Richard C. Holloway wrote:
>where T.J. Elliott wrote:
<snip in summary>
> > Yes, in an ideal world
> > employee ranking and forced distribution curves are abandoned. In > > that
> > more perfect universe, we have participative work redesign, fabulous
> > self-organizing teams, and other such improvements.
...snip...
> T.J.--thanks for sticking your neck out (takes real bravado on this
> list!). I've agreed with the previous posts because they fit my world
> view. I proffer this opinion, concerning your point of dealing within > the
> context of our imperfect world. It seems to me that there are always > at
> least two ways to move along any path, and the one way can easily lead
> into the darker aspects of humanity which take our propensity for
> measurement, manage (control), discrimination and so forth into what > ends
> up being very inhumane or destructive behavior--with often tragic
> outcomes. The other direction builds, or restores, the positive > aspects
> of humanity. We will still measure, manage, discriminate--but with > less
> potential for harm to ourselves. I realize that I've poorly > articulated
> my opinion, but if you can see that Sylvania's measuring system will > bring
> more harm to themselves and the human beings whom they intend to > measure,
> then perhaps you understand the point I'm trying to make.
I think that your point is an excellent one. What do we do in the
meantime while leaders or organizations get ready for more significant
changes? Do we engage where they are and try as you nicely say take
actions with "less potential for harm" to all concerned? Or do we get
sucked in by some pretty reductionist, devaluing stuff by not adhering
to principles?
In my consulting experience it's a tough call. There are times when I've
felt the suction (I don't want to make this sound like Darth Vader and
the dark side!!) as work is there even though it risks violating certain
principles. Ranking of employees certainly falls into this category at
times. In some cases I've had to say, "No thanks." In others I've tried
to use the opportunity to offer another viewpoint to the people
involved. It is a true ethical dilemma as the right answer is not
immediately clear.
The latter situation does not always work out and I then walk away with
frustration. I may say no to working with that company or situation
again. It certainly has had a profound influence on my work as I keep
trying to get to processes that allow for other answers, for engagement
of more people in interventions and solutions. But at the end of the day
I'm more likely than some of my colleagues to work in environments where
they are measuring people, where they do not employ a more LO view of
companies.
My partners joke, even wince at this (I was taught at one point by a
missionary order of nuns!!) and we regularly inquire with each other
about where the shifting boundaries lie. I'm unconfortable with herding
the people who use such techniques into the bad guys camp; I want to
learn why they make that choice. Is it politics, lack of knowledge, path
of least resistance, tradition, class warfare & capitalism, or something
else? Responses like yours, "Doc", help me to continue the inquiry.
Thanks very much.
-- T.J. Elliott Cavanaugh Leahy http://idt.net/~tjell 914 366-7499Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>