Monthly Archives: December 2020

What’s wrong with our ethics?

Wrong is wrong, even if everyone does it, even if nobody dares speak against it.

Right is right, even if no one is doing it, even if nobody dares support it, even if naysayers say yes, but ….

But this is not what current ethics are preaching.

Modern ethics dislike the firmness and inconvenience of principles, what is right or wrong, and instead they call for a more flexible and convenient way, the “practical” way of settling things. Say in a two-party conflict, they seek outcomes that, irrespective of who is right or wrong, can accommodate both sides so that both will appear to come out of the dispute with some kind of benefits euphemistically called ‘’winning’’.

At the level of national disputes, for example, if an aggressor invades another country (usually a weaker), the so-called ethical solution will be sought not by demanding that the invader be expelled out of the other country’s territory, but by allowing the invader to retain his gains upon agreeing not to expand further. The afflicted side must, of course, accept the new forced status quo and will receive assurances of avoidance of further escalation and losses. Both parties, declare the ethics, “have won”: Gains for the invader, and no further losses for the afflicted.

The problems:

The laws of the jungle: The stronger takes it all, or rather not quite all; arrangements are made to permit the beleaguered victim to retain more than what its power could protect by forsaking part of its lawful rights.

The silence of the herd: Those not attacked or out of the conflict consider their selves as outsiders and become silent bystanders. They argue that by their silence, they are preserving the bridges of communication and by their appeasements [...]

By |December 28th, 2020|Uncategorized|0 Comments|

Managing by Appreciative Inquiry

When we focus to correct an organization for deficiencies, what we are trying to do is to make that organization better. But better in relation to what? In relation to what it was in the past as it was the past situations that revealed those areas of need for correction.  In other words, we are guided by the past.

But so much is happening in our times, pandemics like Coronavirus or Global policy changes by Governments, or huge jumps in technology. These and similar drastic-changing events make the past, even when at its best, a very poor guide. Thus, by managing this way, the possibilities are high that our corrective efforts may be found wanting or even wasted on the wrong target.

Now let us try another way that of managing by ‘Appreciative Inquiry’. Instead of adopting a past orientation, let us focus on the future and the possibilities. Get our people to assess their strengths and imagine what these strengths can create, share that vision with all, multiply capacity by allowing our people to cocreate, and get everybody energised and motivated by a shared perspective so that all could bring to the fore their best whole self.

A series of advantages can be recognized in this latter approach. It energizes the human ingenuity by showing trust. It is people inclusive drawing on the strengths of everyone. Vision and cocreation becomes everyone’s concern for the company’s brighter future. The creative tension between what we are and what we should be becomes a strong operational driving force toward the envisioned future of the company.

Managing by ‘Appreciative Inquiry’ with emphasis on strengths and trust seems in many ways to be more effective than any traditional way of managing by [...]

By |December 2nd, 2020|Uncategorized|0 Comments|