> the author seems to have a laser-like focus on the material fact that he feels insubordination has occured and that this is a problem Indeed, how is it that

> the author seems to have a laser-like focus on the material fact that he feels insubordination has occured and that this is a problem Indeed, how is it that in the 19th century the conscripted lined up in rank and file against grapeshot cannonade, went over the top in the war to end all wars, and only 1 of 3 discharged their weapons in WWII? Perhaps it is only the victory of management science that we more precisely know the extent to which the individual subordinates himself dutifully and unthinkingly to command. > I don't think it's solely because someone said so. The extent to which management reckons the rank and file's pliancy reliable -- without its image being rescued by romance (a la The Charge of the Light Brigade) -- relies upon the realism of quid pro quo and economic desperation. Where would we be without our crime-procedurals, super-hero movies, and high-school signing contracts? The omnipotence fantasy consists in wrongs that are righted, but when the bullshit wears so thin that everyone sees through it...what then? Rebel around some cultural touch-stone? > Try to figure out why people don't want to do this thing? I prefer management remain clueless. Can anyone imagine anything more horrifying than unthinking executors of commands? Executors who may wink out the lives of wedding parties a continent removed? I will laud you for echoing an American "leftist" commonplace for wishing to discover root-causes (exactly as quaint as "without even the appearance of impropriety"). But I cast my lot with all who reply "I prefer not to."