I would summarize my thoughts by contrasting influence and control. I
control myself and cannot be changed by a change agent who is not me. I
am suseptible to influence. If I change, the decision to change will
always include a variable other than the source of influence. That is,
the source of influence will not be the only independent variable.
See more below.
>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.
Generally speaking, ethical dilemmas can be resolved through full
disclosure. If I say, I think you should be thus and so and I am going to
embark on a series of efforts to convince you of that, then most of what I
do after that ( assuming some basis in moral behavior) does not present an
ethical dilemma.
Bill Braun
--Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>