Outside the Box?

I worked for two relatively large corporations before starting law school. As one might imagine, I absolutely hated both experiences. Most people can relate because most people have worked in large, or super-sized organizations complete with policies about sharpening pencils and staple use, 50 person HR departments, 200 superfluous emails a day, and bosses who use words like "synergy" or worse yet, "synergies." There were also abundant team building exercises that some junior executive, MBA wielding, member of the applicable boy's-club, presumably mandated. I sat through most of them wondering how things got so off that such activities were necessary.

In both of these organizations, I sat in and often conducted interviews with people who were seeking positions therein. All of them, without fail, explained how well they thought "outside the box." We were sometimes even lucky enough to hear these phrases supported by a couple of faith-promoting examples. The problem is simple: if people actually thought outside the box, why were they so interested to get inside another one? Certainly, some brilliant people may want their brilliance limited by large organizations; they may want the entity's superiors to take credit for their creativity and work. They may even enjoy the social aspects of the daily grind. I never understood it.

I suppose that the financial stability does allow employees to trade in the independence for a certain lifestyle. However, I was never convinced that there is any financial stability in working for a large or even small organization. Chances are fair that the organization will exist next week, but there is no guarantee that any position in it will. In that sense, there is very little stability on either side. There are plenty of people who exert certain pressures regardless of whether you are inside or outside the box. The difference is, if you are on your own or with a few partners, the box is in your hands.