The role of work: a eudaimonistic perspective.
Reber, Michael F.
For more than two centuries in industrialized societies an inherent
problem has persisted regarding the role of education and work. This is
due in part to the entrenched cultural dogma of the Cartesian/Newtonian
paradigm which views the world as a mechanical device and people as
organic machines operating within such a world. More recently, it
includes the scientific management approach of Frederick W. Taylor which
defines individuals as "human capital" to be used and disposed
of at will for the benefit of an organizational enterprise or national
economy (Banathy 1991, 1992, 1996, 2000; Makiguchi 2002; Dewey 1997,
2011; Laszlo 1972; Miller 1990, 2000; Savall 2010).
In opposition to this view the progressive educational movement was
born and John Dewey, as one of its champions, developed an
"organic" or holistic approach to education and work (Tanner
1991). Over the course of time Dewey's (2011) approach to education
and work became the cornerstone of holistic education and more recently
the eudaimonistic philosophical school (school of self-actualization
ethics) in American culture (ibid.; Norton 1976, 1991).
In parallel with Dewey's progressivism, the field of systems
thinking was developing and a prevalent belief emerged, which holds that
humanity is moving toward a greater consciousness about itself, the
universe, and its relationship with such a universe (Banathy 1991, 1992,
1996, 2000; Bertalanffy 1968; Capra 1982, 1997, 1999, 2004; Laszlo
1972). Pierre Teilhard de Chardin refers to this as the Law of
Complexity-Consciousness and states that "evolution proceeds in the
direction of increasing complexity, and that this increase in complexity
is accompanied by a corresponding rise of consciousness" (Capra
1999, 304). Likewise, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, dubbed the "Father of
General Systems Theory," refers to it as anamorphosis. Anamorphosis
is, in the biological sense, "the tendency" for an organism
"to evolve toward increasing complexity" (Davidson 1983, 223,
227). Bertalanffy also applied this idea toward all system organizations
in his search for "natural laws of organization, laws of
systems" (ibid., 223). Bela H. Banathy has referred to this as the
movement from evolutionary consciousness towards conscious evolution
(1996, 313):
We are at a critical juncture of societal evolution where
unprecedented human fulfillment as well as a loss of direction,
despair, and destruction, are equally possible. However, we are not
at the mercy of evolutionary forces but have the potential and the
opportunity to give direction to societal evolution by [systemic]
design, provided we create an evolutionary vision for the future
and develop the will and the competence to fulfill that vision in
our lives, in our families, in the systems in which we live, in our
communities and societies, and in the global system of humanity.
I prefer to define "collective consciousness of humanity"
as the collective and conscious intent, will, capacity, and ability of
humankind to have a sense of wholeness and belonging to the universe, a
consciousness that continuously renews and transforms humanity to a
higher holarchical level of existence. Therefore, it is the purpose of
this paper to propose 1) a eudaimonistic definition of education and
work and 2) a systems thinking approach toward human resources in order
to create a more humane world.
The Role of Education in a Free Society
Philosophical Underpinnings
Understanding the role of education in a free society means
understanding the role of education in a self-actualizing society, where
self-actualization is the actualization of an individual's inherent
potential worth. Therefore, a self-actualizing society is one in which
two purposes as related to educere (the drawing out of one's
inherent potential) are fulfilled: a) "enhancement of the quality
of life of human beings" and b) provision of "the necessary
but non-self-suppliable conditions for optimizing opportunities for
individual self-discovery and self-development" (Norton 1991, 80).
