Replying to LO28514 --
Dear A.M. DeLange, Good to see your comments about devolving organistions
to a level where employees can essentially self-manage. I suggest they
represent a different mindset, to what was on this forum previously.
I didn't wan't to appear 'tetchy' about your 'dangerous' comment, however
a few years ago I participated in an Australian Dept. of Defence,
Management Seminar. One person made the comment that he thought I was 'a
very dangerous person'. I think it was a response to the potential a
change to my particular type of thinking, involves. The comment made me
unconfortable as it identifies an attitude which gives rise to statements
like - 'we don't want that B***S**T around here' from managers.
>From your previous comments I think you are also a scientist. You are
probably aware of the hierarchy of controls applied in the field of
Eliminate the risk
Substitute a lesser risk.
Engineering control of the risk
Administrative risk control
Personal Protective Equipment
This hierarchy applies in some form to all types of risk. The problem is
that when we get to the Administrative Risk Control Level (Management
systems/policies/procedures) which applies to Operational Risk (quality,
safety, environment, security), the whole thing (success) depends on
people 'doing the right thing'. The problem then becomes one of how to
motivate people in a genuine way.
I think we may be moving towards a risk conscious paradigm where ESOP,
Open Book Management, and Productivity Gain Sharing are the norm.
"Alan Cotterell" <email@example.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.