Discussion: View Thread

In keeping with the values discussion, here's a portion from the "Bucking the System" article I mentioned a week or so ago.


**** Begin Segment ****


Code of Conduct

A code of conduct is a set of ethical standards, yardsticks against which the goodness of behavior can be compared. A code of conduct prescribes and proscribes behavior. It is concerned with what is right and wrong in human conduct.

The elements in a code of conduct might be stated in terms of things one should do, as in “Honor thy father and mother” or things one should not do, as in “Thou shalt not kill.”

The Ten Commandments, of course, comprise a code of conduct. So does the golden rule: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

Granted, there are differences in what people deem polite or impolite, proper or improper, and socially acceptable or unacceptable. But these are superficial differences. At the core issue of what is right and what is wrong, there is remarkable congruence across time, culture, and religion. Consider, for example, the golden rule as it is found outside of Christianity:

• From Judaism’s Talmud: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.”

• From Brahmanism’s Mahabharata: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”

• From Buddhism’s Udana-Varga: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

• From Confucianism’s Analects: “Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.”

• From Taoism’s T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

• From Zoroastrianism’s Dadistan-i-dinik: “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.”

• From Islam’s Sunnah: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.”


**** End of Segment ****


It would seem that there is at least one almost universal view of one aspect of human behavior. I don't know if it qualifies as a "value" or not but it seems close.


--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

It is wonderful to see the discourse on this listserv elevated to a degree that arouses our passions. My perspective on values and codes of conduct take a more radical view, influenced by my studies of Buddhism and thinkers such as Ernest Becker, Ken Wilber, and Erich Fromm. You quote, " A code of conduct prescribes and proscribes behavior. It is concerned with what is right and wrong in human conduct."
My critique of this is that Capitalism has become a religion in our culture. Tillich defined religion beautifully as "man's ultimate concern". Rules and codes exist to entrench taboos against forces seeking to exercise democratic values and offer alternatives to the hypnosis of the social conditioning which our educational institutions serve. The premise of this discussion appears to accept the mythology of capitalism as truth.
Essentially, the narcissistic human animal creates meaning along with corresponding symbols, ritual, heros, sacred texts, and taboos. We assuage the terror of death through culturally created immortality ideologies "the invisible hand".. The rules and codes of conduct, absolutes of right and wrong, seek to protect this "religion" from scrutiny. If these rules and codes were more accepting of pluralism, democratic values, and criticism, academic institutions would feel less protective of their own immortality projects and an integral philosophy that embraces synthesis as opposed to the tytpe of attacks typical of university professors (your crosscultural documentation of the Golden Rule being a most welcome exception), may help us educate the next generation and avoid the fate that buried the Roman Empire.

With respect,
Alan Chipetine
Assistant Principal
Syosset High School
Syosset, NY 11725

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "nickols@att.net" <nickols@att.net>

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:01:13
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Subject: Universal Value?


In keeping with the values discussion, here's a portion from the "Bucking the System" article I mentioned a week or so ago.


**** Begin Segment ****


Code of Conduct

A code of conduct is a set of ethical standards, yardsticks against which the goodness of behavior can be compared. A code of conduct prescribes and proscribes behavior. It is concerned with what is right and wrong in human conduct.

The elements in a code of conduct might be stated in terms of things one should do, as in “Honor thy father and mother” or things one should not do, as in “Thou shalt not kill.”

The Ten Commandments, of course, comprise a code of conduct. So does the golden rule: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

Granted, there are differences in what people deem polite or impolite, proper or improper, and socially acceptable or unacceptable. But these are superficial differences. At the core issue of what is right and what is wrong, there is remarkable congruence across time, culture, and religion. Consider, for example, the golden rule as it is found outside of Christianity:

• From Judaism’s Talmud: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.”

• From Brahmanism’s Mahabharata: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”

• From Buddhism’s Udana-Varga: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

• From Confucianism’s Analects: “Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.”

• From Taoism’s T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

• From Zoroastrianism’s Dadistan-i-dinik: “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.”

• From Islam’s Sunnah: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.”


**** End of Segment ****


It would seem that there is at least one almost universal view of one aspect of human behavior. I don't know if it qualifies as a "value" or not but it seems close.


--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

The complement to Code of Behavior is the Standard of Care.
Whereas the former deals with behavior the latter deals with results ---
what's left after behavior has completed.
The main difference is that results can be measured whereas behaviors
cannot.
It is the old Means vs. Ends gambit in different semantics.
Those who opt for Code of Ethics clearly signal that they do not want to be
measured.
Jack Ring

----- Original Message -----
From: <nickols@att.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:01 PM
Subject: Universal Value?


