Dear Richard,
Thanks for your response and clarification of your reference to the
Fortune 500 list. It seems we (the list) are reaching some kind of deeper
understanding of the important topic of ranking, thanks too to Roxanne for
effectively summarising the discussion thus far in her recent posting.
I would like just to explore a little further the last thought of your
post which draws from Faulkner:
>What is most interesting to me is that while organisations may come and
>go, individuals, to paraphrase Faulkner's Nobel Prize speech, do not only
>endure, they prevail.
I can see the point but I am not sure that Faulkner's comment encompasses
the whole picture. The US is a country which highly prizes individual
achievement in all areas of human endeavour. I am not saying this is a
good or bad thing but to an external observer such as myself, and to a
number of US-based writers and commentators I have read, there would seem
to be some level of agreement that this is a trait of US culture. It
would thus be "natural," that is, appear as an essential truth to
Faulkner, that the "individual prevails" over the
organisation/culture/nation.
But history also has another side. For example, we remember the great
culture of ancient Greece as outstanding in itself and those 400-500 years
of western human history still fascinate people today. Sure, that
greatness had as a feature many leading thinkers, writers and so forth,
but underneath there were the artisans, farmers, slaves and women who
remain nameless today, and were probably largely anonymous even then. I
would argue that it is the overall outstanding achievement of a
civilisation (the emergent phenomenon that is greater than the sum of its
parts) that resonates today, the individuals contributions are of no less
value, but are of a different character to the whole.
Similarly pre-literate cultures also make an impact in the world without
us knowing any details of individuals. In the remote far north-west
Kimberly region of Australia there are some rock painting more than 20,000
years old that are absolutely remarkable. Almost certainly, they were not
painted by individuals but were painted by a number of artists in a tribe,
and were added to over the centuries. They were the product of a rich
culture the individual details of which we know nothing.
My point is, the decision to individually rank, ie 1 to 100 based on some
criteria of selection/assessment, is a product of the culture of an
organisation (and the culture of the country where th organisation is
situated) and will also co-evolve with that culture by making it apparent
explicitly or implicitly, how one "gets ahead around here". If you want
an individualistic culture which values outstanding individual
acheivement, by all means rank 1- 100. You will gain some things, and
lose others!
Finally, I just thought on the train this morning that ranking may not
extend well into the professions where the sole practition or small
partnership reigns. For example, chosing a dentist is a very personal
thing. Two dentists may have equal technical skills (rank) but for a
variety of reasons patients might find one or the other superior depending
on personality and other factors.
Any thoughts?
Kind regards,
Philip
Philip Pogson
Manager Organisation Development Unit
University of Sydney
Margaret Telfer Building, K07
NSW 2006 Australia
ph: +61 2 9351 4218
+61 2 9351 3177 (direct)
fax: +61 2 9351 4951
Training Program URL:- http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/stafdev/
"We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied
in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly,
affects all indirectly."
Martin Luther King Jnr
--Philip Pogson <P.Pogson@perspolicy.usyd.edu.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>