Rick,
You're dead right. . .my definition of morality also makes a great
definition for freedom. I think the two of them are closely related, but
not synonymous. I'll give an example of what I mean a little later in this
message.
Can morality exist without freedom? My belief is that coercion is
inherently immoral. . .and therefore an environment that exists throught
the use of coercion is immoral.
Central to my concept of morality is individual volition, or the capacity
of a person to choose between one or more options. This volition implies a
person is responsible for deciding what is right or wrong for them, and
then accountable for the consequences of their actions.
This could be defined as the process by which we identify and the act to
realize our own values. A value is something we seek to acquire or
achieve. Each individual is responsible for identifying and achieving
their own values.
And this is why I think coercion is immoral; if I'm forced to work to the
attainment of a value that is contrary to my own, then I'm being dishonest
with myself, those who interact with me, and am placed under enormous
psychological stress against my will . (This is precisely the problem I
have with Roxanne's statement that we are all inter-connected, that we
should all cooperate; I would never cooperate with someone who didn't
value the same things I did; it would be the greatest abdication of my
moral duty possible!)
Now here's the point. . .if, in our organizations, we are forced to work
toward the attainment of values we do not share, and we are given no
method of challenging the soundness and rightness of those values, we are
working in an immoral organization.
As I understand the concept of a LO, there is a tremendous amount of work
to create a "shared vision," and hopefully, as a by-product, shared
values. I applaud this as a moral activity, that, when done properly, can
reduce a tremendous amount of psychological tension within the
organization. But that can only happen if people are _free_ to question
the organizaiton's values, and the methods employed to actuate those
values.
At the same time, I think it's important to stress the fact that an
organization exists as a group of people voluntarily working together. If
we reach the point where it is clear we will never share the same vision,
and accept the same values, I think we - - that is individuals - - need to
be honest with ourselves and our employers and find work elsewhere. That
would be the right, the ethical thing to do. Staying on, in such a
circumstance, would be immoral, according to my definition, because we
would be interfering with other people trying to achieve what they wanted.
. .in other words, we wouldn't be very cooperative.
That leads us right into a nasty psychological problem, which is our
ability to make distinctions between needs and wants. Human beings _need_
very few things; food, clothing, shelter. We want lots of things;
high-paying job, friends, family, nice house, nice car, fun job. . .etc.
When we confuse the two, we place ourselves in a really difficult
situation. Let me give an example. . .
[Paragraph deleted by your host... Ben starts to describe a client who was
having political problems in their organization... Rick]
He and I went to dinner recently, and this is how the conversation went:
Client: I'm so fucking frustrated! I can't get a goddamned thing going
right. First, management signs off of this proposal. So I start working on
it, and then, suddenly, they change their minds, and they shove another
proposal at me and say 'go do it.' Second, if I raise any concerns I get
threatened. . .you know, things like. . .'What are you doing? Causing
problems? We don't have time for this. We need you to do what you're told.
Don't make life hard on yourself.' I mean, Jesus Christ, do these people
have a clue?
Me: Pretty stressed, eh?
Client: Damn right.
Me: So why do you do it? Why do you cooperate?
Client: They'd cut my fucking balls off if I didn't.
Me: Only if you let them. . .if you hate it so bad, walk away. Quit.
Client: Yeah, right! I need the fucking job. . .
Me: Do you need it or do you want it?
Client: I need it. I need the goddamned money.
Me: Do you need the money from _that_ job, or from _a_ job?
Client: I don't have time to find another job. I'm so fucking busy, I just
don't have the time. . .
Me: You didn't answer my question. Do you need the money from _that_ job
or from _a_ job?
Client: A job, but I don't have the time for find another job. . .plus,
it's a pain in the ass. . .you know, all those interviews. . .having to
blow sunshine up someone's ass. . .God I hate that.
Me: Isn't that what you're doing now?
Client: Yeah. . .but. . .
Me: But you're used to it?
Client: Yeah. . .you know. . .
Me: It's known territory?
Client: Yeah.
Me: So you'd rather put up with the shit you have, then spend the time and
energy to find another job?
Client: I guess. Besides, the next job will just be the same. . .that's
the life of a worker, you know? I'm just a big shit hole.
Me: Mmm. . .I know the feeling. Really sucks, doesn't it?
Client: Damn right, it sucks.
Me: So it sounds like to me you have a conflict of values: You hate your
job, but you hate looking for a new job worse. So you'll take the shit,
sit and bitch about it to others as often as you can. . .then what? You
gonna retire and be bitter about the world?
Client: I don't know. I don't care. It's just a fucking job. It's not that
important.
Here's the problem: They guy couldn't make the distinction between a
_need_ and a _want_. He was acting like he needed the job he had, when
what he really needed was a source of income. On the other hand, he wanted
to work in a coherent, rational environment. I also find it interesting
that his values are drive by negative emotion. . ."I hate this, but I hate
that worse, so I'll take this." He was never clear about what he really
wanted!
The reason why I find this conversation so fascinating is that it was
almost identical to one I had with my best friend last year. Only I was
playing the role of the client, and he was playing my role. I could see
his point then, but I worked damned hard to deny the obvious, to suppress
my feelings. I paid a heavy price for my denial. . .and so is my client
(he's actually become a good friend).
He's not contributing what he should to the work he's doing because he's
so frustrated; his work is frustrated with him because he's not as
cooperative as they'd like. But things aren't so bad that he should be
fired or that he's willing to quit.
And thus spins the life of a large organization. . .morall? I don't know.
I doubt it, but I can't explain exactly why. And who's being immoral? The
organization for not being clear about what they want? Or the employee for
the same offense? Or are they both being immoral? Or is this not a moral
issue at all? The problem is clear to me, but how to lable it isn't. . .I
think it's a real nasty situation, that's rather common (from my
experience, that is).
-- Benjamin Compton DWS -- A Novell Platinum Partner "The GroupWise Integration Specialists" E-mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com Web: http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>