> In keeping with the values discussion, here's a portion from the "Bucking
> the System" article I mentioned a week or so ago.
>
>
> **** Begin Segment ****
>
>
> Code of Conduct
>
> A code of conduct is a set of ethical standards, yardsticks against which
> the goodness of behavior can be compared. A code of conduct prescribes
> and proscribes behavior. It is concerned with what is right and wrong in
> human conduct.
>
> The elements in a code of conduct might be stated in terms of things one
> should do, as in “Honor thy father and mother” or things one should not
> do, as in “Thou shalt not kill.”
>
> The Ten Commandments, of course, comprise a code of conduct. So does the
> golden rule: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do
> to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”
> (Matthew 7:12).
>
> Granted, there are differences in what people deem polite or impolite,
> proper or improper, and socially acceptable or unacceptable. But these
> are superficial differences. At the core issue of what is right and what
> is wrong, there is remarkable congruence across time, culture, and
> religion. Consider, for example, the golden rule as it is found outside
> of Christianity:
>
> • From Judaism’s Talmud: “What is hateful to you, do not to your
> fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.”
>
> • From Brahmanism’s Mahabharata: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught
> unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”
>
> • From Buddhism’s Udana-Varga: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself
> would find hurtful.”
>
> • From Confucianism’s Analects: “Surely it is the maxim of
> loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto
> you.”
>
> • From Taoism’s T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien: Regard your neighbor’s gain as
> your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”
>
> • From Zoroastrianism’s Dadistan-i-dinik: “That nature alone is good
> which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.”
>
> • From Islam’s Sunnah: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for
> his brother that which he desires for himself.”
>
>
> **** End of Segment ****
>
>
> It would seem that there is at least one almost universal view of one
> aspect of human behavior. I don't know if it qualifies as a "value" or
> not but it seems close.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> Managing Partner
> Distance Consulting, LLC
> nickols@att.net
> www.nickols.us
>
> "Assistance at A Distance"
>

Colleagues,

If we choose to think about "universal values", then let's not constrain
ourselves to Earth. The following is part of a speech in Invitation to
Space, by copyright by Gary Michael Lundquist, 2007. All rights reserved.

Values
Community of Humans

No weapons, No evangelism,
No blaming, No righteousness

We are all:

HUMANS. One species in a universe of species. Before gender, race,
nationality, economics, beliefs, or power, we are all Human.
Earthlings. One species among billions inhabiting our planet. Before
greed, power, hunger, and even simple survival, we are all stewards of our
natural environment.

SENTIENTS. Great thinkers in a universe of great thinkers. Before hate,
violence, war, and mutually assured destruction, we are all capable of
ongoing learning and critical thinking.

SPIRITUAL. In touch with something much greater than ourselves. Beyond
choice of belief or way of worship, we can all engage our natural
spirituality to find personal peace.

CHANGE AGENTS. Natural innovators in a universe where conscious innovation
is rare and special. Before competition, the thrill of success, and
financial rewards, we can all work to ensure that our changes benefit
Humanity over the long term.

IMMATURE. A very young species lacking perspectives needed to manage our
civilization and its rapid change. Beyond daily striving and achieving, we
can all seek to become ever more conscious as individuals, organizations,
nations, and a global civilization.

RESPONSIBLE. People and organizations in charge of our collective future.
Beyond the temptations of being right and feeling righteousness, we can all
make conscious choices to put away our weapons, restrain our evangelism,
stop blaming, and start accepting our shared responsibility for peace for
everyone on Earth.

AT TERRIBLE RISK. Enmeshed in dramatically accelerating change resisted
fiercely by some population segments. To avoid the risks of terrorism
forever, ecological disaster, nuclear war, and systems wars with our own
machines, we must all learn how to guide change toward positive, peaceful,
ecologically respectful ends.
-----------------------
Though not a list of values, the implications may be worth your time.

Best,

Gary


...........................................
Gary Lundquist
Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

Colorado Resources*for Innovation
303-840-9929*
...........................................
GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
Innovation of Business and
the Business of InnovationT


-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of nickols@att.net
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 5:01 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Universal Value?


In keeping with the values discussion, here's a portion from the "Bucking
the System" article I mentioned a week or so ago.


