Rick writes:
>Fred, I have a reaction also to Ben's msg, but I think it's easy for
>precision to slip away from us.
Okay by me; let's get precise.
>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Fred Nickols wrote:
>> The chain of reasoning above is simply not true, Ben. The "life of a
>> business," as you put it, does not and never has depended on productive
>> work. The life of a business (and the life of a person) depends on the
>> ability to obtain inputs. That, in turn, might or might not depend on
>> "productive work."
In the message to which I'm now responding (LO17679), Rick Karash writes:
>Productivity is a relationship between inputs and outputs, a very broad
>measure. I don't think we can say that productivity is unimportant...
I did not say productivity is unimportant. I said the life of a business
does not and never has depended on productive work.
Your statement, Rick, about productivity being a relationship between
inputs and outputs is true enough, however, it refers to what is known as
the "transformation" aspect of a system, namely, the conversion of inputs
to outputs.
My statement refers to the "transaction" aspect of a system, namely, the
exchange of outputs for new inputs to continue the cycle of events we know
as open systems and that manifest themselves in various forms (e.g.,
organizations and people).
>Perhaps you're saying that business success depends on lots of factors,
>employee competencies being only one of many. I'd agree with that. But, in
>today's extremely competitive marketplace, there isn't much slack on any
>of the factory. I would say that employee competence is very important.
I am most definitely saying that business sucess depends on lots of
factors. I also agree that "employee competencies" is only one of many
such factors. I'd further agree that it is very important. However,
please keep in mind that I did not introduce that factor; I confined my
remarks to "productive work."
>And, I'd say it's important in non-profits and government institutions as
>well... I don't see many places where there are easy resources.
Again, I agree.
>I think that the crux of this issue involves:
>
>1) is competence inherent, or developable?
>2) is the motivation to improve inherent, or can good technique help bring
>it out in people who are not currently demonstrating it?
I think what you've set out as "the crux of the issue" above might well be
that from your perspective and I'm not about to take issue with it.
However, that is not the issue I was addressing. I spoke only to what I
saw as an implied contingent relationship between output and input that
simply does not exist in all cases.
>In other words, is it operationally effective to generalize, "a bum is a
>bum, period!" or not.
No comment.
>Ben's story about his daughter was heart-warming... Ben's action brought
>out something wonderful that was not present in her prior behavior. That's
>what I try to do everyday in my work. Some people change for the better,
>some not; the biggest step is up to them. But, I think my work helps, like
>Ben's intervention with his daughter.
>
>Now, on the ethical front, I feel it's my role to open possibilities and
>create a possibility of choice. But, it would be ethically (and
>practically) unsound to think that I can compell anything in any other
>human being... Or reliably produce any result in a given person. That's up
>to them, and I'll side with Ben in giving up at some point. I just think
>it's worth a try most of the time.
>
>Here's a personal story... A good friend of mine asked me as we walked
>towards the fifth tee, "Rick, you're an expert in changing people... How
>can I get my wife to change?" And, he had some very specific changes in
>mind! I told him, "Yes, I am an expert and I know that one person cannot
>change another in the ways you want. Just love her and see what happens."
I think we hold similar views in this regard. In fact, under the pen name
of Peter W. Taylor, I wrote and published an article titled "Changing
Behavior," which you might find interesting. You can find it at this URL:
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm
I hope you understand that I, too, am interested in precision, and that
I'm not trying to be picky or snotty. It has been my experience on many
lists, including this one, that meaning is often derailed. My aim in this
post is simply one of staying on track. So, I'll say it again:
Unless there is a contingent relationship between outputs
and inputs, "productive work" is not a factor in business
success. Economically speaking, ditto for people.
What I am not addressing is the psychological value to an individual of
feeling as though he or she is being productive. That is an altogether
different matter.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>