Hi:
My name is Greg Haworth. I have been subscribed to this list for about
nine months. This is the first time I have felt compelled to speak out.
John Truty in LO23264 "For what end" brings up a topic that has been
rumbling in my mind for a while too.
John's post acted as a catalyst; I read his message as:
1 -- ...snip... [on this list]... the dominate thesis ... places the
"good" of the organization as the supreme end ...snip...
2 -- ...snip... the organization ...[is]... a vehicle for the privileged
to maintain their privilege ...snip... (to which John enumerates some
social inequities and injustices)
3 -- ...snip... what is our complicity in furthering the organizational
agenda? ...snip...
Within the context of my response I would like to limit the term
organization to encompass commercial organizations or organizations that
serve commerce (like educational organizations)
I assume most folk's interest in this list stems from some appreciation
for the power of generative discourse and organizational learning
"technologies" (typical reference is to the 5 disciplines of Senge). As
far as I have been able to ascertain, most pragmatic discussions on this
list have as a common denominator a desire to apply these "technologies"
in service of the organization.
I too have a concern as to what ends these "tools" are being administered.
There is an ever-increasing consensus amongst the scientific community
that the biophysical systems of the planet are undergoing massive change
due to the scope of human activity. If the activities associated with
these changes are not curbed and reversed, horrific and widespread human
suffering on a global scale appears inevitable.
I feel compelled to provide references to substantiate those claims. This
exercise would prove titanic in scope and Herculean in effort. Let me
offer a link as an alternative: http://www.dieoff.org/.
As Paul Hawkin notes in The Ecology of Commerce:
"A hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, it did not seem urgent that we
understand the relationship between business and a healthy environment,
because natural resources seemed unlimited. But on the verge of a new
millennium we know that we have decimated ninety-seven percent of the
ancient forests in North America; every day our farmers and ranchers draw
out 20 billion more gallons of water from the ground than are replaced by
rainfall; the Ogalala aquifer, an underground river beneath the Great
Plains larger than any body of fresh water on earth, will dry up within
thirty to forty years at present rates of extraction; globally we lose 25
billion tons of fertile topsoil every year, the equivalent of all the
wheat fields in Australia. These critical losses are occurring while the
world population is increasing at the rate of 90 million people per year.
Quite simply, our business practices are destroying life on earth."
"Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve, wilderness,
or indigenous culture will survive the global market economy. We know
that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating. The land,
water, air, and sea have been functionally transformed from
life-supporting systems into repositories for waste. There is no polite
way to say that business is destroying the world."
The usual defense to this type of claim is that the "invisible hand" of
the market will react in time, or that technology will save us. As
students and practitioners of the precepts of systems theory you can
appreciate the impact of delay on feedback signals. I think it is
appropriate to question whether the market response to environmental
signals is fast enough to take corrective action in time to avoid resource
scarcity, system overshoot, and die-off. I think it prudent to assume
that it is not and that we should adopt a precautionary attitude for
guiding human activities.
In short, I contend that the application of LO technologies to improve our
organizations, to the degree that they are successful, is accelerating the
rate of social, cultural, and environmental decay. To answer one of
John's questions; yes we are complicit!
>From "Richard Charles Holloway" LO23301:
...snip... it may be that we accelerate the demise of our own species <snip>
>From Roy Benford LO23276
...snip... ...we should be asking questions about who benefits from
change... changes ... are just concentrating the control, power, monetary
and status benefits in the hands of a small minority. ... are we just the
hired mercenaries of the powerful barons or are we the missionaries of a
new world order? ...snip...
The members of this list are uniquely prepared to understand that basic
assumptions of organizations inform corporate behavior. Let me quote from
Jerry Mander two such underlying assumptions (excerpted from: In the
Absence of the Sacred)
"THE PROFIT IMPERATIVE: Profit is the ultimate measure of all corporate
decisions. I takes precedence over community well-being, worker health,
peace, environmental preservation or national security.
"THE GROWTH IMPERATIVE: Corporations live or die by whether they can
sustain growth. ... The growth imperative also fuels the corporate desire
to find and develop scarce resources in obscure parts of the world. This
effect is now clearly visible, as the world's few remaining pristine
places are sacrificed to corporate production. The peoples who inhabit
these resource-rich regions are similarly pressured to give up their
traditional ways and climb on the wheel of production-consumption."
In brief; profit is good, the more the better; growth is good, the more
the better. These are the goals that organizations pursue, these are the
imperatives we serve, with all of their consequences, intended and
unintended. These are the ends and not the means.
We do not serve the common good. To Quote Donella Meadows: "Breath and
life and health are infinitely more legitimate goals than corporate
expansion. Human freedom and dignity cant be valued on the same scale as
stock portfolios. Making deals, shipping stuff, globalizing the economy is
a sometimes useful, often destructive preoccupation of a small,
self-important minority of the human race. The environment is our life
support system. There is no comparison"
It appears our organizations thrive at the expense of the common good. It
is beyond me how to change this situation, I bear witness where and when I
can. I would like to see the causal loop diagram for this problem. Maybe
someone more capable than I can point out the leverage points for turning
the situation around.
That this problem is not a central discussion and ongoing learning
experience on this list is curious to me. It seems to me that a noble
position to take in our organizations (although risky, under the current
paradigm) is to be "missionaries of a new world order". On which serves
the common good and not corporate expansion.
Regards
Greg Haworth
--Greg Haworth <ghaworth@IPINC.NET>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>