Yesterday we got into a very lively discussion on the topic of Religious Bureaucrats versus Religious Entrepreneurs around the dinner table. It’s been fun watching the facial reactions when I pose the question and even more enjoyable listening to the responses.
Let’s use these definitions as the basis of the discussion:
Bureaucrat: An administrator concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of the people’s needs. Someone who wants to perpetuate the status quo with the motive of safety and security.
Entrepreneur: someone who has a set of principles and is willing to take risks on behalf of those principles.
I welcome your thoughts and ideas. Please post your responses and let’s see where this goes.
Update: June 25, 2008
Since this post, I have written an article on Financial Bureaucrats vs. Financial Entrepreneur on my PyrBlu blog
You can view that blog by clicking here: PyrBlu blog
This reminds me of the saying there is a difference between the “spirit” of the law, and the “letter” of the law.
This is the discussion of the combination of the principle, the personality of the leader and then the practice of that leader. We can look through the history of time and see the differences of the personalities of the leaders but the principle will always be found to be present and true. You might call it the interpretation of the principle if you will. The leader who tries to follow with exactness with be considered a Bureaucrat. Exactness is good. But that also leaves room for interpretation. I believe in following with exactness but would consider myself an Entrepreneur. I think the truth is found in the verse of scripture that states that the Lord looketh upon the heart. ” But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7) So the argument will rage on for time with this discussion due to the difference of personality and interpretation.
How do you feel this translates into the common man going about his duties on a day to day basis? And how does the pure definition play a role; the maintenance of the status quo versus taking risk because of a set of beliefs?
(Caveat: this does not mean that risk is a violation of any commandment or principle, it means going against tradition, outside the box.)