Okey dokey, let's think about this thread. . .
We're talking about morality but in a really vague way. Know one is quite
sure what everyone else means when the use the word "morality."
Hopeless as it has been in the past, I think it would serve us well to
define the word. What is moral? Why is it moral?
The one common attribute of morality that I hear enough to consider it to
be "common" is that the actions of one person benefit (directly or
indirectly) another. I'll go along with that definition, but I'll change
it this way:
Morality is that state where we are free to achieve what we want most,
without impeding other's ability to do the same.
This definition implies. . .
I don't have to help others achieve what they want to live a moral life. .
. Any type of coercion is immoral. . . That I am not guaranteed to
achieve what I want, just that I'm free to try. . .
This shifts the responsibility for achieving a moral life from the
community (i.e the "organization") to the individual. It is my belief that
an organization is immoral if. . .
Mgmt uses authoritarian methods to get the results they want. . .
Employees progress in the organization by using predatory methods. . .
Mgmt. rewards predatory methods (a corrolary to the the second item) . . .
The organization is moral when it. . .
Recognizes ability and productivity and rewards them. . .
Uses reason and persuasion to achieve the results it needs. . .
Punishes predatory methods of progress. . .
I welcome any thoughts on this issue (i.e. the definition of morality, and
it's application in an organization).
--Benjamin Compton DWS -- A Novell Platinum Partner "The GroupWise Integration Specialists" E-mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com Web: http://www.emailsolutions.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>