On Thu, 29 Jun 1995 allen59@ramlink.net wrote:
> ...that unjust systems work to remain unjust, and that their injustices are
> reporduced for generations and generations.
>
> I think there might be theological answers for the root causes of this
> human proclivity toward unjust social relations-- certainly it is not a
> new occurrence.
This is an area of concern and great interest to me. That is, first, who
decides what organizational objectives are just or unjust and who
*should* decide? Whose value system are we subscribing to? And does this
list really just serve a lot of people who tend to have homogenous value
systems and, therefore, supports what we want to hear as far as the
desirability of orgs becoming learning orgs? Do we all really know what's
"best" for business organizations?
Secondly, this "human proclivity toward unjust social relations" is
something Reinhold Niebuhr discusses in vol 2 of _The Nature and Destiny
of Man_. I think, in fact, that he implies that all orgs (social systems)
are destined to *become* unjust because of the nature of man. Power is
not intrinsicly "bad" but humans are prone to corruption. If this truly
*is* an inevitablity, what does it imply about the goals we have for
organizations? I've followed several threads about profit as the utlimate
goal for orgs and read advice that org learning needs to be effective at
influencing this. Otherwise, many have argued, why consider it if it does
not further the org's objectives? Yet, business orgs operate within the
larger social context, so I believe their goals and objectives are not
exempt from being evaluated on the same bases we evaluate the
behaviors/objectvs of other social institutions such as educational
and religeous organizations. Can we, then, speak in terms of an org's
ability to provide for its participants or to society in ways beyond
economic exhcnages and flows? For instance, can we expect an org
to provide it's participants with opportunities to develop/learn/grow?
Other criteria may perhaps include social rewards provided, like identity
and belonging, or employees finding "meaning"in the work they do.
Ultimately, however, this returns us to point 1: who decides these are
the values orgs ought to subscribe to and support? The only way I can
work through this objection at this time is to think that these are not
"value" judgements, but needs assessments. And then ask whether orgs
have the responsibility to satisfy human "needs," thereby
by-passing the questions on values. But which needs and to what extent?
> .....An organization which looks
> carefully at its history can discover whether or not their recent history
> has been determined by moral or immoral uses of power and politics, and
> can then make the informed decision to change.
>
Again, who does the looking and who does the deciding?
Laural
Laural Adams
Business Reference Librarian
New Mexico State University Library
Box 30006 Dept 3475
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8006
-- ladams@lib.nmsu.edu 505-646-7482