Great post, Ed, and particular thanks for pointing me (and hopefully
others) to the full text of WF's Nobel acceptance speech. I hadn't seen
it in its entirety for 35 years. IMHO, it both endures and continues to
prevail.
> And as you say, that you can't speak at a distance about a
> country, until you have lived there, I think that it is also true
> for the South.
I hope I didn't say, or imply this, in such an absolute sense. I think I
said, or meant to say, that one should be careful about stereotyping other
people, or peoples from a distance. Also, that, even if you have lived
somewhere that is not "native" to you for some time you still have a lot
to learn and still need to be careful. As a Yankee, I always have and
always will resonate more with Melville than Faulkner, and would never
feel comfortale making sweeping generalisations about "the South," even
though I did have the privilege of living there for two years in the
late-80's.
Nevertheless, I have learned and will hopefully continue to learn things
from Faulkner (and Twain, Joyce, Tolstoy etc. ad infinitum), even though
they are from other cultures. Re-reading again the entirety of the WF
Nobel speech, I am reminded of its universality. To me he isn't speaking
as a Southerner, or an American, or even as a a member of the literati.
He is speaking as a member of mankind, to mankind. Great thoughts and
great writing transcend individual origins.
And time. For myself, I would not at all be
> circumspect in applying the words of Faulkner in the
> context of postmodern organizational life.
As I read his words again, I see them as being written (at least in
Faulkner's mind) in the context of an equally baffling period of recent
human history--the first years of the nuclear age. He was writing at a
time when thinking people were not worrying about whether or not they or
their children would have meaningful lives to live in a deconstructed,
globalised, networked and/or overpopulated world, but rather whether or
not there was going to be a world for them at all. When Faulkner tells
us, in that speech, the "He (man) is immortal, not because he alone among
creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit
capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance," I, for one, don't put
the relevance of that thought on a time scale.
So, what, if anything, does this mean for "Employee Ranking Systems?"
You, through your prism of your experiences sees a meaning in Faulkner
(the body of his work, not just the speech, I presume) that:
> the virtues of community and citizenship are the ones which
> can insure the survivability of a culture, whether civic or
> organisational. It means that the challenge begins within, not
> without.
I, through my Yankee prism, and with limited exposure to the body of
Faulkner's work, see a meaning from his speech which says, in effect:
"Who cares, really, about the 'survivability of a culture.' All 'cultures'
will 'endure,' at least to some degree, regardless of 'the virtues of
community and citizenship' but rather due to the stubborn,
indominable--might I even say 'Snopes-like?'--nature of mankind. Mankind
will only 'prevail" if its various cultures can learn, both individually
and collectively, to continuously learn from the best (and the worst) of
its various and variable people."
This is why "triage" is so important, and you can't do triage without
"ranking." It's not at all easy and not always pleasant and it is rearely
if ever perfect, but, IMHO, if you think is possible to leave a better
world for our grandchildren, it is necessary.
Cheers
Richard Goodale
Managing Partner
The Dornoch Partnership
"Our acronym for the day is LISTEN:"
(L)earn
(I)ntegrate
(S)ynthesize
(T)each
(E)mpower
(N)urture
--Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>