According to the eudaimonistic philosopher David Norton,
enhancement of the quality of life means "the acquisition by human
beings of moral virtues, where moral virtues are understood as
dispositions of character that are (1) personal utilities; (2) intrinsic
goods; and (3) social utilities" (ibid., 80-81). The kinds of
virtues Norton employs are cardinal virtues, which are virtues that are
"indispensable to worthy living of every kind"--wisdom,
courage, temperance, and justice--and distributed virtues, which are
virtues that are "indispensable to worthy lives of some, but not
all, kinds" (ibid., 81). Furthermore, a virtue consists of the
practices (what Howard Gardner calls domains), the good of the whole
life, and the good of the community life (Gardner 1993, 1999a, 1999b,
2006). An equation of their relationship can be illustrated as follows:
Practice + The Good of the Whole Life + The Good of the Community
Life = Virtue
In addition to Norton, Alasdair MacIntyre in, After Virtue, puts
forth the thesis that human life and its activities must be guided by a
sound theory of "the good life," that is a life grounded in an
Aristotelian sense of the virtues: "The conception of a good has to
be expounded in terms of such notions as those of a practice, of the
narrative unity of a human life and of a moral tradition" (1984,
258). Also, a conception of the good life and with it "the only
grounds for the authority of laws and virtues, can only be discovered by
entering into those relationships which constitute communities whose
central bond is a shared vision of and understanding of goods. To cut
oneself off from shared activity in which one has initially to learn
obediently as an apprentice learns, to isolate oneself from the
communities which find their point and purpose in such activities, will
be to debar oneself from finding any good outside of oneself"
(ibid.).
MacIntyre notes that the exercise of the virtues does not "in
any way imply that virtues are only exercised in the course of.
.practices" (ibid., 187). A practice, according to MacIntyre, is
"any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative
human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are
realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of
excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that
form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve
excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and good involved, are
systematically extended" (ibid.). Thus, MacIntyre argues that
architecture is a practice but bricklaying is not. Bricklaying is a
skill within a practice. The kinds of things Macintyre calls practices
include the arts, sciences, games, and politics in the Aristotelian
sense (ibid., 188). Practices sustain communities, but skills do not.
Skills are those micro-activities within a practice that assist the
practice with achieving internal goods.
Howard Gardner makes this explicit as well in his distinction
between intelligence, domains, and fields. An intelligence is "a
biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated
in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of
value in a culture" (Gardner 1999b, 33--34). A domain is "an
organized set of activities within a culture, one typically
characterized by a specific symbol system and its attendant operations..
.Any cultural activity in which individuals participate on more than a
casual basis, and in which degrees of expertise can be identified and
nurtured" (ibid., 82). Examples of domains include physics and
engineering. A field, therefore, is "the set of institutions and
judges that determine which products within a domain are of merit"
(ibid., 1993, 37).
Furthermore, MacIntyre distinguishes between "internal
goods" and "external goods." An internal good is a good
specified in terms of the practice in question and "can only be
identified and recognized by the experience of participating in the
practice in question" (MacIntyre 1984, 188189). In other words, an
internal good is the pursuit of excellence in a practice. Experts in a
specific field who have acquired the relevant experiences of the
practice of the field will weigh its worth. On the other hand, an
external good would be something of material or psychological value that
is gained as a result of one's contribution to the practice, such
as fame, wealth, and/or status.
In addition, when a person acquires these moral virtues, we say
that he is living a "meaningful life" or a "good
life" or a "happy life." Norton defines a meaningful life
as "a valuable life, and enhancement of the quality of life is
enhancement of its value. The value is objective ... it is valuable to
whoever meets the conditions for appreciation and utilization of value
of the particular kind in question. This includes the
values-actualizer--her life is intrinsically valuable to her--but
extends to such others as fulfill the conditions" (Norton 1991,
81).
Finally, learning, and more importantly, self-actualization, does
not happen in isolation and requires necessary and non-self-suppliable
conditions to optimize the opportunities for each person to engage in
self-discovery and self-development (Norton 1991). In a truly free
society which respects the human dignity of each and every person, the
best social vehicle for this is voluntary association (Reber 2010). This
means that people through their own volition assist one another with
acts of human compassion via their collective action, such as with
not-for-profit organizations and charities, acts which provide those
goods and utilities for self-discovery and self-development.
This belief in "voluntary association" [within] the American
experience has come to be defined as the capacity for individuals
to live their lives in accordance with the principles of
self-government. That is with the understanding that
self-government is grounded in the ideal of "justice" as it is
embodied in that course of human activity known to us, and
expressed so eloquently in our Declaration of Independence, as "The
Pursuit of Happiness;" meaning, that happiness is not just a
feeling, but both a feeling and a condition.
