Dear Philip
Thanks for your latest post. A few comments follow, some fairly trivial,
some less so, and some venturing into deeper water.
Re: my paraphrasing of Faulkner, and your response:
>>What is most interesting to me is that while organisations may come and
>>go, individuals, to paraphrase Faulkner's Nobel Prize speech, do not only
>>endure, they prevail.
>I can see the point but I am not sure that Faulkner's comment encompasses
>the whole picture. The US is a country which highly prizes individual
>achievement in all areas of human endeavour. I am not saying this is a
>good or bad thing but to an external observer such as myself, and to a
>number of US-based writers and commentators I have read, there would seem
>to be some level of agreement that this is a trait of US culture. It
>would thus be "natural," that is, appear as an essential truth to
>Faulkner, that the "individual prevails" over the
>organisation/culture/nation.
One paraphrases great writers and thinkers like Faulkner only at one's
peril. I was trying to draw on Faulkner's "endure/prevail" dichotomy to
support my belief that human progress--individual, organisational, social,
political or whatever--tends to depend on those individuals who
consciously or subconsciously "raise the bar" of human achievement. Thus,
to the degree that "Employee Ranking Systems" are useful means of
identifying and nurturing such individuals, they have value to mankind and
to mankinds various organisations and societies. Period. (or "Full
Stop," as one says over here in the UK).
To do Faulkner justice, let's look at what he actually said in his speech:
"I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail."
Obviously, Faulkner does not mean one man, or individuals as indivduals,
but "man" as mankind. So, even if you continue to believe after reading
the rest of this post that that crass individualism reigns in the US,
please don't blame Faulkner--on this issue (and most others), he is on the
side of the angels. And, if you get the chance, find the text of the
entire speech. It is short (a page or so), but should leave you in awe of
what a master can do with words. And, while he doesn't "encompass the
whole picture" in that page or so, he comes a damned sight closer than my
feeble paraphrase might have implied.
I would also be wary, if I were you, of making sterotypical comments on
the culture of the US (or any other country or society, for that matter)
when looking at it from abroad. I speak as one who spent much of my first
44 years in one country (the US) and most of the last 7 in another
(Scotland). >From this experience I have come to learn that what I
thought I knew about Scotland and the UK when I was living in the US was
far different from what I have come to learn through actually living here
(even though I had spent a substantial time in this country before moving
"across the pond."). Additionally, knowing the US as extensively and
intensively as I do, I am daily made aware of the often pathetic ignorance
entailed in the reporting on my native country by even the most
"sophisticated" of observers from the outside--even in a culture linked so
closely to the US by language and history as is the UK.
Like most things in life, "cultures" are often much more complex and
curiouser than they may seem. To wit, you said:
>But history also has another side. For example, we remember the great
>culture of ancient Greece as outstanding in itself and those 400-500 years
>of western human history still fascinate people today. Sure, that
>greatness had as a feature many leading thinkers, writers and so forth,
>but underneath there were the artisans, farmers, slaves and women who
>remain nameless today, and were probably largely anonymous even then. I
>would argue that it is the overall outstanding achievement of a
>civilisation (the emergent phenomenon that is greater than the sum of its
>parts) that resonates today, the individuals contributions are of no less
>value, but are of a different character to the whole.
My understanding of Ancient Greece is that it was not at all some garden
of earthly delights for all its people. I would in fact argue strongly
that it is the remarkable individuals of that "civilisation" (Euclid,
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Herodotus, etc.) that we
remember and learn from rather than from the misogynistic, class-ridden,
slave-based and petty satrapies (the city-states) from within which these
great people arose. And, even if we accept that there must have been some
value added to the contributions of those great people from their culture,
we should also remember that many, if not all, of the achievements of
those people and those cultures were preceded by or developed
independently by other cultures, elsewhere in the world. The greatest
thought (IMHO) of the ancients, the "Golden Rule," was first articulated
by Confucius (c. 500BC), rather than by some Greek or some apostle.
>Similarly pre-literate cultures also make an impact in the world without
>us knowing any details of individuals. In the remote far north-west
>Kimberly region of Australia there are some rock painting more than 20,000
>years old that are absolutely remarkable. Almost certainly, they were not
>painted by individuals but were painted by a number of artists in a tribe,
>and were added to over the centuries. They were the product of a rich
>culture the individual details of which we know nothing.
I fully agree with you that we can and should learn much from
"pre-literate" cultures. And yet, to a degree, do not the "aboriginals"
of Australia (and other cultures of similar "development") both "endure"
and "prevail" (to get back to Faulkner) because they have come to a peace
with an environment that is unsustainable? I.e. is it not a "fool's
paradise" to base one's ethos on a relationship to the physical world
which can survive the pace of "progress" only by being actively
isolated--and only then by the the high priests of the countervailing
culture--from impacts of that "progress" (the "reservation" theory of
cultural preservation)?
>My point is, the decision to individually rank, ie 1 to 100 based on some
>criteria of selection/assessment, is a product of the culture of an
>organisation (and the culture of the country where th organisation is
>situated) and will also co-evolve with that culture by making it apparent
>explicitly or implicitly, how one "gets ahead around here". If you want
>an individualistic culture which values outstanding individual
>acheivement, by all means rank 1- 100. You will gain some things, and
>lose others!
Phillip, I think that others who have contributed to this thread have
convincingly made the point that any truly valuable individual ranking
system will incorporate team achievements as well as the contribution of
indivduals to corporate values and goals. It's not an either/or
situation. A good, well thought through ranking system can be "win/win,"
i.e. both build on and make use of the growth of indiviudal talents, as
well as support the broader organsational goals.
>Finally, I just thought on the train this morning that ranking may not
>extend well into the professions where the sole practition or small
>partnership reigns. For example, chosing a dentist is a very personal
>thing. Two dentists may have equal technical skills (rank) but for a
>variety of reasons patients might find one or the other superior depending
>on personality and other factors.
Yes but.....I think we all know that in all professions (yes, even in
management consulting!) there exists a broad (often very broad) range of
technical (and other) skills. I'll let anybody with a DDS (or BDS or
whatever) hanging on the wall examine and clean my teeth. But...if
he/she wants to do a root canal, I'll start thinking (if only
hypothetically) about their "ranking."
I've had the privilege(?) of experiencing the good the bad and the ugly in a
lot of professions, including but not limited to: dentistry, medicine, law,
management consulting, securities brokerage, and plumbing. Let me tell you,
Philip, it makes a helluva lot of difference in all of these cases, where that
"practitioner" "ranks" in his or her profession. And, if you happen to live in
a culture, as I do now, which devalues such ranking (i.e. anybody "qualified"
by their professional society is as qualified as anybody else to do anything
sanctioned by that society) you watch your step (or your teeth).
>Any thoughts?
Don't you now wish you hadn't added this question?
Cheers for now
Richard Goodale
The Dornoch Partnership
"Discovery, Creativity, Leadership"
+44-1383-860660
--Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>