Roy,
When I read your post, my immediate thought was that I must have been
totally obtuse for not being able to present my perspective to you without
creating offense. I pulled up my response to you and must say that I
apologize for not being more sensitive to the cultural difference
(although in the US, I don't believe charity trustees are permitted to
benefit financially from their trustee work either). I don't totally
understand how I hurt you by the projection of my framework onto your
community work.
I did not want to in any way insinuate that your financial acumen (sorely
needed by all those in business or in charity/non-profit work) was
something that needed to be "rewarded" through financial remuneration. I
trust, however, that someone did notice that you had played a role in
keeping the organization viable? My point was exactly that your work in
enabling your organization to sustain itself and remain viable was a
measure of reward. Even if no one had publicly or privately praised you
or thanked you for your efforts, knowing that you had played a role could
have been personally rewarding. Intrinsic. Internal rewards can be an
internal scorecard for some folks. If it wasn't for you, so be it.
But that was a digression from our original discussion on how profit (or
"success") is a measurement of achievement of outcomes. If success is
measured as a monetary mode or whether it evidenced as sustainability, or
whether one receives worldwide recognition and power as a result of one's
benefaction (as in the case of George Soros), rewards and recognition are
essential human dynamics and critical for sustainance of desired
behaviors. I have been an admirer of Mr. Soros for some time and wish
that others with similar financial wealth were as giving. I have no
delusions, however, that he holds certain political perspectives which
are, no doubt, influenced proactively by his largesse.
I thought there was a bit of cynicism in your last paragraph, as if there
were an indictment of me for having what you describe as
"profit-orientated" (sic) framework. Please allow me to be clear. I do
have a profit orientation. I do support capitalism. It is not my sole
orientation or motivation, however. I believe that gaining a dollar for
the sake of the dollar (or pound, or ruble, or mark) with little thought
of a systems dynamic is a dangerous thing. And everything, including
Scouts, has an element of scorecarding. I think when the scorecard
becomes singularly focused (i.e. just on the financials) and the
stakeholders are willing to do things that negatively compromise the
system, then situation is problematic and can lead to dire consequences.
And, so that my point is understood: I believe that every organization
has a scorecard--some tool against which it bases its success or
rewards/recognition is accorded by society. In Scouts, when the main
focus becomes Badge accumulation or having dad build the Boxcar for the
Boxcar Derby, which scorecard is used? Certainly not the one intended by
the exercise. I'm pretty sure that this is the "self-interest" of which
Soros referred.
Sandy Wells
Austin, Texas
--"Sandy Wells" <sjwells@earthlink.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>