First: Whoa! Everyone, let's slow down a bit here... Yes, this topic is
charged and hot, and yes, we are taking strong positions.
But, suppose we're a learning organization here... what can we learn from
each other's positions that advances all our understanding?
I've declined a couple of replies in this thread that I felt just
continued the argument, rather than *advancing* the dialogue. Please,
don't write just to say you agree or disagree with Ben or Steve; but do
write to open things up.
This msg is *not* directed to anyone in particular, but to the reinforcing
combustion process that's underway... In a learning organization, we have
the skills to get beyond the combustion part.
I'll add a few comments of my own below.
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Ben Compton wrote:
> A rock is a rock, and always will be a rock. A bum is a bum, but he/she
> can change who they are if they want to.
It's a small change, but suppose we say that the person is behaving like a
bum... To be more precise, behaving like a bum at this time.
I think part of the problem here is the inference that
* behaving like a bum now == implies ==> is a bum
Such an inference is not good logic. That inference would require us
to go further and say, "In my opinion, behaving like a bum is a
relatively unchangable characteristic of a person." If that's the
position you want to propose, please say so; we can talk about that.
> "A person who is non-productive and who is not competent but remains
> employed is a member of a "learning organization" which wants to help him
> learn rather than fire him."
>
> This presupposes the notion that business is a charitable endeavor. A
> business _may_ be charitable, in this way, but I don't think it _has_ to
> be. ...snip...
Yes, the quoted asertion might sound like charity, but in my opinion, most
of the org learning work being done is based on a business proposition
that it is more productive to support learning than to discard the less
productive and find new employees. I'm not saying it's always true, but
Ben, your statement seems to say that it's always false. That I can't buy.
> The bottom line is if you hire too many non-productive and incompetent
> people for too long you'll go under.
There are two points in this sentence...
1) that non-productive people are bad for business, and
2) that productivity (& competence) are an inherent characteristic of a
person (implied)
I can't argue with the first, but the second, in my opinion, is hardly
absolute. I'm consistently amazed at the power of learning, in myself and
in the world around me.
-- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | email: rkarash@karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Mailing List (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>