Disclaimers, Definitions, Asides, and Cul de Sacs
My Standard Disclaimers
I have no inside information. I have only information that is publicly available (e.g., what you can find an Internet search).
I am not sure what actually is “true”. What I have here is my interpretation of the situation, drawn from facts and opinions often from articles in the mainstream press and public blogs. I don’t presume to know exactly what is going on, who exactly has participated and when, and what the specifics and intricacies are for each argument. But, I’m offering here enough of the gist of the situation to illustrate the authenticity issues it raises.
I’m making several ‘informed interpretations’ of the information I have gathered, using what I know as an organizational scholar to draw out some observations of this situation. There is a chance that my conclusions are a bit off, and if you have questions let me know.
On occasion, when I don’t know of a word to capture the thought I want to share, I go ahead and make words up. Here are the definitions for my own neologisms:
This acronym stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered, Queer, and X (additional)” — including all categorizations related to sexual orientation and gendered self-presentation.
It’s difficult to be truly inclusive… the terms that some groups prefer conflict with preferences of other groups, and some terms are unknown to people outside the gender-analytic community. (See, for example, the term “cisgendered“). This is my effort to flag that I intentionally include any categorization that someone uses for his/her/their self-definition.
A Win-Win-Win is better than the classic win-win, where two sides in a conflict work together to resolve the issue in a way that benefits both parties. A Win-Win-Win strategy is one that benefits not only the two parties that are disagreeing, but also benefits the community that surrounds these two participants.
Asides / Unsubstantiated Assertions
1. The questionable relationship between a “for- profit ” organizational identity and ˜for-purpose” actions (aka: non-profit, socially responsible, charitable, philanthropic, etc.) is one of the most pervasive and endemic genres of organizational inauthenticity .
The design of the modern corporation invites this type of authenticity dilemma. It would take me an entire additional blog to consider why this is so, but very briefly, we can chalk it up to the inherent contradictions between capitalism and human nature.
For-profit organizations get into authenticity dilemmas when good people, thoughtful, complex, authentic people —who are working hard to make their organization successful, realize that profit and financial goals are not enough to sustain their collective sense of meaning and purpose. They put pressure on the organization to do something more than make money, so that together they can be something larger and more meaningful.
Business organizations are not designed to create meaning; they are designed to create profits. To the degree that people desire and find meaning in their organizations and in the work of their organizations, this occurs in spite of and not because of the design of the for-profit organization. Asking a for-profit business to provide collective meaning is asking the business to go beyond what it was intended for.
Cul de Sacs
I am considering adding a new, stealth feature to the blog. It would be a per-post count of the number of puns contained therein — kind of like the way that Al Hirshfeld indicated the number of Ninas in his cartoons.
I have the sense that only a few readers are catching all the puns. Oddly, although I know that puns are purportedly the lowest form of humour, I do find them entertaining. Shouldn’t I make the puns just a little bit easier to find?
You tell me.