Rick,
Honestly I appreciate the fact that you've tried hard to understand my
position. In many ways I feel like I've been banging my head against the
wall. I started participating in this thread expressing a few basic
opinions. As the debate heated, I began to think more deeply about what I
believe. I kept going over, in my mind, my history, and the evidence I
felt I had to support my position. But the more I thought, the further
away I felt from everyone else and the more misunderstood I felt. I'm not
opposed to standing on my own, in the face of opposition, but it's not my
favorite position.
> First: Whoa! Everyone, let's slow down a bit here... Yes, this topic is
> charged and hot, and yes, we are taking strong positions.
OK
> But, suppose we're a learning organization here... what can we learn from
> each other's positions that advances all our understanding?
I've tried very hard to look for lessons hidden in this thread that are
escaping me. . .Most likely due to the intensity of my emotion, and the
depth of my conviction. . .I'm still trying to determine if there's
something here I'm just not grasping. . .
>> 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.
I'm not a proponent of determinism. I believe that human beings are a
product of their own choices; that volition is an integral and essential
part of being human. Therefore a bum does not always have to be a bum.
He/she can become something entirely different.
At the same time I think there is no benefit in denying what a person is
at the _moment_. It is especially important for us as individuals to
recognize who we are, and what we are doing at the moment. An alcholic has
no chance of recoverying if they fail to admit to themselves that they're
addicted to alcohol.
There are a number of factors I think the blind us from seeing ourselves
as we are:
1- The language we use to interpret the world
2- The fear of challenging long-held beliefs about ourselves and our world
3- The fear of destabilizing our life by making the changes that will
improve our condition
I have personally experienced all three of these impediments. The struggle
to deal with them, and move past them is intense and can take a long time.
>> "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.
I don't think it's always _true_. I think there is some middle ground in
there were the correction option isn't always obvious. There are clear
examples of extreme incompetence, which is the type I'm talking about,
where the only option is termination. I can appreciate an unwillingness to
terminate someone in the grey area.
At the same time I think the theory of a learning organization might be to
hire as many competent people as possible, and then let them start
learning together. I think competent people are more willing and able to
learn, individually and collectively.
>> 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.
I do not believe human beings have very many "inherent characteristics."
Our behavior is, more or less, learned behavior. Incompetence is not a
birth defect; it is a learned behavior. Hence I think it can be changed.
It will probably be a painful behavior to change, but well worth the
effort.
The real tragedy of incompetence is not it's moral failings, but rather
the suffering it brings to the person who has chosen that lifestyle. And I
think this is one of Mike Lee's points, which may have been lost in the
passion of his message. An incompetent person tends to be incompetent at
everything. Hence their ability to develop self-esteem, and learn the joy
that comes from achieving goals, and realizing values is very small. And
that to me sounds like a purposeless existence.
Which leads me to the position that employee ranking is good (and I'd say
even necessary for the long-term success of a busienss). By ranking
employees (even if the ranking is slightly skewed by subjective criteria
and interpretations of data) people in an organization know where they are
at, their relative value to the organization. . .what they do about it is
another issue. The primary responsibility to change their position rests
with the individual. Management can provide feedback, but ultimate
responsibility sits on the individual.
To increase their value they may need to work harder, think differently,
cooperate better, or it may be a combination of a number of things. To
make the necessary adjustments requires introspection, which can be a
painful and frightening experience. . .especially for those not used to
doing it.
That's my basic position, stated truthfully, and without quite as much
passion and intensity. . .
Thanks again, Rick, for the tone of your message. It really helped me calm
down and just get the facts out.
-- Benjamin Compton DWS -- "The GroupWise Integration Experts" (617) 267-0044 ext. 16 E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>