|
By Misha Bower
All screening companies are answerable to the principle question, “Who screens the screener?” The very definition of its purpose requires a screening company to remain rigorously self-examining, with an inherent or built in self-screening capability. The question, “Who screens the screener?” actually raises an interesting and more far-reaching discussion about what the ultimate purpose of screening ought to be for any corporation, that presumes to live a long and healthy life amidst economic uncertainty and market volatility.
Theoretically, screening is a tool with an intended purpose. But like any tool, its practical potential is driven by the design of the user. A hammer, for example, can be used to build a house or break into a house; however, we do not pay the hammer for its work or send the hammer to jail for breaking and entering, which is to say, that it is the intent and purpose of the user that ultimately dictates the use of a particular tool. Screening then, like any tool, will carry its own double-edged association depending on how it is used: conscientiously or irresponsibly; ethically or invasively; for preservation or for power.
How we associate the practice of screening depends on how we perceive the nature of the screener – the nature or identity of the given organization, company, or corporation. In his book, A Living Company: Habits for Survival in a Turbulent Business Environment, Arie de Geus asks us to imagine a company as a living thing – a single evolving entity comprised of a cohesive human community (Senge viii). In his forward, Peter M. Senge asks the reader to position de Geus’ assumption alongside the “alternate view,” which is to “see a company as a machine for making money.” Let’s take a moment to imagine the implications of screening in either case: firstly, as a feature of a mechanized system, whose singular focus is the “economic activity of producing goods and services” (de Geus 3); and then, as a feature of a living system “whose true nature is that it is a community of humans.”
A machine has no autonomy – no self-determination. A machine is created and controlled externally and can only experience change as it is willed by its operators (Senge ix). The mechanized workforce is an extension of the machine, and in this sense, workers are encouraged to be receptive rather than creative; to obey rather than learn. Screening in this context, wherein the end product is positioned as the foremost priority, has the simple and short term focus of adequately filling vacancies.
A living system on the other hand, evolves from an essential starting point into a synthesis of unique, yet inexorably linked cells, structures and dynamic systems; each, like a drop of blood that contains the entire body. A living company is made up of employees who feel connected to a sense of community – who feel that they are part of a single entity (de Geus 6). Screening in this context, wherein each employee has a sense that he or she brings meaning to the place when they walk through the door, connects the health of the individual to the health of the organization. Screening as a feature of a living system promotes the creation of a self-screening company: a conscious, self-reflexive entity comprised of a working community that holds itself accountable on all levels.
When we combine the discussion of screening with the proposition that a company is a living thing, we get into territory that goes beyond the biological metaphor. A company’s processing systems have many cognitive features in common with the human nervous system, but consciousness is to the living entity as the mind is to the brain. The mind acts as the elusive compass that directs stimulus and impulse to a place of meaning. Consciousness, similarly, acts as the sense of awareness that compels living things to participate in their own evolution – to grow within themselves, a distinguishable identity.
The self-screening concept posits the company as a living and conscious entity. In this, the technological era of globalization, we see a prevalent systems-orientation among companies; yet, if our current economic crisis has taught us anything, it is that accountability to a system is not the same thing as a system of accountability. We have learned that systems are living structures capable of developing and following their own inner logic, yet incapable of consciously weighing the implications of their unchecked momentum. In recent months, we have experienced the dramatic spiraling of such a momentum on a global scale. In response, we are seeing a process of economic reevaluation and reform that expressly intends to hold individuals and companies, (rather than anonymous systems), accountable for their conduct. In response, we are seeing economic regulation unfold alongside ethical reflection. And finally, as the relationship between the big picture and the small picture presents itself irrefutably, we are seeing our total economic health diagnosed and treated in the context of our individual economic health. Company systems, like societal systems, must be regularly checked in relation to the essential premises of self-screening; which suggest that:
- When systems unravel, consciousness must attend the crisis
- When habit distorts the reality of change, self-reflection must restore transparency
- When theory and practice wander out of alignment, the connection between generalized entities and the individuals that comprise them must be re-affirmed
The self-screening company then, is a conscious company with a sense of accountability beyond its own internal systems – a sense of accountability for the broad bottom line, inclusive of economic, environmental, and ethical considerations. The self-screening company does not utilize screening as a one-off, pass/fail type provision, nor as a secretive process administered by one person with unlimited discretion. Screening companies in the short-term, help employers navigate the risks associated with the hiring process. In the long-term, screening companies help working communities learn how to continually examine their purpose and their process. In a day and age where opportunity and vulnerability go hand-in-hand, screening remains a necessity here to stay. At a turning point where economic prosperity depends on ethical responsibility, self-screening is an abstract consideration on its way, perhaps, to becoming a best practice.
Works Cited
de Geus, Arie. The Living Company: Habits for Survival in a Turbulent Business
Environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2002.
Senge, Peter M. Forward. The Living Company: Habits for Survival in a Turbulent
Business Environment. By Arie de Geus. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2002.