> >I've just received a request from an organization that considers itself an
> >LO requesting a defense or rejection of the following statement:
> >
> >"It is traditional wisdom in the business world that a coporation (sic) is
only
> >as good as the people it employs."
> >
> >How would you react to this statement--in writing, that is?
Let me first answer your question directly. I would mark the statement
for what it is, an assertion, and then outline a case supporting and a
case rejecting that assertion. I would then present a closing argument in
favor of one of the cases. So much for how I would react.
Personally, I don't think the view that an organization is only as good as
its people is sufficiently widespread or strongly enough held to qualify
as "traditional wisdom." The rhetoric is certainly there, but not the
actions to back it up.
It helps to remember that people form organizations, not the other way
'round. There is no chicken and egg question here. And it is people, not
organizations, who actually do things. It is people who remember the way
things were, who keep an eye on the horizon, who evaluate events and
actions, and who, for one reason or another, choose to oppose the moves
made by other people (and so are labeled as "resisting change").
It follows that an organization can only be as good (in the sense that
good refers to proficient, skilled, accomplished) as its people. They
are, after all, the agents of action, not the organization.
Corporations, and other forms of organization, are regularly spoken of as
though they were human. "IBM announced..." "AT&T fired..." "The Federal
Government delayed..." And, as Mary wrote in her inquiry, she had
"received a request from an organization that considers itself an LO..."
The fact of the matter is that the organization doesn't consider itself
anything -- it is incapable of thinking, reasoning, or contemplating. It
is most especially incapable of learning. Those are human activities.
To attribute human characteristics to non-human entities is called
"anthorpomorphizing," and it is done regularly. In some cases, it is
nothing more than a convenient shorthand. In others it is terribly
misleading. And, in some cases, it is propaganda at work, pure and
simple. It pays to know which is the case. "The company has decided..."
regularly appears as the opening line in many an announcement. Nonsense!
The company never has and never will decide anything. And, by the same
anthropomorphic token, the person or persons who did decide, will never be
called to account for bad calls, because they didn't make them, the
company did.
So much for my response to the first part of Mary's inquiry. Now, on the
second part (reproduced below so you won't have to scroll back up).
>This organization wants to know what I think because they are considering
>hiring me as an internal developer/ instructor/ consultant.
As I've just pointed out, the organization doesn't want to know anything
and it isn't considering doing anything. More to the point, if someone at
this company wants to know what you think as part of making the decision
to hire you, why are you asking us what we think? Why not say what you
think? And, by the way, what do you think? How about sharing your views
with the rest of us?
Fred Nickols
nickols@aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>