Peter,
first let me start with the fact that I especially enjoy your sense
of humor and admire you and your body of work. you have made a
contribution to my thinking. thank you.
I loved your article, "Let's Give Them
Something to Talk About," which appeared in News for a Change
published by AQP in March 1999. it was stimulating but lacked the
necessary specificity for implementation. it had some gems and some
pure rubbish. it sometimes read like so much bleeding heart liberal
bull shit. the sentiments are great but to make change we need to
address the fears and needs of our audience. we have to meet people
where they are. I believe as you believe on a number of issues but I
also think you have to address the "what's in it for me?"
question of your audience, both management and worker and voter.
We need to tell people why it is not true that the only really
important people are CEO’s. why it is not true or a good thing
that workers are not commodities to be moved around at the
convenience of institutional requirements. We need to tell people
why questions about purpose and the quality of life in our
organizations are more than an occasionally interesting human
interest sidelight--they are the essence of good management and are
essential to productivity and success--company and worker alike. we
are all in this thing called life together. we need to show people
why we need to join forces and work together. our success is linked.
in your article you asked us to talk
about freedom, justice, forgiveness, faith and collective
responsibility and challenged us to call these the bottom line
issues. but in my mind you didn't tell us why we should do so--no
justification for a change in approach. and then the request to "let
economics, technology and control be concerns we attend to as
occasionally interesting human interest sidelights" seemed silly and
unrealistic and undermined your believability as a person with two
feet on the ground. sorry Peter but I believe one has to be of this
world to affect this world.
your comments on Restorative Justice, an alternative to a legal
process built on punishment and shame, makes sense. in the bigger
picture, I find it refreshing
that someone, YOU, is initiating the need for large scale searches
for new, more productive, conversations. there is absolutely no
question that we need to think outside the box. our culture and our
economic system, our standard of living and our way of life, are
under extreme pressure. we desperately need more productive,
probably new, conversations around the workplace. we can and should
shift the workplace culture by redefining what is worth talking
about. we should indeed talk about freedom, justice, forgiveness,
faith and collective responsibility. these are indeed bottom line
issues. but so are economics, technology and control bottom line
issues, not occasionally interesting human interest
sidelights--that is not pragmatic and will likely alienate many
(especially the CEOs we need in the dialogue) from the dialogue. we
need to talk about all these important issues at the same time. and
we must address the "what's in it for me?" question of our audience,
both management and worker, to obtain participation in the
conversation.
I
would be interested in brainstorming ways with you to show
management and worker why it is in their interest to participate in
the conversation about freedom, justice, forgiveness, faith and
collective responsibility. we must find solutions to the issues we
are facing. thank you for challenging us all. I challenge you to
contact me to discuss this issue.
blessings on your continued work.
James E. Bowman, Jr., Business Strategist
Bowman Business Consulting
usapartner@fuse.net