The Pursuit of Happiness holds that each person is unique and each
should discover whom he or she is--to actualize his or her true
potential and to live the "good life" within the congeniality and
complementarity of personal excellences of his or her fellow
members of community. Therefore, through the course of pursuing
one's happiness a person is obligated to live up to individual
expectations and the expectations of his or her community. And it
is within this framework that we subscribe to the notion of limited
government, where each and every member of the community pursues
his or her happiness without the restraint of government, but only
in the case where one's life, liberty, and property are under
threat. (ibid., 1--2)
The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective
Philosophical Underpinnings
Returning to our discussion of the "meaningful life" as
it relates to education and work, we are led to ask, "Why is the
'good of one's life' contingent upon the practices?"
MacIntyre answers this question in relation to the life of a portrait
artist. He states that "for what the artist discovers within the
pursuit of excellence in portrait painting--and what is true of portrait
painting is true of the practice of the fine arts in general--is the
good of a certain kind of life" (1984, 190). As we stated earlier,
a field is "the set of institutions and judges that determine which
products within a domain are of merit." This merit is what
MacIntyre refers to as a set of "standards of excellence and
obedience to rules as well as the achievement of goods" (ibid.). By
adhering to a set of standards within one's practice so he may
achieve the work that is his to achieve, the practitioner is
ubiquitously actualizing his inner potentials and sustaining justice.
Furthermore, Norton (1976) contends that work is not something to
satisfy a utilitarian economic agenda or something people hate to do
because they have to do it to make a living. Work as discussed here is
essential to the unity of life for two reasons. Firstly, "a person
is irredeemably and essentially a future to be made present, a
potentiality to be progressively actualized, and it is this task of
actualization that furnishes the term 'work' with its profound
meaning" (ibid., 311). In other words, work is what makes a person
whole. When an individual is doing the work that is his to do in life,
his past, present, and future are all one. Wherever in time we might
find this person in his life as he is doing his work, we should find him
living out his life as he sees it should be lived out. His past actions
build upon the work of his present actions and his present actions build
upon the work of his future actions. This is what is meant by "the
unity of a life"--Though an individual will never reach his
ultimate potential through the work that is his to do, it is the journey
to achieve that potential which defines an individual. The journey is
the purpose and meaning of one's life.
Secondly, because the practice to which one belongs makes one
obligated to the standards of the practice, these standards serve as
guides in achieving the work that one feels he must do.
For the goods internal to practices which cannot be achieved
without the exercise of the virtues are not the ends pursued by
particular individuals on particular occasions, but the excellences
specific to those types of practices which one achieves or fails to
achieve, moves toward or fails to move toward in virtue of the way
in which one pursues one's particular ends or goals on particular
occasions, excellences our conception of which changes over time as
our goals are transformed. (MacIntyre 1984, 274)
Simply put, "the ends don't justify the means!"
One's means must be compatible with one's ends. The goal of
pursuing excellence in portrait painting does not condone the portrait
artist to forego his virtues of justice, truth, and courage in order to
create a great painting. In addition, if the portrait artist only cares
about external goods--fame, prestige, and money--he loses sight of those
ideals that his profession embraces. At the same time, his virtues fall
to the wayside and this may ultimately erode the profession from within
if neophytes follow his lead, thus contributing to a vicious cycle of
"standards erosion" and knocking everyone's moral compass
off course.
At the same time one is doing the work that is his to do, the
practitioner is also maintaining an Aristotelian form of justice that
MacIntyre refers to as the recognition of desert, an understanding of
"what is due to whom" (1984, 191). Furthermore, in order to be
entitled to those things that one deserves, he must "have
contributed in some substantial way to the achievement of those goods,
the sharing of which and the common pursuit of which provide foundations
for human community" (ibid., 202). Norton expands upon this
discussion and describes justice as follows:
Justice is the paramount virtue of society, as integrity is the
cardinal virtue of personal life. Justice, in the first instance,
subsists in principles for the allocation of goods and
responsibilities within a social grouping. Concerning the source of
these principles, normative individualism [self-actualization]
contends that they subsist implicitly within every person, rising
to explicitness as the person attains integral individuation.
(1976, 310)
The individual who possesses self-knowledge and lives by it
manifests justice, first by not laying claim to goods that he or
she cannot utilize, and second by actively willing such goods into
the hands of those who can utilize them toward self-actualization.
