I am sorry that I missed the earlier explanation of the difference between
energy and free energy. However, being involved in the e-business side of
the oil and gas industry it is my belief that Enron was in the business of
market-making and they did not play well with others. By this I mean that
they would create a market in virtually anything and required Enron to
hold one side of the transaction. They did not create a neutral,
third-party market. This independence, that bordered on arrogance, also
caused their downfall because they apparently hid their market positions
in off balance sheet partnerships.
However, my bigger concern is the possible impact the Enron problems may
have on some of the empowerment practices being adopted by others in the
future. Many articles and books include Enron as an example of employee
empowerment, especially self-leadership at the grassroots. How can we now
continue to hold these references out as examples when the Enron name is
so tarnished? To what extent might these exemplary practices now be
tarnished by the actions at the top of Enron? Will this make our job of
encouraging empowerment more difficult by top managers including all Enron
practices under the same umbrella?
> From: AM de Lange [mailto:amdelange@postino.up.ac.za]
> ...snip...
>
> Another main problem leading to Enron's demise is that its
> core business was in "energy". Andrew, as you know, I have
> taught many times the immense difference between the
> collective term "energy" and and the specific term "free
> energy". Enron's core business was "free energy" and not "energy".
>
> ...snip...
--"Wirth, Ross" <RWIRTH@citgo.com>
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.