Couldn't you reword that to say "if you are unable to work on what bosses considers important then don't be an employee."
I think we're now arguing about the ethical obligation of an employee, which is an open question. Is it (from the most restrictive to the least):
(1) to subordinate wholly to one's immediate manager?
(2) to act in the corporation's best interest?
(3) not to act *against* the corporation's interests?
(4) not to use one's employment with the corporation to act against its interests?
(5) not to break laws or compete illicitly with the company?
The law puts it somewhere on the spectrum between 4 and 5. Breaking 4 is generally considered unethical, except in the case of illegal activity by the company (whistleblowing) or collective bargaining.
People I'm describing are at 2-2.5 on that subordinacy spectrum. They're pursuing the joint interest of themselves and the company in a way that attracts middle management opposition. They don't deserve the punishment they'll typically get (termination, possibly worse) for that.
I think we're now arguing about the ethical obligation of an employee, which is an open question. Is it (from the most restrictive to the least):
The law puts it somewhere on the spectrum between 4 and 5. Breaking 4 is generally considered unethical, except in the case of illegal activity by the company (whistleblowing) or collective bargaining.People I'm describing are at 2-2.5 on that subordinacy spectrum. They're pursuing the joint interest of themselves and the company in a way that attracts middle management opposition. They don't deserve the punishment they'll typically get (termination, possibly worse) for that.