Bill Brown resonded to my example on changing a person:
>>The choice to go to a surgeon is up to the patient.
>>The surgeon as a "change agent" is totally responsible for his work
>>on changing his patient.
>Disagree. I (as the patient) asked to be changed. I assessed the surgeon
>to be best qualified to perform the services required to achieve the goal
>I had set. I am the change agent for my own benefit, the surgeon is a
>tool.
First I sense that you agree to my message: 1.) It is possible to change
other persons. 2.) The one who performes the change is fully responsible
for his work. (In case of a failure, the patient would never accept to be
blamed, just because he had chosen that surgeon). 3.) Any change of a
person should be the choice of the person changed.
I guess your disagreement refers to the use of the word "change agent",
which you distinguish from a mere tool used by the change agent. In your
view, the change agent is the one who decides on a change and the propper
tools. Ok, I can live with this - it is not my point. I just have some
difficulties to asign responsibility to a mere tool - the reason why I
don't like humans be called "tool".
I think the real discussion is about point 3.) of my message: What about
the case, where person "a" hires a change agent "b" (may also be "a"
himself) in order to apply propper tools to change a third person "c".
Is it possible to do so? (My example shows: Yes) And: Is there an ethical
way to do so? I think, there is not even consensus on how to approach such
a question.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>