What is expressed in both cases is not "selflessness," but the
proportionality of a self-responsible self that is situated in
relations of interdependence with other selves that are, or ought
to be, self-responsible. An individual who possesses self-knowledge
and lives by its direction recognizes goods to which he or she is
not entitled as distractions from his or her proper course of
life ... And to will to others their true utilities is at the same
time the concrete expression of respect for them as ends in
themselves and recognition that we stand to gain from the worthy
living of others. (1991, 121--122)
In other words, the work that one chooses to do invariably commands
him to "accept as necessary components of any practice with
internal goods and standards of excellence the virtues of justice,
courage and honesty" (MacIntyre 1984, 191). As the practitioner
defines his relationships with those in his practice and those of other
practices, he comes to understand that he is only "entitled to
those commensurate goods whose potential worth he can maximally
actualize in accordance with his destiny, his 'meaningful
work'" (Norton 1976, 311). This kind of entitlement is what
Norton refers to as an upper limit entitlement. It is only concerned
with self-actualization. Lower limit entitlements are those needs that
Abraham Maslow (1987) discusses in his hierarchy of needs:
physiological, safety, belongingness and love, and esteem needs.
A Systems Thinking Approach to Human Resources
Because education is the drawing out of one's true potential
and work is that activity which assists an individual in actualizing his
true potential worth, it becomes necessary to provide an occupational
environment which allows both to occur; hence, requiring an alternative
approach toward the development of human resource systems within
organizations, i.e., a systems thinking approach toward developing,
implementing, and managing transformational human resource systems. A
transformational system means a design which allows 1) anamorphosis to
occur and 2) individuals to actualize their fullest potentials in order
to actualize the missions of their organizations. Therefore, a systems
thinking approach for the design, implementation, and management of a
human resource system requires the twin applications of systems design
architecture and a human resources strategic outcomes framework (HRSOF).
Systems Design Architecture
Systems design architecture becomes relevant in designing
transformational human resource systems as social systems, that is a
"meaningful system that is intentionally and collectively designed
by a community of self-actualizing individuals for the guidance of human
evolutionary development and the direction of positive social
development" (Reber 2003, 83). Furthermore, a community, in
respects to this definition of a social system, is "rooted in the
individual and is formed, led and enriched by distinct responsible
persons. Rather than a collectivity of people, it is a mutual sharing of
their particular endowments" (Nicgorski 1986, 326). Therefore, a
working definition of soaal systems design can be extrapolated to mean
"a community of self-actualizing individuals, that is, a group
ofpeople who mutually share their values, interests, ideals, and
knowledge that is germane to the system to be created, and who, through
participatory democratic actions, creatively design meaningful systems
that are shared with the greater community toward the guidance of human
evolutionary development and the direction of positive social
development" (Reber 2003, 84). In other words, a transformational
human resource system is a system that interacts with the greater
environment in order to consider a "holistic worldview"
(Davidson 1983, 28-29). Figure 1 illustrates the different human
resource levels as they relate to each other within a transformational
system.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Banathy Method of Systems Design Architecture
Banathy's method of systems design architecture applies a
systemic approach and focuses on discovering solutions. A rigid
structure of design as analysis--synthesis--evaluation is unrealistic
because social systems are too complex to be neatly "boxed."
The truth of the matter is that analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are
ubiquitous activities in complex systems and require the designer to
choose approaches that create a model that meets the design criteria
(Banathy 1996, 56). Hence, designers early in the design process develop
a core set of ideas that tell what the systems should be, which Banathy
refers to as the First Image of the System. Figure 2 illustrates the
synergistic relationship between analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in
developing the first image of a system (Reber 2003, 100).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
In creating the first image of a system, the current system must be
transcended. This is done by the designers expressing the vision, ideas,
and aspirations of the desired future. It is stated as, "We should
live in a world that." For example, a vision of society for a
transformational human resources system could be as follows:
A society in which every individual discovers his innate potential
(true self) and lives a life that is commensurate with his self and
others in order to, through participatory democratic actions, create a
culture that develops and sustains the political, cultural, economic,
and environmental spheres of society. (Reber 2003, 120)
Furthermore, the realties which influence the desired system must
be identified. For a transformational human resources system within a
business organization these could include sociocultural, economic,
socio-technological, technological, scientific, and organizational
realities. These are coupled with several implications, such as a more
employee-directed strategic outcomes design and a more globally
integrated economy. These new realities and implications then give rise
to the vision of a future human resources system, such as: An open and
transformational global human resources system that exists to: a) assist
employees with actualizing their potential worth which in turn assists
the company with creating valuable products for customers and providing
a rewarding return to shareholders, b) pay remuneration to employees
which is commensurate with each person's value, company status, and
geographical location, c) create and sustain the next generation of
leaders within the company, and d) assist employees with retirement
planning.
