Replying to Rol Fessenden and LO10504: this may come across as random
thoughts rather than a coherent statement. I don't mind that.
It strikes me that security and stability are creations of the individual
rather than the corporate structure. We commonly classify someone as
paranoid who is extremely insecure about their personal life ("they're
always being mean to me, no one gives me a break"). This view is often a
creation of a personal view of the world. It follows, then, that someone
can be in a plum job and still be insecure about their future prospects.
If people can create a sense of security and stability for themselves
based on their own acceptance of themselves and their own ability/merit,
they can be creative as well.
The idea of an organization using instability and insecurity to foment
creativity and increase productivity seems to be blatantly manipulative.
The use of competition between co-workers for resources and
commissions/bonuses is common throughout companies. Yet, there is
evidence that such practices are destructive and damaging to the people
involved.
When legitimate business decisions make changes in the workforce
(downsizing) necessary, instability and insecurity are natural results.
Reestablishing stability and security should not mean guaranteeing
continued employment for the survivors. This is an unrealistic
expectation in our present business environment. An alternative could be
good outplacement which helps those who are leaving to see their potential
and help them to find other employment. This gives them hope for future
prospects and can lead to security and stability on a personal level in
the face of losing jobs.
--Clyde Howell orgpsych@csra.net
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>