Replying to LO27856 --
Reading Michael's mail in parallel with others in my inbox , one of which
I've copied in, isnt it obvious that the opportunity of the Enron crisis
is for everyone in every way to campaign for transparency?
Has the Learning Organisation literature ever specifically summarised its
tenets in terms of measurable transparency? please refer me if there is a
seminal piuece to read on that
I mean obviously transparency is assumed in the 5 fundamental
characteristics such as common language and shared mental model, but do we
anywhere have something that would approach a performance standards
profile for evaluating organisation/measurement transparency? what good is
organisational learning if its done through murk and measures that cover
up assumptions or truths?
As an experiment, I'm seeing what city-based networkers want to get involved
with others who want to move this transparency issue systematically and
relentlessly forward. If you're interested in networking this issue, go to
http://www.quicktopic.com/12/D/RbUPTaUsv8Q.html
click to the left of your your city, and leave a personal note about what
aspect of this issue you'd like to help network, discuss etc ( In the same
space, I'm also collating bookmarks to online networks who might be
sympathetic such as Fast Company Groups; please propose similarly eligible
online city groups)
chris macrae, wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
http://www.egroups.com/group/simplysee
I'm seeing more and more quotes flash across my laptop like the one
footnoted from today's newsletter at http://www.eCustomerServiceWorld.com .
Transparency is the new environmental factor that every analyst is risk
auditing.
'Greed is good' summed up what everyone assumed about the nature of
competition: that good guys finish last - or, at least, are likely to
perform less well than the ruthless.
But, the biggest corporate collapse in history - Texas-based Enron - has
helped change the rules, because the hard numbers underlying the business
turned out to be fake. The question currently on investors' lips is
'Where's the next Enron?' The partial answer is: Probably not among
companies that position themselves as transparent, socially responsible
and about more than making money at any cost. And that's why 'good'
businesses suddenly look more sustainable and a better risk.
The evidence is that being transparent and having nothing to hide will
keep your customers, help you hang onto your best employees and appeal to
investors who don't like nasty Enron-style surprises
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Bremer
Sent: 16 February 2002 19:35 PM
Subject: Accounting and Economics LO27856
> I never thought about this before, but I also see myself as an
> ex-accountant. I must be the non-famous one.
>
> I could buy both virtue and lack of courage as two reasons why people
> don't come forward. There is also a lot of inertia. At the beginning it
> is not always clear that a transaction crosses the line. IN a large
> company the size of Enron 1,000s maybe 10,000s of transactions take place
> everyday. People see something that looks funny and most of the time it
> isn't anything more than that. As a critical mass of deceit begins to
> build then people become embarrassed. "Why didn't I notice this sooner?
> Is it real(true)? Whom should I talk to? Whom can I trust?" Inaction is
> so much easier than ACTION. Action requires breaking the routine, taking
> a risk, exposing one's self to ridicule if you're wrong or the illegality
> cannot be proven.
--"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.