. If the likelihood of survival despite current events is sufficiently high, then encouraging those with whom you agree to abandon the institution is contrary to your best interests. This is a game theoretic scenario, which I encourage you to explore on your own. Remember that the banks survived. That all said, I'm not discouraging you from challenging institutions that may have aspects to correct. I'm encouraging you to reconsider how you challenge those institutions to determine all the consequences, intended and unintended. Personally, I think it's best to challenge them to be better in the ways I think is better.