Replying to LO27911 --
in which Andrew wrote:
Dear Daan,
> This is an open ended objective that in a dynamic environment, with a
> dynamic system and all manner of constraints can never be fully
> satisfied. It is also a win-win objective that applies universally and
> thus can be considered to be a normative definition of management.
How does this 'fit' from Kant: "It is good to remember that all people
are not means to any end but are ends in themselves."
Dear Andrew
There is much spoken and printed today about the matter of human
dignity and individual worth - the matter that was dear to Kant's
heart when he wrote that people should never be treated purely as
means to ends, something that would diminish their ability to maintain
and to express their 'free will' and would thus detract from their
dignity and worth.
I also believe that in many respects, if not in all aspects and layers
of society, less is constructively done today to respect the other's
free will and dignity than a 100 years ago. We have (become?) been
made into a society of faceless producers and consumers and both camps
treat the other as exploitable.
But I would rather not phrase my answer to your question in relative
terms, such that as Normative Management is 'better' than current
management philosophy - if there really is such a thing and not merely
extreme pragmatism in the single minded pursuit of profit.
Seeing that I believe it is in human terms the 'right and proper' way
to manage any organisation, the pursuit of 'worth' should be able to
provde an answer to your question on its own merit.
A few points to bring full perspective to bear:
1. The 'manager' is seen as the head of the system - the person
responsible for the function and role performed by that system in its
environment.
2. The concept of the 'worth' of the system - specified, in principle,
as the average of all ratings by all people who interact with the
system, is used to define the overriding objective of the manager -
namely to increase the worth of the system
3. Since the people, apart from the 'manager', who work in that system
also come from the environment, their ratings also count towards the
worth of the system. This in effect means that the 'manager', the head
of the system, IS the system.
4. Rating of the value of the system, as perceived by the environment,
is done exclusively by the people outside the system, using whatever
parameters and factors related to their interaction they consider
relevant, and with their own priorities for each factor
The question - if I understand it correctly - is whether by trying to
improve the worth of the system the manager is perhaps using the
people in the environment as a means to an end, therefore largely or
exlcusively as ends in themselves. Then, if I understand Kant
correctly, it all boils down to the motive of the manager. If the
action and the motive, under the prevailing circumstances, is
something the manager wishes for him/herself and also for anybody else
under similar circumstances, then it is in order. Even behaviour that
runs counter to accepted ethics is condoned to a degree if the above
holds true.
However, if the action and the motive shows full respect for other
people's dignity and free will, and the manager views it as the
correct behaviour for anybody under similar circumstances, then it is
ethically correct.
Back to the normative definition. Increasing the worth of the system
by responding to what people outside the system desire and expect,
from their own free will, expresses complete respect for their dignity
and free will. The fact that the manager hopes to gain personally from
the increased worth of the system, should he/she be successful, can be
considered an end that he/she is pursuing - but in the process the
people outside the system who make this possible are not treated
impersonally nor exploited in any manner. The contrary applies - what
they expect to experience and obtain in their voluntary interaction
with the system are paramount within the objectives of the manager.
Personal objectives of, say, possible reward, are subordinate to the
pursuit of worth.
I thus believe that the principles of Normative Management are in full
and complete compliance with Kant's stricture.
Andrew, thank you for the question. It compelled me to read a little
and also to think quite deeply about some basics that have not cropped
up before. Much appreciated.
Kind regards all. And agape
daan
Roodepoort, South Africa
daanj@kingsley.co.za
--Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za>
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.