Dear Organlearners,
Richard Hills (Staff Development) <staffdev@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> What is truth?
>
> Is there one, objective truth?
>
> For example, can an appropriately designed Performance Appraisal system
> accurately determine the value of an employee? Should the bottom 10% of
> employees as measured by that Performance Appraisal system be fired?
> Should a Learning Organisation ever indulge in mass dismissals?
>
> Are the statements "Incompetence = immoral" and "Competition = moral" THE
> truth?
Richard, you ask penetrating questions. Consider, for example your
question "Is there one, objective truth?" This question occupied
thousands of thinkers through the ages, some concluding "yes" and
others concluding "no". In all these cases the answers depended on
the status of the person's knowledge at that time when the answer was
formulated.
But we know that knowledge is not static - it is not a being. For
example, there was a time in the Middle Ages when the use of the
number "zero" was forbidden by the Church because it was considered
to be the number of the devil. (The church used the Roman numeral
system which do not contain the number zero.) If knowledge is not a
being, then what "is" it? Knowledge "is" a becoming-being! Although
knowledge is abstract, it is alive. It is developing just as any
material living species.
In the light of the last answer, I may refomulate your question
"Is there one, objective truth?" as "Is truth a being?". I used to
think of truth as a being since my childhood. But after having
discovered the seven essentialities of creativity, I experienced a
profound transformation of consciousness. Thus, my present answer to
the question "Is truth a being?" will be "No, truth is a
becoming-being". Truth lives and develops. To take a snapshot picture
of truth at a particular instant of time and claim that it represents
truth for all ages, is foolish.
Now let us get to your question "Are the statements "Incompetence =
immoral" and "Competition = moral" THE truth?". This question is
formulated very strongly by using morality as classifier. Some would
object to this strong classifier, but I think it is a valid question.
Many contributions on, for example, the thread "Employee Ranking
Systems" touched this morality issue.
Some people, after several rounds of argumentation, came to the
conclusion that "persistent incompetence" rather than "incompetence"
is not good for organisations in general and business in particular.
Thus we ought to change your one statement slightly to "Persistent
incompetence = immoral". Nevertheless, "persistent incompetence"
begins to sound more like a being without any becoming in a
particular competency. To formulate it quite bluntly, it sounds like
a being becoming "dead for a particular competency".
A dead person is persistently incompetent with respect to all
competencies. In this case the statement "Persistent incompetence
= immoral" is horribly false. Now why should the statement suddenly
become true when the person becomes "dead for a particular
competency"?
Nobody will employ a dead person in any organisation. May we infer
from this that nobody should employ a person who became "dead for a
particular competency"? Whatever the logical outcome, we seem to be
very sure of the answer because in practice
CASE 1
the large majority will fire a person who became "dead for a
particular competency" when that competancy plays a key role in the
person's job
CASE 2
nobody would hire a person "dead for a particular competency" when
that competancy will play a key role in the person's job.
Let us think about the first case. Are we sure why a person became
"dead for a particular competency"? Can I say with Cain that I am not
my brother's keeper - that it is the person's own responsibility to
break through this "persistent incompetence"? Are we categorically
sure that we were not responsible for the person's "persistent
incompetence"? What about, for example, the seven essentialities of
creativity? Do our knowledge of them play any role in our decisions
to fire an employee? Or do we in our ignorance impair these
essentialities left, right and centre, thus destroying the creativity
of the employees? Is our time linked claims not like the claim about
the number zero as being the devil's number?
Let us think about the second case, but in the context of Africa.
Both unemployment and illiteracy in many countries are above
90%. To rank empoyees makes no sense. The only sense is in
encouraging people to learn so as to create their own future.
Having enough competent people to choose from for a job and
having enough jobs for competent people available are dreams.
Poverty is rampant. Often the subsistance of twenty or more people
depend on the meagre income of an unskilled worker. Thus the hiring
or firing of an employee cause great ripples through society. Keeping
people motivated and morally orientated have become far more
important that the assessment of competencies.
Richard, you end with a most penetrating question:
> If an organisation makes a profit, and therefore continues to exist,
> does its survival automatically mean that it has fulfilled its
> purpose? Or should the morality of a Learning Organisation require
> more than that?
What does this "morality of a LO" amounts to? Let us think again
about a LO itself. A LO is an organisation in which people
at all levels, individually and collectively, are continually
increasing their capacity to produce results they really care about.
Morality is something which I personally care very much about. Hence
it is impossible for me to care about results which are immoral.
Consequently it is impossible for me to become part of a LO which
does not care about morality. Is it possible for an organisation to
be a LO and persist in acting immoral?
Best wishes
--
At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>