Once the visions and new realities are stated, the next step is to
choose the type of system to be employed. In order to navigate to this,
Banathy suggests creating an option Field, that is, a framework that
establishes design inquiry boundaries and creates design options of a
desired future system (1996, 63). Ludwig von Bertalanffy in criticizing
the U.S. intervention in Vietnam stated that the entire enterprise was
"doomed.. .because our government's systems analysts had
failed to use one of the most important concepts of the general systems
approach: boundary definition' (Davidson 1983, 33). Davidson states
that "the purpose of boundary definition is to achieve a focus that
is wide enough to include all factors that are relevant" (ibid.).
The Option Field that Banathy purports includes four dimensions: focus
of inquiry, scope, relationships with other systems, and types of
systems. Within each dimension a multitude of possible options exists
that work from a closed system to an open system (Banathy 1996, 63).
Figure 3 illustrates an option field for a possible transformational
human resource system.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The option field illustrates four kinds of human resource systems:
Option A Authoritarian, Option B Democratic, Option C Holistic, and
Option D Transformational. An authoritarian system is one in which power
is centralized at the top of the organization and reward systems such as
strategic pay are used to control employee behavior to meet centralized
organizational strategic outcomes. The scope is on employee performance
using one-way communication from top management to bottom-line
employees. Middle management provides feedback to top management on
success of centralized behavioral reward systems to meet strategic
outcomes.
A democratic system is one in which employees within their
individual organizational units have horizontal input into the rewards
systems for meeting centralized organizational outcomes.
Management's scope is on satisfying employees desire to design
their own behavioral models for meeting outcomes. Instead of top-down
communication, cooperation exists between employees and management to
influence behavior. Management tells employees, "We do not care
what methods you choose to meet the strategic outcomes we have given
you, just as long as you meet them."
A holistic system is grounded in viewing the organization
holistically. Employees are empowered with vertical-horizontal input
which means they have the authority to work across organizational units
in developing rewards systems for meeting centralized organizational
strategic outcomes. This requires units to coordinate their efforts in
developing equitable rewards systems.
A transformational system is one in which the scope of inquiry is
on organizational actualization via the process of employee
self-actualization, as was prefaced earlier in the paper. This requires
a paradigm shift in the organization's concept of work. First and
foremost the organizational culture recognizes that individuals are
whole persons who are in a process of actualizing their fullest
potential worth as human beings and that work is a vehicle by which this
actualization occurs in mature individuals. As employees of the
organization, each person made a conscious decision to join the
organization because he subscribes to the values of the organization and
believes in the worthy products it produces for society. Therefore,
people do not work solely for financial gain. If this were the case, the
proper term here would be 'labor" and not work. Under the
notion of work proposed here, money, rewards, or remuneration is only
one aspect of the benefits derived from producing something meaningful.
People work because they wish to produce something valuable for society
as well as intrinsically rewarding for themselves, and money, bonuses,
or remuneration is intrinsic value incarnate. Therefore, human resource
systems must be designed in a manner that recognize a eudaimonistic
notion of work, and in doing so recognize that human resource systems
must be integrated with outside systems in order to be truly
transformational. For example, under a transformational human resource
management training program a company's human resources unit would
have systems in place for training, development, and succession of
management. Outside systems, such as the University of Cambridge Judge
School of Business Centre for International Human Resource Management
would be integrated into the company's training, development, and
succession program. Research or new insights from the Centre would play
a critical role in determining the form and function of the
company's training system.