**** Begin Segment ****


Code of Conduct

A code of conduct is a set of ethical standards, yardsticks against which
the goodness of behavior can be compared. A code of conduct prescribes and
proscribes behavior. It is concerned with what is right and wrong in human
conduct.

The elements in a code of conduct might be stated in terms of things one
should do, as in "Honor thy father and mother" or things one should not do,
as in "Thou shalt not kill."

The Ten Commandments, of course, comprise a code of conduct. So does the
golden rule: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew
7:12).

Granted, there are differences in what people deem polite or impolite,
proper or improper, and socially acceptable or unacceptable. But these are
superficial differences. At the core issue of what is right and what is
wrong, there is remarkable congruence across time, culture, and religion.
Consider, for example, the golden rule as it is found outside of
Christianity:

. From Judaism's Talmud: "What is hateful to you, do not to your
fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary."

. From Brahmanism's Mahabharata: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught
unto others which would cause you pain if done to you."

. From Buddhism's Udana-Varga: "Hurt not others in ways that you
yourself would find hurtful."

. From Confucianism's Analects: "Surely it is the maxim of
loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto
you."

. From Taoism's T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien: Regard your neighbor's
gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss."

. From Zoroastrianism's Dadistan-i-dinik: "That nature alone is good
which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself."

. From Islam's Sunnah: "No one of you is a believer until he desires
for his brother that which he desires for himself."


**** End of Segment ****


It would seem that there is at least one almost universal view of one aspect
of human behavior. I don't know if it qualifies as a "value" or not but it
seems close.


--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

Alan,
Think you for the thoughtful critique. It may be useful to look at the
situation from the other side of the mirror.

Perhaps the current religion is anti-capitalism. Its crusaders are quite
visible at each G8 or G20 summit. Also it is thriving in universities thus
typically lagging the real world by 20 years or so. The 20 year lag is
marked by capitalism, the substitution of capital for labor, becoming passé
two decades ago as we started learning how to substitute know-how for
energy. eK=mc**2.

The record shows that the universal threat is GREED. We would be well
advised to put more thought into the mediation of greed, especially from the
roots up.

One of the attempts in this direction has been to eschew the Greek
experiment with democracy in favor of a representative republic. Not a
complete solution, apparently, but far better than all other forms on space
ship Earth.

Regarding the business domain, the VISA Corp. in the days of Dee Hock et al,
demonstrated how well citizens could be served. c.f., Birth of the Chaordic
Age. Note, however, that he was convinced that such system could not be
propagated earth-wide because on one BIG factor. Care to guess?
Onward,
Jack Ring

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Chipetine" <AChipetine@SYOSSET.K12.NY.US>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Universal Value?


