(I'm sort of cheating here... Because I read the msgs as I distribute
them, I get first crack at replying... I don't do this very often.)
Ben, in our past exchanges, and in our face to face meeting in Boston, I
had a strong sense of alignment with you, and felt my personal experience
had significant parallels with your own. I was troubled by some of your
recent writings which seemed to be taking positions very different from my
own. I'm jumping in here in the hope of finding some of that alignment in
this challenging thread.
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Ben Compton wrote:
>Rick Karash wrote:
> >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.
>
> 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.
I thought so, but wasn't sure. Some of us may have thought you were
saying, "once a bum, always a bum, so fire them." A couple of times I
thought you were saying that.
Now, I think you are saying, "If they're behaving like an incompetent bum
and show no signs of changing, fire them. Change can only come from their
own volition, not from training programs that coddle."
This is actually quite close the the learning organization line which I
would represent as, "There is a tremendous untapped reservoir of human
potential in everyone. It can only be touched when individuals make their
own choices." So far, pretty good alignment, I think.
Now, the LO movement would go further to say, "People, interdependent with
other people and their environment, can get stuck in low performance. It
may take some skilled intervention to free things up, get things
started... But, never can the facilitator take the responsibility off the
shoulders of the individual. That just doesn't work. It's ultimately up to
the individual."
I like John Whitmore's articulation of the essence of coaching: Asking
questions that increase the other person's awareness *and* responsibility.
> 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.
On this, we agree completely. Fritz, Senge, and others talk about seeing
"current reality," and they add the modifier "current" to emphasize that
it might be changeable. Index encourages series work to bring out the
"Truth about Today."
> There are a number of factors I think the blind us from seeing ourselves
> as we are: ...snip...
Absolutely. It can be very difficult to really see the present moment.
And, even harder to make sense of it. This is a significant part of my
work, helping clients see honestly and understand.
> >> "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.
I would agree.
We could state some additional truths... For example, for most of us, it's
pretty difficult to fire people (that was the part I always hated!). It's
easier to shuffle them off to some other department. As a result, when the
decision is keep or fire based on performance evaluation, businesses would
probably be healthier if more people were fired. (I think that downsizing,
staff cuts to reach imposed numbers... that's a different story.)
> 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.
I think we should distinguish competence to do the job vs. competence to
learn (i.e. the competence to improve). Ability to learn and grow was what
distinguished us in my first company. Especially over long intervals in a
fast-changing world.
> >> 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.
This is that thinking that leads me to feel compassion for those who are
stuck... Remember, I believe that, besides personal choice, part of the
stuckness is the result of stable inhibiting structures between people and
of people with their environment.
> 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.
These thoughts are helpful to me... I'll expand on what I wrote a few
weeks ago. This whole ranking/assessment/evaluation question is so hot
because
1. We know that evals are flawed, their communication is flawed, and
these can do damage; and yet...
2. We feel it imperative to manage performance, and
3. It is very hard for people to see current reality accurately and
honestly, especially viz. their own performance; we hope that evals can
help in this.
Thanks for hanging in on this, Ben.
-- 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>