Replying to LO27966 --
Alfred Rheeder responded in LO27973 to my LO27966
Goeiedag Alfred
When I placed my first post on the normative directive, my objectives
were twofold, as I think I intimated - even if I jumped in rather
precipitously! Firstly, to bring the matter of purpose to the good
people of the LO list and hopefully to thereby trigger some debate
that would place the matter of 'purpose' in proper perspective and,
secondly thus also to help me better understand what it is with which
I am working.
I must thank you, and others who have responded, for helping me do
just that. Your questions compelled me to take a closer look at
matters that I have glossed over so far and I am very pleased with
that focus - as well as with the results that has so far come forth. A
new perspective on the need for purpose - in the form of a generalised
guideline for all seasons - is any, will need more time to resolve.
Alfred, you asked the following with reference to the claim that the
Golden Rule should be viewed as a constant:
> Daan, why does the "yardstick" need to be a constant?
> Can it possibly be a constant and variable at the same time?
> Assuming that the "yardstick" is complexifying every day what is the
> implications thereof ?
> The Golden Rule as stated could be a very dangerous tool should we
regard
> it as a constant. Did we not make this mistake here in South
Africa. We
> can become mental slaves trapped in a world of "constantness".....
> I think we should also be very sensitive that any specific
articulation of
> the "Golden rule" can only partly describe reality and will not be
> descriptive of the whole of reality with far reaching consequences
on
> policies, decisions norms and behaviour. For e.g.
> Do unto others
> Do unto all others
> Do unto all others unlike me/us etc......
In terms of the guideline given in the Bible, as well as a ground rule
in other faiths and also as derived from basic systems theory applied
to organisations, as I have found, the GR comes through as a
fundamental principle for all people under all circumstances. To me
the whole idea of a 'principle' is of something immutable and
unqualified. It is.
When principles are translated into rules for behaviour, we get
variability - we get norms and standards that apply to certain
circumstances and often to different epochs in the history and
development of a society. Norms and standards are dynamic; principles
should be forever.
50 and 60 years ago this principle expressed itself in terms of a norm
that if one were travelling on what then passed for highways, and one
saw a motor car stranded next to the road, one would stop and offer
assistance. And probably get a mug of coffee from the hot flask and a
sandwich from the travel lunch basket for one's efforts. Taking the
owner to the next town to get a spare part and returning to help him
(those days seldom a 'her') fit it, seemed normal behaviour.
Over the years that has changed - at least here in South Africa.
Self-preservation is a more powerful motive that "Do unto others .
.'. But this change does not invalidate the principle that the GR
remains one of the more important guidelines in one's life.
So I believe the GR as principle stands inviolate and constant - the
norms that describe the way in which most people express this
principle are dynamic and varies over time.
Alfred, you expressed the fear that what we here in SA experienced
under Apartheid had its origins in a belief that certain principles
are constants. Yet I think the problem arose when some people thought
that other people were worth less consideration than themselves and
others like them. When we discriminated against people on the basis of
some shared characteristic, we not only deviated from Kant's stricture
not to treat people as mere means to and end, but we added insult to
injury by claiming we were doing it for their own sake - to protect
them against the ravages of civilisation.
It was precisely because we flagrantly disregarded the constants of
life that the problem arose at all.
Your admonition that one should be sensitive to the specific
articulations of the GR I think relates to the way we derive norms
from that rule. It is completely hypocritical to say one is doing what
is best for others if one would not willingly exchange places with
them, as we know so well. It is the hypocrisy of the expression of the
Rule that is reprehensible, not the fundamental Rule itself.
The same applies to the normative directive. It is a constant for any
organisation, but the way it is expressed will vary according to
circumstances. A local fruit store will consider different factors as
being of importance in how it treats suppliers, employees and
customers than, say, a traffic court. Yet both organisations can apply
the same fundamental rule of "Doing unto others . . " that would
elevate its standing in its particular environment and improve the
quality of life for all the people who come to interact with it - to
the best of its ability, given all manner of constraints.
It is this "to the best of its ability", which goes without saying,
that introduces the creative tension for the manager and within the
organisation that results in a sustained effort to improve, also when
it means adapting to changing circumstances.
Alfred, you ended with a difficult question:
> Should we not continuously question the primary directive set by
> the ground rule or should we not question the unquestionable?
For Christians the primary directive has really been summed up by
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and your
neighbour as yourself." Which principle is expanded in the ten
commandments which one could interpret as "norms" for everyday
behaviour that are derived from this fundamental principle.
I do not know in what form this sentiment is expressed in other
religions, but I am aware of the fact that the second part - the GR! -
is shared by most religions. The normative directive deals with the
second part, the GR, in the context of the business world and that of
other formal organisations.
In that sense one can say the the GR is part of Thé Primary Directive,
at least for Christians, but that does not mean that there are no
other guidelines as well - some which even supersede the GR on
occasions, as above where the urge or instinct to self preservation
causes us to disregard someone who might be in trouble along a lonely
road, but who also might be bait to entrap a conscientious yet unwary
traveller.
And this example may well serve as an analogy for the journey through
life as well.
In his reply to my 'Water' analogy (LO27945), At de Lange also wrote:
> As I see it, NM gives form to the purpose of management.
> So what form will the norms of NM express?
and I asked for more time to think on a reply. Alfred, your question
seems to have triggered a response that also applies to this question
of At's. The GR, as stated in the normative directive, gives direction
to the efforts of the manager and the organisation - what At referred
to as the 'form', if I understood At correctly.
The norms that NM expresses are the variables, the dynamics, that
change with changing circumstances - as with the above example of
giving assistance to someone who might be stranded along the road.
I hope this answers your queries and again thank you for responding.
Best wishes and kind regards
daan joubert
Roodepoort
South Africa
--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.