Replying to LO24299 --
At de Lange wrote in LO24299 on corruption as destroying integrity
(wholeness and sureness):
>The fellow learner now has a serious problem. Will the funding of the
>service in general in terms of payment for service rendered to those who
>can afford it, not corrupt the service so that the loving care in the
>service hit the dust?
snip
>Yet many people believe that money can buy everything. The power of having
>money is based on this belief. It is this very power of money which
>corrupts that which it buys, but which it cannot pay for. When money buy
>wholeness, it corrupts wholeness since it is impossible to pay for wholeness.
Dear At and all,
some thoughts on your friends problem leading to a tough thesis on
learning organizations.
Often, money is NEEDED in order to provide or create something WANTED,
like in your friends case. Problems arise, when wants and needs are
confused. It sounds obvious to want what one needs, but it is not. I think
it is not even valid. For example, I want to contribute to our company. In
order to do so, I need - among others - money for which I can buy eating,
clothing, housing, my needs. As soon as I would say, that I contribute in
order to get my needs satisfied, my contribution would be corrupted.
Your friend want to contribute to increase caring love. Therefore he needs
some funding. But what is the caring love for his clients? You write that
they "need it desparately". But can one need caring love? Isn't caring
love the ultimate thing to want? I don't mean these questions to be
rhetorical, in fact I am struck by the complexity in them. I also could
say that caring love is the ultimate need that we want and thus that which
does not corrupt when need and want for it fall together.
But in this case, your friend should better not think in terms of wanting
to satisfy others needs (one way to employ) but to gather co-creators
(another way to employ), each bringing into it what they can afford -
skills, time, money. The process of creation will gain momentum and
develop it's unique dynamic becoming. You know best how to care for it -
sustain it constructively.
At, you have posed a question, based on your sensitivity of wholeness,
forseeing the danger of corruption. I have suggested a possible direction
by including more of sureness. As buying what money cannot buy impaires
wholeness, sureness is impaired by wanting to provide for needs.
This leads me to the toughest thesis I ever dared to pose to this list:
*** An organization which defines it's identity
*** in terms of providing needs to their customers
*** will not emerge into a learning organization.
Am I gone mad now? In order to substantiate my thesis, I refered to At de
Langes theory of creativity and my example as a contributor to our
company. This will not be sufficient for most of you. Then I recommend to
read or reread Arie de Gues Living Company, Collins and Porras Built to
Last and Robert Fritz Creating with my thesis in mind.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.