In a message dated 8/19/98 9:51:18 PM, Dick Webster wrote:
>Your concern for the "concerns of the whole organization" is correct and
>well-taken -- I couldn't agree more.
>
>Here, it seems to me, is how to reconcile the individual and the
>organization: regard individuals as "members of the company," with mutual
>- joint - shared interests as highly congruent with the company as a
>whole, "the "organization."
>
>When the welfare of the company of players and each individual player
>(member) are considered as congruent and co-equal then the integration of
>individual interest and organizational interest becomes much clearer.
>Often easier too, except in those tough cases where actions seen as
>necessary for the company's welfare may be seen as detrimental to one or
>more individuals.
>
>Does this help deal with your real and important concern?
Dick,
Thanks for your thinking here. If we think of the various options, the
organization can be aligned with individual interests or visa versa, or
they can be non-interactive or neutral, or they can be antagonistic. My
point was that if an effort is going to be sustainable, it must address
the concerns of all (or at least most), enough synergistic overlap to
provide the momentum for it to continue. If there is energy being sapped
from the system, either from conflict between the individuals and the
organization, or between individuals and each other or there is simply
insufficient benefit, the initiative will die for lack of interest.
I like how you put it - congruent and co-equal interests.
Margaret McIntyre
MargMcI@aol.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>