Replying to LO27687 --
>From: <ACampnona@aol.com>
> I have a few questions. I have a few statements.
>
> Where does the 'buck stop' in modern organizational life?
>
> Who is accountable as a 'leader' -whether as CEO or supervisor?
>
> Is the net result of 'corporate' corruption reversible?
I was in Brussels talking about a similar topic yesterday talking to the
Task Force leader on intangibles.
It turns out that up to 85% of value produced and destroyed by large
companies today is not within the remit of accountants, who measure the
other 15% tangible/tranacrtional part with such dominating precision that
it is all that some organisations get driven by. Even more strangely this
seems to suit certain types of managers:
Here's an extract from my diary notes that I post elsewhere: "There are at
least 2 types of corporate executives who find that accountants'
measurement blindness to what determines 85% of Value
Productivity/Destruction suits them:
the semi-incompetent: if you published the intangible maps of their
business, many of their investment decisions would look blind,
random...embarassing!
those who are making a killing because they obey all the insider and
disclosure rules because the intangibles information which really matters
on whether this company is investing in something valuable isnt being
asked for ( understood in the dynamically unique corporate context). So
they can do mother of all inside dealing without any danger of the law
ever calling it that.
This must be the greatest scandal impacting every human being's value
productivity the world has ever faced without anyone 'knowing'."
If there's anyone in these learning organisation or economics groups or
elsewhere who feels that we should develop a sub-chapter to discuss this
all -and decide who we can lobby - I think the subject's big enough to
demand that we do this now. The net should be a very good medium for an
activist refromation of this sort
Below I reproduce para 115/6 of the EU report which you can link to via
the bookmark at the bottom and which mirror reports recently issued from
Brookings in Washington DC seem to have mirrored:
115. In our expert soundings, the growing disconnect between our
established economic concepts and business models and today's
rapidly-changing economic reality was readily and universally
acknowledged. At a personal level, interest is invariably high, but the
professional appetite and commitment of policy makers to embrace change
were found to be disappointingly low. In this respect, the responses most
often encountered were: a) Apathy, lack of interest. b) Active resistance
to change. c) White papers and communications that embrace the rhetoric,
but fail to address what is really needed to implement change.
116. If the recommendations set out in this report are not to be
implemented, we would strongly prefer it to be as a result of the second
response. In other words, we would prefer a conscious decision to remain
locked in to a 19 th century institutional mindset, not least because this
would constitute a conscious decision to opt out of the global
competitiveness race. We would be disappointed with response a),
especially if it reflected a lack of clear communication on our part and
thus an inability to wake readers from their apathy. But what we fear most
is response (c) - adoption of the rhetoric, but no real action. This is
the easy option (hence our fear it might prevail), but it is dangerous
because it gives the illusion of action without addressing the substance
of the problem.
chris macrae, wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
Intangibles Crisis Union
New Zealand, Australia, India, Netherlands, UK, USA
http://www.egroups.com/group/brandreform/files/eu.htm
--"chris macrae" <wcbn007@easynet.co.uk>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.