> It is wonderful to see the discourse on this listserv elevated to a
> degree that arouses our passions. My perspective on values and codes of
> conduct take a more radical view, influenced by my studies of Buddhism and
> thinkers such as Ernest Becker, Ken Wilber, and Erich Fromm. You quote,
> " A code of conduct prescribes and proscribes behavior. It is concerned
> with what is right and wrong in human conduct."
> My critique of this is that Capitalism has become a religion in our
> culture. Tillich defined religion beautifully as "man's ultimate
> concern". Rules and codes exist to entrench taboos against forces seeking
> to exercise democratic values and offer alternatives to the hypnosis of
> the social conditioning which our educational institutions serve. The
> premise of this discussion appears to accept the mythology of capitalism
> as truth.
> Essentially, the narcissistic human animal creates meaning along with
> corresponding symbols, ritual, heros, sacred texts, and taboos. We
> assuage the terror of death through culturally created immortality
> ideologies "the invisible hand".. The rules and codes of conduct,
> absolutes of right and wrong, seek to protect this "religion" from
> scrutiny. If these rules and codes were more accepting of pluralism,
> democratic values, and criticism, academic institutions would feel less
> protective of their own immortality projects and an integral philosophy
> that embraces synthesis as opposed to the tytpe of attacks typical of
> university professors (your crosscultural documentation of the Golden Rule
> being a most welcome exception), may help us educate the next generation
> and avoid the fate that buried the Roman Empire.
>
> With respect,
> Alan Chipetine
> Assistant Principal
> Syosset High School
> Syosset, NY 11725
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "nickols@att.net" <nickols@att.net>
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:01:13
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Subject: Universal Value?
>
>
> In keeping with the values discussion, here's a portion from the "Bucking
> the System" article I mentioned a week or so ago.
>
>
> **** Begin Segment ****
>
>
> Code of Conduct
>
> A code of conduct is a set of ethical standards, yardsticks against which
> the goodness of behavior can be compared. A code of conduct prescribes
> and proscribes behavior. It is concerned with what is right and wrong in
> human conduct.
>
> The elements in a code of conduct might be stated in terms of things one
> should do, as in “Honor thy father and mother” or things one should not
> do, as in “Thou shalt not kill.”
>
> The Ten Commandments, of course, comprise a code of conduct. So does the
> golden rule: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do
> to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”
> (Matthew 7:12).
>
> Granted, there are differences in what people deem polite or impolite,
> proper or improper, and socially acceptable or unacceptable. But these
> are superficial differences. At the core issue of what is right and what
> is wrong, there is remarkable congruence across time, culture, and
> religion. Consider, for example, the golden rule as it is found outside
> of Christianity:
>
> • From Judaism’s Talmud: “What is hateful to you, do not to your
> fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.”
>
> • From Brahmanism’s Mahabharata: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught
> unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”
>
> • From Buddhism’s Udana-Varga: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself
> would find hurtful.”
>
> • From Confucianism’s Analects: “Surely it is the maxim of
> loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto
> you.”
>
> • From Taoism’s T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien: Regard your neighbor’s gain as
> your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”
>
> • From Zoroastrianism’s Dadistan-i-dinik: “That nature alone is good
> which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.”
>
> • From Islam’s Sunnah: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for
> his brother that which he desires for himself.”
>
>
> **** End of Segment ****
>
>
> It would seem that there is at least one almost universal view of one
> aspect of human behavior. I don't know if it qualifies as a "value" or
> not but it seems close.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> Managing Partner
> Distance Consulting, LLC
> nickols@att.net
> www.nickols.us
>
> "Assistance at A Distance"
>

Mr. Ring,

I continue to be nonplussed and set back as I read, react, and respond to your posts. I pulled up and read your on-line vita. I respect and admire what you have accomplished in life. Reading it, I had fond memories of summer weeks spent with my uncle in Emporia listening to the cicadas' constant chatter and bucking hay. I note your education and experience in systems engineering. I reflected on the many days I spent teaching in the Pit in GE-Crotonville.

AND with all of that respect for your background, I personally am put off by your apparent tendency to make blanket, judgmental statements as if whatever comes out of your keyboard is truth. Albert Ellis' concept of E-Prime Language is clearly influencing me here. (attached) Like you, I'm past sixty and have grown tired of superficial BS conversations (an inference regarding yourself). That said, I find myself less and less sure of what we know. Eric Hoffer once noted that blessed are the learners for they shall inherit the earth while the learned shall find themselves increasingly suited for a world that no longer exists.

I hesitated to write, and chose to do so, respectfully, because I believe that we model to others (over 900 in this listserv) how to be. Emerson once noted that what one does thunders so loudly in our ears we cannot hear what they say. My hope is that members of this listserv and of the MED and all AOM divisions would be open-minded, considerate, truth seeking, generous souls. I infer from comments like "time wounds all heels" and "those who opt for Code of Ethics clearly signal that they do not want to be measured" and "your lack of data is noted" to be demeaning, blanket statements with no basis whatsoever in my education or experience.

We all have a different set of experiences, backgrounds, educations, and accomplishments. What I enjoy about functional discourse is what we can learn from that diversity. What I don't enjoy about dysfunctional discourse is blanket assumptions about truth and correctness. My invitation is that we might all speak with each other with a higher level of respect and consideration. And I don't believe that has anything to do with my willingness to be measured or not. My vita is available for all to see as well.

I have friends in Scottsdale and go there on occasion. Perhaps next time I'm there, we can have lunch and I can look in your face and learn more. In the meantime, again, my invitation is that we raise the level of the conversation by

1. Acknowledging that what we "know" is only what we value, assume, believe and expect to be true.
2. Speaking to others in a respectful way that models to all who read a more "dialogue" (in the MIT/Senge sense) oriented way of social learning.
3. Avoiding blanket statements of truth and rectitude.
4. Avoiding demeaning judgments of others that adds a certain toxicity to the conversation.

Respectfully,
Jim
James G. S. Clawson
Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
Darden GSB, University of Virginia
Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:43 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Universal Value?

