If Only . . . .

Team Rules that would make life so much more interesting.

Somewhere around 1999 I once saw a page of information from a business course at the University of Alberta in Canada and I seem to recall writing down these dot points - I have a feeling that they were themselves extracted from a book which I believe I have seen at some point in my life by Jeffrey C Petkevicius called "The Unchained Worker - Principles of Ownership of the Workplace."

Recently when discussing the way in which people at work attending meetings seem to behave they popped into my mind again and I had to give them a new title which is:

IF ONLY we would . . . .

• participate as fully and as openly as possible, while honouring the privacy of others;
• give feedback directly and openly in a timely fashion, and provide information that is specific and focuses on the task and process and not on personalities;
• use our time wisely, starting on time, returning from breaks and ending our meetings promptly;
• come to our meetings prepared with information and materials that are required for the meeting. When fellow members miss a meeting we would share the responsibility for bringing them up to date;
• focus on our goals;
• avoid sidetracking, personality conflicts and hidden agendas;
• acknowledge problems and deal with them. Within our group, we have the resources we need to solve any problem that arises. This means that we all contribute;
• respect different ideas;
• are supportive, not judgmental;
• each be responsible for what we get from this team experience;
• ask for what we need from our facilitator and the other group members;
• encourage others to share ideas in small and large group sessions The feelings of all participants are important;
• focus on what the team will gain, the strengths we have, rather than what individuals fear they will lose;
• respect that everyone brings something of value, talent, skill, resources, understanding, etc., for a more effective, efficient organization;
• operate all meetings with an agenda Everyone is expected to help facilitate the meeting and keep it on track Job titles are left at the door;
• address the process not the individual;
• communicate effectively. One person talks at a time and all others listen with the commitment to understand the speaker's message;
• rotate responsibilities All action items are clearly defined, assigned and scheduled to a specific Owner to complete and report back to the group. No hanging clouds
• not accept the first idea, but go for the second and even a third before making a decision;
• build each other up and encourage one another;
• summarize the meeting and get agreement on the action items and Owners;
• set the agenda for the next meeting before breaking up;
• have fun;
• be open to new ideas, change and the unknown, that's the definition of an adventure;
• show willingness and comfort in making decisions and acting;
• act to benefit the whole organization;
• all be involved in cross-functional work;
• show willingness to pitch in and help;
• take problems directly to the right person for decisions and action;
• coach, support and encourage other employees in making effective decisions and taking actions;
• seek and share new information;
• create an environment to actively learn from each other;
• be willing to admit failures;
• have the courage to review them and the maturity to learn from them;
• transfer learning into effective action

Let me know if you think that these 'rules' would help in your meetings or more to the point tell me about all of those meetings where the lack of these rules has led to continuing problems.

Ah - if only . . . .

Portcullises
Portuguese's
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

couldn't
cloudiest
coldest
goldest
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

actioned
auctioned
optionality
emotionality
Aguinaldo
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

In Google we trust!

I have in the past brought to the attention of my readers the publication of First Monday a peer reviewed journal on the internet.

One of the latest articles from this journal can be found at this URL

I commend it as a read to everyone.

An abstract of the paper is copied for information below to encourage readers to consider the content:

This paper considers information safety and accuracy in the digital age using Google as an entry point. In doing so, it explores the role media play in shaping the relationship of information, privacy, and trust between Google and the public. This inquiry is undertaken using framing theory to guide a content analysis of the way Google is presented in New York Times articles from a two–year period ending in November, 2005. Analysis of the extensive coverage of Google’s share price and earnings reports leads to the conclusion that trust in Google is fostered in part simply by reports of its fiscal success. To the extent that this is true, meaningful public debate about information policies is inhibited.

Taking the plunge!

Once again I am taking the plunge into the unknown. I will be risking life and limb inquiring into a phenomenon that is becoming more and more common in our world at present.

The world of public servants who retire. What happens to them? What if any influence do they have once they resign their jobs? What will the world be like when their successors ascend the stairways of power.

Just reading the Canberra Times on a Saturday morning can instill hope into the chest of any aspiring young person in the public service today. Jobs at the Senior Executive Service are going begging. As more and more senior public servants from the era of the baby boomers are reaching the age at which they want to retire so they leave behind vacancies that need to be filled either from outside the traditions of the service or from people who have been in the service (in some cases) just long enough to know how to recognise an opportunity when they see it.

With unemployment once again at levels that have not been seen since the 1970's young people have untold opportunities to run the country. The question is whether they will run it wisely or run it into the ground?

I have recently overheard discussions between older colleagues who lament the impetuous youth of today. In other locations colleagues of the same vintage have meaningful discussions about the energy of young people and the new slants that they bring to age old problems.

