Replying to Ben Compton [Whose post surely fits elsewhere as well]
Ben, In a long and interesting post you said much that rings a bell. I
have tried to snip but its hard
========================
Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion -- much to my chagrin -- that
most of the people I have worked with in my career simply don't care about
being committed nor do they care about effectively working together to
create something meaningful. I'll even take it a step further: Most people
simply don't have a purpose (or vision), and therefore are totally unaware
of what it means (much less how) to become committed to a shared purpose.
This is frustrating SNIP.
One thing I've been toying with is the concept of a jobless society, where
no one is "employed," but rather all work is done on a contractual basis
SNIP.
This type of system will force people to get out of their comfort zones,
and realize that there ability to produce (personally and as part of a
team) are absolutely essential to their prolonged success. Perhaps the
incentives built into most corporations (or organizations) create their
own learning disabilities. Too many people find a safe place in an
organization, so they can hide out and do very little work (I call these
type of people lurking leaches
In fact, I think the federal government is pushing our society in this
direction (probably unknown to the government) because of all the
entangling legislation that governs how a corporation can function. Soon
it will simply be more cost-effective, as well as more liberating, to
build an organization of contractors than it will be to maintain, or
build, an organization of employees.
There are some interesting aspects to this structure: Would it create a
society where the survival of the fittest is the rule of the day?
SNIP
I don't know the answers, but I think there's a pretty good possibility we
will learn from experience.
=====================
1. I share where I perceive you to be coming from - disabling
organisational leeches
2. Yes the US and the UK are heading that way
3. Yes it has appeal - and could work among well educated, socially
responsible, individuals with some shared set of beneficial values [Self
Evident Truths thread for details]
4. But yes survival of the fittest would rule for most. The emergent
mafias reported from the former S U and a host of similar historical
examples offer examples
In a heavily populated world where wealth generation sufficient for most
can be achieved by a few, the answers I think [at least until we achieve
societies of stable population, high education and reasonable distribution
of opportunity and income] must lie in social value systems. The smoker is
now a pariah in most offices more through social and peer pressure than
through legislation [which ultimately rests on social authorisation]. I
see a more fundamental answer to your question in the leverage of social
and moral responsibility. In fact the move to a jobless society makes
leech like behaviour a very sensible option for an individual to pursue
[TURKEYS AND CHRISTMAS AGAIN]. Hence I offer that your fix is not yet
feasible and would [maybe is] making things worse.
My worry in writing this is that we get off into another long,
comfortable, discussion about how bad the system is without doing anything
about it. Is there a way through say this list for those with the courage
to stand up in their own organisations to coach each other. A critical
mass of individuals prepared to take responsibility for their actions
might work better.
Enough for now. I am rambling
If Price
The Harrow Partnership
Pewley Fort Guildford UK
101701.3454@compuserve.com
--Dr Ilfryn Price <101701.3454@compuserve.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>