Today a collegue and I had an interesting philisophical discussion about how things should be done.  Is there a right way and a wrong way?

If the outcomes are good does it matter how they were arrived at?  The challenge is, arguably there are  grey answers to these questions.

Consider Basic Behaviours

Most would agree to take another humans life is wrong, however; taking anothers life in defense of your own or accidentally contributing to a loss of life seem to logically mitigate the seriousness or even if it is wrong.

So, the basic statement “Taking anothers life is wrong” could have many qualifiers making the ultimate conclusion of wrong or right not so clear.

Group or Organizational Behaviour

It probably seems logical for groups to practise clear and open communication.  For there to be rules or at very least guidelines outlining accountabilities and responsibilities.

For multi layered structures (i.e., heirarchical) it seems obvious documented organizational structure is of great value. But, like the murder example, what seems obvious might not be.

Unstructed cultures, where anyone can do anything can exist and be intentional.  Clear guidelines, responsiblities, even unambigous communication might not fit with this culture.

And the answer is

What is the key to success is not declaring what is right or wrong, but rather as a group or team collaberatively determining the culture and then fitting the behaviour standards to conform with that culture, in a fully supportive manner.