Laural Adams writes, re:just behavior of orgs:
>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?
I am unsure as to how to proceed with this sort of issue. Amitai Etzioni,
in his book _Spirit of Community_ addresses this issue by noting that
while we may disagree as to whether one ought apply a Judaic, a Christian,
a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Humanist worldview and ethic to any set of
human problems (due to a need to recognize the plurality with which we
live) he also notes that nearly everyone agrees that it is bad to lie, it
is bad to take things which belong to someone else, it is bad to take
actions which intend to cause harm to another. Now, if the terms lie,
hurt, harm, and property are also needing definition, then surely it will
be nearly impossible to find common ground.
I do truly think that with regard to learning orgs, it is possible and
necessary to insist that these basic values of the human condition be
applied to the legal entity of corporation as much as they should to
individual persons. A corporate entity is truly more than just a profit
factory churning out material assets; corporations have a feel, a spirit,
an ethos, a quality which makes each one unique. A corporation which
behaves in such a way as to cause harm to others; which behaves in such a
way so as to conceal its action or mislead others as to its actions; which
behaves in a way so as to seek to acquire assets for itself without regard
for the provenance of those assets and who might be hurt or helped by
those assets; this is a corporation which is as criminal as any individual
behaving in these ways would be.
> 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.
Yes, indeed, the move toward Total Quality needs to (IMHO) be a move
toward this more responsible citizenship. Corporations which seek to
exiost solely on the grounds of producing the maximum material profit for
shareholders ignore their responsibility to stakeholders (employees,
customers, community).
-- |-------------------------------------------| | Allen Gibson | | allen59@ramlink.net | | "Wherever you go, there you are!" | |-------------------------------------------| | "That's all I can say, really-- | | These things are true, and | | I've seen them for myself." | | Claudia Shear | |-------------------------------------------|