After an option field is created, the next step in the Banathy
Method is to create change dimensions. These dimensions basically show
the kinds of models available to the designers, as illustrated in Figure
4. For a transformational human resource system, the context would be a
novel context with a trigger of a new system and the focus of change
being novelty.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
After selecting the kind of system to create, the next step in the
Banathy Method is to develop values and core ideas upon which the system
will be founded. For a transformational human resource system, the
principles of self-actualization, symbolic interactionist social
psychology, self-government, employee-centered and employee-directed
training, and systemic design may serve as core ideas. Furthermore, the
following values could be adopted: We believe that ...
1. Every individual is unique from birth and actualizes his
potential worth until death.
2. Work is the activity mature individuals perform to actualize
their potential worth.
3. An organization is the collective actualizing power of
self-actualizing individuals who share a common vision, belief system,
and values for creating worthy products for society.
4. The world is a symbolic one and people continually
interact--probe and test--with the environment within which they live in
order to adjust harmoniously to its changes.
5. The design of organizational systems best occurs through
participatory democratic measures.
6. Human resource systems exist to coordinate the actualization of
personal excellences of employees within an organization.
Based upon these ideas and values, an image of a future human
resource system can be created, such as, Human resources should ...
* Assist individual employees with actualizing their potential
worth by identifying their greatest skills and interests and matching
those skills and interests with meaningful work in the organization
which will in turn create valuable products for consumers and rewarding
value for shareholders.
* Assist individual employees with directing their own training and
development in order to actualize their greatest potential within the
organization.
* Create remuneration systems for employees commensurate with each
person's value, organizational status, and geographical location.
* Identify, develop, and sustain the next generation of leaders
within the organization.
* Assist employees with retirement planning and utilize retirees in
training and development programs.
The new ideas, values, and image which are developed are now part
of the new knowledge, context, content, and methods of a human resource
system. Using Banthy's Systems Design Architecture, one is able to
design a transformational human resource system. The Banathy Systems
Design Architectural approach is illustrated in Figure 5.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Figure 5 illustrates the iterative cycles of design. Space 1, the
"Exploration/Image Creation Space" that was just discussed. As
can be seen in Space 4, the designers evaluate what is created in Space
1. Then, when it meets their criteria it becomes part of Space 2. Now,
since the Image meets the criteria, which are a) vision of society, b)
vision of future human resources system, c) core values, and d)
fundamental principles, the designers go to Space 3 which is the
"Design Solution Space" for designing a new system through a
model of four spirals as shown in Figure 6: 1) core definition of
system, 2) specifications of system, 3) system of functions of system,
and 4) enabling systems of system (Banathy 1991, 178). Furthermore, as
illustrated in Figure 5, what is done in Space 3 is evaluated in Space 4
through a feedback and feedforward loop. After all the work in Space 3
is complete, evaluated in Space 4, and becomes new knowledge in Space 2,
it is then modeled in Space 5 through three different lenses, as shown
in Figure 7: Systems-Environment Model or Bird's Eye View,
Functions/Structure Model or Snap Shot View, and Process/Behavioral
Model or Motion Picture View (ibid., 79-80).
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Human Resources Strategic Outcomes Framework (HRSOF)
Once an actual human resource system is designed, a strategic
outcomes framework is necessary to implement it. Under the principle of
anamorphosis, social organizations which operate on a global scale grow
in such complexity that overall centralization of human resource
management becomes detrimental to the mission of the organization. As
Jonathan Trevor at the University of Cambridge's Center for
International Human Resource Management states in a 2009 lecture,
Exploring the Strategic Potential of Pay, "the greater degree of
centralization [of human resource systems], seemingly the greater the
number or instances of unintended consequences ... and [such systems]
have the poorest track record." Hence, what is required in a
transformational human resource system is an overall framework within
which local or particular human resource nodes can operate in order to
accommodate the needs of individual employees at the point of work, i.e.
a Human Resources Strategic Outcomes Framework (HRSOF) that identifies
with the visions, core values, and mission and purposes statements of
the organization as well as the overarching goals and objectives of the
human resource system, but also allows for flexibility so local human
resource personnel are able to meet local human resource goals and
objectives using local strategic outcomes and applications. Figure 8
illustrates the iterative cycle by which an HRSOF operates.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
In Figure 8 the visions, core values & ideas, image of a human
resource system, and the mission and purposes statements positively
influence the goals, objectives, desired strategic outcomes, and
strategic actions and is indicated with a black arrow (S[right arrow])
symbol. The "S" means a same directional move. Furthermore, if
the strategic actions yield actual outcomes which meet the desired
strategic outcomes, then no revisions will be necessary. However, if the
opposite is true, then an increase in revisions will be required to
close the gap between "actual" and "desired"
outcomes. This is indicated with a green arrow (o[right arrow]). The
"O" means an opposite directional move. This should then have
a positive impact upon revising the goals, objectives, desired strategic
outcomes, and/or strategic actions. This is indicated with a black
dotted arrow (S[right arrow]) symbol. The dotted line represents unseen
positive effects which will only be known after evaluating the next
round of actual outcomes.
