The statement critiques the role of experts in companies and suggests that innovation is hindered by their presence, advocating for 'perpendicular thinking' as a solution. It engages with the public issue of innovation in corporate environments, making it a part of public discourse.
- The statement does not directly harm others but could be seen as dismissive of experts, which might indirectly harm by undermining their contributions. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes a perspective on innovation that could foster understanding and new approaches, but it lacks empathy towards experts. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement critiques a group (experts) but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.