Hi,
Dave Buffenbarger wrote:
>My meaning of "you having integrity" is that you are above board
> with your intent.
What I learned is that some people tended to do the opposite of what
someone says to them. Some people will find a way to disagree with
what people say. So another person could state something that was
the "opposite" of what they really want the other person to think
and the other person would disagree and think the opposite of what
the other person said. I'm not sure if a person could judge another's
integrity by determing if they stated their intentions beforehand.
My definition of integrity is that the other person takes the time
to find out what someone's goals are and makes sure that they tailor
what they do to support the other person's goals. Tied in with this
is that I know when *I'm* being manipulated when I do something that
someone influences me to do that doesn't support *my* goals or that
I haven't set a goal for.
I used to have another definition of integrity. Integrity used to mean
that I chose a certain identity and all my values, behaviours, etc.
were in line with that identity.
What I'm learning to do right now is the art of "the career change.
" I want to be able to go into an organization, find out what their
business is, find out what people on each of the organizational levels
believe themselves to be and what their most probable work related
values and behaviours are. Then I delete all my conflicting values
and stuff and essentially start out with "a blank slate." (tabula
rasa [sp]) and I start out on a low rung of the organization, take on
the beliefs of the people on that rung, get high results, then move
around the organization. I want to at the very least know how to do
this for different organizations. It would be fun, but I'm not sure
if I'd have enough time.
I'm not a "consultant" or "organizational learning coach." I just
want to know how to get high results and have integrity while doing
different stuff. The interesting thing is, if I am successful in
aligning my beliefs to those of people in a particular part of an
organization, then those people, or my superiors, would probably
think I'd have "integrity." However, in moving to another part of
the organization, I'd have to choose a whole set of new beliefs and
behaviours. The only thing staying constant would be the belief in
what the organization's business was. It gets complicated when I
change organizations to different parts of the economy. Part of the
complication is that if I don't know how to delete beliefs that I
took on from previous jobs, they could conflict with the new beliefs
I'd need to function in a new organization. Some people call this
"excess baggage."
In the "golden years," the 50's to 80's, according to the myth,
people stayed in one organization for their entire career. Those
career X's had "integrity." This does not state if they got high
results (according to whom?). In the 90's, according to the myth,
people jump from organization to organization. Heck, they even have
"virtual organizations" now. Do those people have "integrity?" I
think a new word should be mainstream popularized to highlight
the accomplishments of these people, based on "results obtained."
Maybe it's a word related to "learning."
I find it interesting to note the effects ofn people when an
organization changes "the business that they are in." Taco Bell
clarified their "mission" by stating that their business is
food delivery rather than food preparation. NeXT computer deleted
their hardware division and sold it to Canon and focused on their
object oriented software. Richard Karash was a executive in several
companies, now he's facilitate's organizational learning. How do
they do it so well?
-- Andrew Moreno Andrew Moreno <amoreno@cyberspace.org>