The complement to Code of Behavior is the Standard of Care.
Whereas the former deals with behavior the latter deals with results ---
what's left after behavior has completed.
The main difference is that results can be measured whereas behaviors
cannot.
It is the old Means vs. Ends gambit in different semantics.
Those who opt for Code of Ethics clearly signal that they do not want to be
measured.
Jack Ring

----- Original Message -----
From: <nickols@att.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:01 PM
Subject: Universal Value?


> In keeping with the values discussion, here's a portion from the "Bucking
> the System" article I mentioned a week or so ago.
>
>
> **** Begin Segment ****
>
>
> Code of Conduct
>
> A code of conduct is a set of ethical standards, yardsticks against which
> the goodness of behavior can be compared. A code of conduct prescribes
> and proscribes behavior. It is concerned with what is right and wrong in
> human conduct.
>
> The elements in a code of conduct might be stated in terms of things one
> should do, as in “Honor thy father and mother” or things one should not
> do, as in “Thou shalt not kill.”
>
> The Ten Commandments, of course, comprise a code of conduct. So does the
> golden rule: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do
> to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”
> (Matthew 7:12).
>
> Granted, there are differences in what people deem polite or impolite,
> proper or improper, and socially acceptable or unacceptable. But these
> are superficial differences. At the core issue of what is right and what
> is wrong, there is remarkable congruence across time, culture, and
> religion. Consider, for example, the golden rule as it is found outside
> of Christianity:
>
> • From Judaism’s Talmud: “What is hateful to you, do not to your
> fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.”
>
> • From Brahmanism’s Mahabharata: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught
> unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”
>
> • From Buddhism’s Udana-Varga: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself
> would find hurtful.”
>
> • From Confucianism’s Analects: “Surely it is the maxim of
> loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto
> you.”
>
> • From Taoism’s T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien: Regard your neighbor’s gain as
> your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”
>
> • From Zoroastrianism’s Dadistan-i-dinik: “That nature alone is good
> which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.”
>
> • From Islam’s Sunnah: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for
> his brother that which he desires for himself.”
>
>
> **** End of Segment ****
>
>
> It would seem that there is at least one almost universal view of one
> aspect of human behavior. I don't know if it qualifies as a "value" or
> not but it seems close.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> Managing Partner
> Distance Consulting, LLC
> nickols@att.net
> www.nickols.us
>
> "Assistance at A Distance"
>

Jack Ring writes:

> The complement to Code of Behavior is the Standard of Care.
> Whereas the former deals with behavior the latter deals with results ---
> what's left after behavior has completed.
> The main difference is that results can be measured whereas behaviors
> cannot.
> It is the old Means vs. Ends gambit in different semantics.
> Those who opt for Code of Ethics clearly signal that they do not want to be
> measured.

Well, Jack, I share the importance you attach to results and I agree that there are lots of people who don't wish to be measured. However, I don't agree that behavior can't be measured nor do I agree with the blanket statement that results can be measured. I do agree that there is a means-end relationship between behavior and results and, by extension, it seems to me that, in some cases, influencing or controlling behavior is a pretty straight path to influencing or controlling results.

By the way, do you mean something different from Code of Conduct when you use Code of Behavior?

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

----- Original Message -----
From: <nickols@att.net>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Universal Value?


>
> Well, Jack, I share the importance you attach to results and I agree that
> there are lots of people who don't wish to be measured. However, I don't
> agree that behavior can't be measured nor do I agree with the blanket
> statement that results can be measured. I do agree that there is a
> means-end relationship between behavior and results and, by extension, it
> seems to me that, in some cases, influencing or controlling behavior is a
> pretty straight path to influencing or controlling results.

Fred,
Yes, I should have said Code of Conduct, not Behavior. Thanks.

Pls tell us how to measure Conduct. Isn't that the classic Project
Management situation in which a task is 'on schedule' until 80% of the time
is left then revealed to be waaaay behind?

Pls tell us why results cannot be measured. For something to be a result its
ontological existence must be discernable.
>
>

Jack:

Regarding your comments below...


Well, I believe I was talking about measuring behavior, not conduct, but I'll respond to both.

> Pls tell us how to measure Conduct.

Behavior - at least overt behavior - can be observed. If it can be observed, it can be classified (e.g., walking, talking, writing, etc). Its instances, if classified, can be compared (e.g., of three people walking, one might be the slowest and another the fastest, while the one between these two is faster than the slowest and slower than the fastest). The number of instances can be counted and certain other aspects might be calculated (e.g., walking at a rate of 3.75 miles per hour). Classify, compare, count and calculate - these are our old friend nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. So, yes, I believe I can measure behavior. I assume I could do the same for a Code of Conduct (e.g., I could count the number of infractions, if nothing else).


