I was trying to explain something to a colleague the other day about the ins and outs of the way teachers are ranked in their schools in this Far Place when it struck me that at one time I would have found what I was saying interesting, yet, at the moment of telling I found it all tedious and, in truth, was only outlining what I knew out of a sense of duty. How different I am now from my younger self who in the early years of his career was genuinely curious about the organisations and systems he found himself in - and others beyond - and how they operated. I suppose it was all part of a natural curiosity about human behaviour mixed in with a healthy desire to make sure I knew enough to maintain some sort of career and perhaps help improve the circumstances of myself and those with whom I worked.
What led to the change? After all, I still have to work in an organisation and I think I've maintained a reasonable sense of curiosity. But basically I think that over time I learned everything I could learn and just found myself encountering the same lessons.
Now I know this sounds like the most awful hubris but I also suspect that I learned everything there was and is to learn. People are interesting but organisations aren't because they end up behaving like organisations, if you see what I mean. A sort of odd leveling takes place to produce organisational man (and woman, I hasten to add.) No matter how healthily crazy those working for the organisation are, the organisation goes on being, well, organisational (though not necessarily, in fact rarely, organised.)