The Lost Ethics of Everest
Our local paper had a sad article today on the dealth of David Sharp. David, a british mountaineer, was the latest to lose his life treking to the top of Everest. While it is always sad to lose a life, what makes this story more impactful is that some 40 climbers walked by David while he sat in a small snow cave gasping for oxygen. There was a time when climbers would stop, end their quest for the top of the mountain and strive to save a life. The article does point out that many have saved their entire life for the chance to climb Everest and to stop would have meant giving of the dream of their life. There are also cases where individuals may have endangered their own lives by stopping, but one signficant question arises.. "Wouldn't one have been more nobel to have given up one's own quest to save another person's life? Wouldn't one have achieved far greater an accomplishment? And what are the implications for organizations and corporations? One aspect to this story is a description of a battle that occurs between a culture of competition and a culture of organizational unity? Does a culture focused on personal goals ultimately hurt organizational effectiveness. Is getting to the top more important than how you get there. Interesting that this article ran on the same day as another one about Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. What's your take on this?
Posted at 05:26PM May 27, 2006 by mowen in General | Comments[5]
Interesting questions. How much do we really focus on organizational goals in higher education? Seems like we mostly focus on aggregating individual accomplishments. I'm not so sure we've gotten that "team" thing down.
Posted by Kevin on May 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM EDT #
I agree! And think Higher Ed is not alone. It seems like most of the organizations I know all seek to aggregrate individual accomplishments. If your in a sales force.. you have your goals.. and then they are aggregrated with others for team goals. It is the American way.. you take care of your stuff.. and I will take care of mine. But sadly.. I am worried it is getting worst. Is the trend flowing away from Team toward individualism? Ten years ago, we had Jordan.. now we have Kobe. Have we moved closer to an ethos of "It is all about me!" and what do leaders need to do to shift the ethics back?
Posted by Mitch on May 27, 2006 at 02:11 PM EDT #
Mmmh, I am hopeful!!! Maybe with the age pyramid shifting, we will see more eldership and genuine altruism, and create new models in that area. This Blog helps. Remember, we just have been around some 140'000 years, really nothing compared to geological times. We are all learning.
Posted by Max on May 29, 2006 at 11:55 AM EDT #
The difference that you speak of--between organizational unity and competition--is certainly one of the key issues we must resolve as a race. Is it competition or cooperation that lifts us higher? Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Competition spurs the urge for things that are greater than your neighbor's; cooperation gives people the motivation to work together for the good of all. Part of human nature is competitive, but I believe that cooperation could produce greater things if we let it--i.e., if we commit ourselves completely to it instead of allowing ourselves to fall into its pitfalls.
With respect to Max, I don't think that age neccessarily brings about greater altruism. Perhaps individuals become less competitive and more apt to work together, but I think the best hope to encourage cooperation is to divert the energy put into ceaseless competition into powerful self-improvement, starting from an early age.
Posted by Eschaton on June 12, 2006 at 04:18 PM EDT #
Nice post. I agree that competition vs cooperation is the great question. I actually think it is a balancing act. I am not convinced that you can focus only on cooperation. Competition is good when it is done in balance.
Posted by MItch on June 12, 2006 at 07:04 PM EDT #