> Isn't that the classic Project
> Management situation in which a task is 'on schedule' until 80% of the time
> is left then revealed to be waaaay behind?

I don't think so. The situation you refer to above is common enough, but in my experience it's more a case of avoiding the wrath of the powers that be until that is no longer viable. Besides, early on, it is simply too early to say we're way behind; later, as the situation worsens, people are reluctant to put themselves on the spot; lastly, when all can see the schedule is shot, it's time to fess up. There's no denying the facts. However, none of that means that project progress can't be measured; it is more a case of optimistic or unrealistic scheduling to begin with.

>
> Pls tell us why results cannot be measured. For something to be a result its
> ontological existence must be discernable.

You stipulate a requirement regarding results, namely that its ontological existence must be discernible. Given that stipulation, you could indeed measure all results. However, that requirement wasn't stipulated earlier and I happen to believe that not all results are directly discernible. We often have to accept indicators of the result we're after. Suppose, for instance, that I have settled on the result of gaining the respect of my peers. I can't directly observe their respect for me; I can only gauge or estimate its existence based on the nature and qualities of their reactions to and interactions with me. That their respect for me isn't "discernible" doesn't mean I don't or can't pursue that as a result.


--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

Fred,
Thank you for this response. Now I have a better understanding of what you
mean by measure.

I gather that the notion of evaluate is not included, such that having
measured people walking there is no way to evaluate whether the size, pace,
etc. of the group is fit for purpose. Further, if you cannot observe
directly but are dependent on reports by the denizens then the reports may
be biased thus your conclusions in error.

Regarding results I think the very meaning of the term includes ontological
existence so I did not consciously insert a requirement. Then 'directly'
discernable popped up which I did not contemplate because, following your
reasoning above, state and status can be computed based on other
observations.

I ask these questions in the quest for 'Who is qualified to govern." An
email I sent you last night will illustrate this.

Onward,
Jack Ring

----- Original Message -----
From: <nickols@att.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Universal Value?


> Jack:
>
> Regarding your comments below...
>
>
> Well, I believe I was talking about measuring behavior, not conduct, but
> I'll respond to both.
>
>> Pls tell us how to measure Conduct.
>
> Behavior - at least overt behavior - can be observed. If it can be
> observed, it can be classified (e.g., walking, talking, writing, etc).
> Its instances, if classified, can be compared (e.g., of three people
> walking, one might be the slowest and another the fastest, while the one
> between these two is faster than the slowest and slower than the fastest).
> The number of instances can be counted and certain other aspects might be
> calculated (e.g., walking at a rate of 3.75 miles per hour). Classify,
> compare, count and calculate - these are our old friend nominal, ordinal,
> interval and ratio. So, yes, I believe I can measure behavior. I assume
> I could do the same for a Code of Conduct (e.g., I could count the number
> of infractions, if nothing else).
>
>
>> Isn't that the classic Project
>> Management situation in which a task is 'on schedule' until 80% of the
>> time
>> is left then revealed to be waaaay behind?
>
> I don't think so. The situation you refer to above is common enough, but
> in my experience it's more a case of avoiding the wrath of the powers that
> be until that is no longer viable. Besides, early on, it is simply too
> early to say we're way behind; later, as the situation worsens, people are
> reluctant to put themselves on the spot; lastly, when all can see the
> schedule is shot, it's time to fess up. There's no denying the facts.
> However, none of that means that project progress can't be measured; it is
> more a case of optimistic or unrealistic scheduling to begin with.
>
>>
>> Pls tell us why results cannot be measured. For something to be a result
>> its
>> ontological existence must be discernable.
>
> You stipulate a requirement regarding results, namely that its ontological
> existence must be discernible. Given that stipulation, you could indeed
> measure all results. However, that requirement wasn't stipulated earlier
> and I happen to believe that not all results are directly discernible. We
> often have to accept indicators of the result we're after. Suppose, for
> instance, that I have settled on the result of gaining the respect of my
> peers. I can't directly observe their respect for me; I can only gauge or
> estimate its existence based on the nature and qualities of their
> reactions to and interactions with me. That their respect for me isn't
> "discernible" doesn't mean I don't or can't pursue that as a result.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> Managing Partner
> Distance Consulting, LLC
> nickols@att.net
> www.nickols.us
>
> "Assistance at A Distance"
>