In Figure 9 a snapshot or compressed view of an HRSOF is portrayed.
It employs organizational overarching goals and objectives that guide
the local human resource unit in defining its own goals and objectives.
In theory, the overarching goals and objectives would be developed
through a participatory democratic process which integrates the human
resource system information exchange mechanism with other systems. Goal
1 could be stated as, "To create a human resource system that will
assist individual employees with actualizing their potential worth by
identifying their greatest skills and interests and matching those
skills and interests with meaningful work in the organization which will
in turn create valuable products for consumers and rewarding value for
shareholders." This goal could be met with an objective, which we
can call Objective 1, stated as, "Ninety percent of employees in
the company will have their greatest skills and interests identified by
March 2012, and then be matched with meaningful work in the organization
by May 2012."
These overarching goals and objectives as well as the local human
resource goals and objectives would then be met by developing localized
desired strategic outcomes. In other words, a "cookie-cutter"
solution in meeting desired strategic outcomes would not be effective in
a global transformational human resource system. What may be good for
Tokyo may not be good for New York or Paris. For example, Strategic
Outcome 1 for objective 1 could be stated as, "The Tokyo human
resource office will have identified for eighty percent of its employees
their greatest skills and interests by March 2012. This matching will
occur using the Tokyo-based matching questionnaire and interview process
and be completed for its employees by May 2012."
Despite the fact that localized strategic outcomes are applied, it
does not mean agreed upon outcomes assessment are disregarded. Localized
solutions will need to be assessed using universally agreed upon
organizational assessment tools, which means that the human resources
community has developed, tested, evaluated, and re-tested assessment
tools in order to provide a "best practices" approach for
assessing strategic outcomes in a human resources environment. In this
way the feedback loop can be closed with much assurance in order to
assist the organization with understanding the overall picture of the
organizational human resource system. For example, a company-based
strategic outcomes achievement card could be used to determine how each
of the local human resource offices did in achieving Goal 1 and
Objective 1. Those offices falling below the company mean could then
re-assess their local matching questionnaire and interview process, make
changes to the process, implement the changes, and then reassess again
to see if the company mean has been met.
Conclusion
It is clear from this synopsis that the Taylorian scientific
management approach can no longer be considered a legitimate paradigm
for managing people and organizations. As stated at the outset, humanity
is moving from evolutionary consciousness toward conscious evolution due
in part to our recognition and greater understanding of the systems
thinking principle of anamorphosis. Furthermore, a eudaimonistic
philosophy has taken hold worldwide and people are no longer considered
"human capital" to be disposed of at will. Instead, people are
recognized as inherent potential worth actualized via the processes of
educere and life-fulfilling--life-defining work. Hence, with a new
systems thinking worldview upon us, it is imperative for organizations
to design human resource systems using systems thinking design
architecture and a human resources strategic outcomes framework. only
then will both people and organizations actualize their fullest
potentials and create value for the world.
References
Banathy, Bela H. 1991. Systems Design of Education: A Journey to
Create the Future. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications.
---. 1992. A Systems View of Education: Concepts and Principles for
Effective Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications.
---. 1996. Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. New York,
New York: Plenum Press.
--. 2000. Guided Evolution of Society: A Systems View. New York,
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations,
Development, Applications. New York, New York: George Braziller.
Capra, Fritjof. 1982. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the
Rising Culture. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster.
--. 1997. The Web of Lfe: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter.
London: HarperCollins.
--. 1999. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels
Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (25th Anniversary Edition).
Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala Publications.
--. 2004. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living.
New York, New York: Anchor Books.
Davidson, Mark. 1983. Uncommon Sense: The Life and Thought of
Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), Father of General Systems Theory.
