APRIL 23, 2015
GOOD AND BAD
One of our first understandings must surely be the distinction between good and bad. Wouldn’t you agree? Is it not universally true that we want our actions to be labelled as “good” and never as “bad”. We want to be known as the “good” women and the “good” men - not as the “bad” men and the “bad” women. And when young we most assuredly want to be called “good” kids and not “bad” kids. “Bad” kids are others from some place else, from some other family, from some other neighborhood, from some other country, but . . . but definitely not from here where we live.
From the earliest age we are generally and continually berated or cajoled into believing that propriety is the absolutely essential quality to have attributed to our behavior. The proper standards must be maintained by any individual or any group if such individuals or groups want to entertain any hope of having their actions viewed as superior or excellent. The effort made in this “conditioning” of the “young” by the “old” is often relentless in its execution. One’s “accomplishments” are not only measured against “standards”; one’s “accomplishments” are also regularly compared to the “accomplishments” of others. Be “good”. Be best. Be a winner.
If one falls short that person is “bad,” is incapable, is deficient, is a loser.
From early adulthood until the day of retirement one is admonished to become and to stay a member of a winning team. The urge to win, to compete, to be on top is meshed into every web of communication that is intended to persuade everyone to follow a particular path, to take a particular action, or to buy a particular product or service.
Be a team player on a winning team. This message is transmitted to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear in countless ways in each and every day of the calendar year. The intention is to install in each and every able person one primary trait:
Competition.
Competition to achieve the highest level of competence in one’s choice of skill sets is a worthwhile endeavor.
If we are desperately ill, we want the abilities of a highly skilled doctor. When riding in a plane with failed engines, we want a highly skilled pilot to glide the plane to a safe landing in an open field or along the Hudson River.
That is the “good” side of competition: the never ending attempt to measure oneself against the highest possible standards of skill and performance in one’s chosen profession. Within a team encouraging and helping one another to attain the highest level of competence possible is a virtue worthy of praise and admiration.
However, there exists a “bad” side of competition: the effort to denigrate the skills and performance of others in the vain but sometimes successful attempt to highlight one’s own performance by comparison to the alleged failure of someone else’s.
The focus remains steadfastly upon the individual, upon his or her alleged “success” or “failure” in the performance of any particular task or performance of any particular role as a member some particular team.
Yet who determines the tasks and the goals of any particular team? The members of that team? The team leader? In most large organizations the source of direction and command is likely elsewhere: The high level executives and their Board of Directors are the ones who set the directions and issue the commands.
And when things go badly or fail, who is held responsible? Why the responsible parties are the individuals who were assigned to do the work. They did a “bad” job and should be appropriately chastised and perhaps dismissed for their failure to do a “good” job. And who do those team members have to blame? No one but themselves, of course. If they had prepared themselves properly and done a “good” job, then everything would have worked out all right. In this and in similar situations "the blame" is frequently assigned to the individuals who perform at the lowest functional level. It is rare to see the highest level executives either resign or suffer personal economic consequences as a result of poor or of failing organizational performance.
There may be more to this “good and bad” business than appears at first glance . . .
Perhaps, we each should give this topic a little more consideration before rushing to assign blame to those at the bottom the corporate hierarchical order.