Los Angeles, California: J.P. Tarcher.
Dewey, John. 1997. Experience And Education. New York, New York:
Touchstone.
--. 2011. Democracy And Education. New York, New York: Simon &
Brown.
Gardner, Howard. 1993. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. New York, New York: Basic Books.
--. 1999a. The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should
Understand. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.
--. 1999b. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the
21st Century. New York, New York: Basic Books.
--. 2006. Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. New York, New York:
Basic Books.
Laszlo, Ervin. 1972. The Systems View of the World: The Natural
Philosophy of the New Developments in the Sciences. New York, New York:
George Braziller.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.
Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo. 2002. A Geography of Human Lfe. Edited by
Dayle Bethel and Translated by Katsusuke Hori, et al. San Francisco,
California: Caddo Gap Press.
Maslow, Abraham. 1987. Motivation and Personality. New York, New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Miller, Ron. 1990. What Are Schools For: Holistic Education in
American Culture. Brandon, Vermont: Holistic Education Press.
--. 2000. Creating Learning Communities. Brandon, Vermont: The
Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Nicgorski, Walter. 1986. "Moral Character." In Act and
Agent: Philosophical Foundations for Moral Education and Character
Development. Edited by
David Schindler, Jesse A. Mann, and Frederick E. Ellrod. Volume 1
of Foundations of Moral Education and Character Development. Washington,
D.C.: University Press of America.
Norton, David L. 1976. Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical
Individualism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
--. 1991. Democracy and Moral Development. Berkeley, California:
University of California Press.
Reber, Michael. 2003. An Alternative Framework for Community
Learning Centers in the 21st Century: A Systemic Design Approach Toward
the Creation of a Transformational Learning System. Boca Raton, Florida:
Dissertation.Com.
--. 2009. "Educational Pedagogy & Technology for Designing
Social Systems in a Changing World." Lecture to the Faculty and
Students of Professor Syohei Ishizu's Lab, Department of Industrial
& Systems Engineering, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan,
November 24.
--. 2010. "What It Means To Be An American." Bastiat
Revival Blog, November.
http://bastiat2010revival.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/reber_whatit-means-to-be-an-american_articlesubmission3.pdf.
Savall, Henri. 2010. Work and People: An Economic Evaluation of Job
Enrichment. Translated by M.A. Woodhall. Charlotte, North Carolina:
Information Age Publishing.
Tanner, Daniel. 1991. Crusade for Democracy: Progressive Education
at the Crossroads. SUNY series in Philosophy of Education. Albany, New
York: State University of New York Press.
Trevor, Jonathan. 2009. "Exploring the Strategic Potential of
Pay: Are We Expecting Too Much." Judge School of Business Lunchtime
Lecture Series. Lecture presented at the University of Cambridge Judge
School of Business, March.
http://breeze.cranfieldonline.com:8080/p16834903/?launcher=false
&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal.
* Michael F. Reber (bastiatrevival@gmail.com)is coordinator of the
Frederic Bastiat Revival Blog, an adjunct faculty member in the
Department of Value and Decision science of the Graduate school of
Decision science and Technology at Tokyo institute of Technology, and a
freelance systems thinking consultant in free market economics and
trade, government relations, crisis communications, and human resources.
Citation Information for this Article:
Michael F. Reber. 2012. "The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic
Perspective." Libertarian Papers. 4 (1): 1-26. Online at:
libertarianpapers.org. This article is subject to a Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License (creativecommons.org/licenses).
Figure 9 provides a snapshot of what this framework may
look like.
HR Strategic Outcomes Framework
Goal Objective Time
1 1 March
2012
May
2012
March
2012
Time Strategic Outcome
March 1. The Tokyo human resource
2012 office will have identified for
eighty percent of its
employees their greatest
skills and interests.
May Application: Matching will be
2012 completed using the Tokyo-based matching
questionnaire and interview
process.
March 2. The Singapore human
2012 resource office will have identified for
eighty percent of its
employees their
Time
On-going Assessment
March Criteria:
2012 1. Local resource matching questionnaires and
interviews
2. Company-based
May strategic outcomes achievement card
2012 Feedback:
1. For mal Local
Results
2. Formal company-
March wide comparison of
2012 outcomes