I suspect that one of the most fundamental changes in our society is taking place over the next few years as the old guard gives way to the new and as old political realities for the old guard - the Cold War, Communism vs Capitalism give way to the new realities of Global Warming, Global Markets and the rapid rise of China and India to positions of world power.

I want to be able to find a place in which those who ran the country's public services can express their feelings about what is happening now and what they predict is likely to happen in the future, short term, medium range and in the longer term.

If there are any readers out there who have some views on this topic then I would appreciate their communications. Let's really explore what the world is like as the old guard gives way to the new and let's explore what happens to those who have led the charge up to now for the last thirty years. 

CHALLENGE don't just accept!

In an article on Management Issues. com called: "Change needs to shake things up to be successful: author Nic Paton comments on the presentation of Ben Bryant

"Much as making an omelette depends on cracking eggs, successful organisational change depends on disrupting the status quo, employers have been told.

With one in three major organisational changes failing to achieve the efficiency or effectiveness objectives that lie behind them, Ben Bryant of London Business School is set to tell delegates at a conference being run by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development that effective change means moving out of the comfort zone.

Bryant, a fellow at the school's Centre for Management Development, said: 'Some leaders get sucked into reinforcing the predictability of the work environment."

". . . .shape culture change through so-called "cultural conversations."

"They need to be skilful at challenging senior managers, and they need to be comfortable with the risks of letting the change process enter uncharted waters."

Pete's Points:

Perhaps what also needs to be said is that the risk of getting it wrong can be less than a career enhancing move. On the other hand there is also a risk in getting it right. The risk is that the person who has successfully engineered the required organisational change may be seen as someone who can continue to make changes by continuing their challenging behaviour.

Continuing to challenge the status quo time and time again exposes the individual doing this to increasing levels of potential harm and he/she also has to have at least one extremely powerful protector in the system or needs to be able to produce success on each and every occasion to ensure that he/she does not get seriously hurt.

Pete's advice is "Do it by all means, but be careful out there!"

Child Care for fun and profit.

We had Mal Brough on TV in the middle of a debate about childcare.

What an interesting show! What a tragedy for Australia!

On the one hand we had people who represented the non profit sector, on the other we had the CEO of the fastest growing for profit sector organisation. We also had customers, disgruntled and underpaid child care workers, lobbyists from the right and lobbyists from the left and only the Lord only knows who else. The people who were not there however, were more interesting by their absence. No one from local councils, no one from State or Territory governments, no one from private eterprise.

What was discussed?

Money, responsibility, lack of planning, lack of co-ordination.

What was not discussed?

Among other things, qualifications of the child care providers, the purpose of child care, cost benefits of having child care in the work place.

This is a large topic and obviously one that has many facets open for consideration and discussion.

Let me discuss one item that piques my interest.

Child care in the work place.

It seems to me that if the employer created a space at work (or near work) where parents were both enabled and encouraged to place their children then there would be advantages for everyone: parents, children, employers, community, government, care providers and even for profit providers.

Let me try and elucidate how a community development effort could ensure this (hopefully desirable outcome.

Let's assume that we have a small business owner who individually, only employs a few people. This business owner cannot, on his or her own do anything about child care for the employees regardless of how much good will is present. The economics simply do not add up.

Can he/she do something about child care in combination with other small business owners in the neighbourhood who have similar good intentions and to whom it can be proved that a sound economic rationale exists for indulging their good intentions?

Possibly. If each business owner in consultation with the others in the neighbourhood pools information about how much he/she can afford to contribute towards the child care of their employees, and then in consultation with the parents, government agencies and of course private or voluntary service providers then it is highly likely that in combination they can achieve together what they could not achieve alone.

I wonder if anyone has considered this and tried it? If so I would welcome their contributions to this discussion so that we can learn from them and through their experience infomr others in the community about the power of sharing within the community.

Robbery under arms

Robbery under arms:

"Abstract This article considers the radical, sweeping changes to Australian copyright law wrought by the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement 2004 (AUSFTA). It contends that the agreement will result in a “piracy of the public domain”. Under this new regime, copyright owners will be able to obtain greater monopoly profits at the expense of Australian consumers, libraries and research institutions, as well as intermediaries, such as Internet service providers. Part One observes that the copyright term extension in Australia to life of the author plus 70 years for works will have a negative economic and cultural impact — with Australia’s net royalty payments estimated to be up to $88 million higher per year. Part Two argues that the adoption of stronger protection of technological protection measures modelled upon the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (U.S.) will override domestic policy–making processes, such as the Phillips Fox Digital Agenda Review, and judicial pronouncements such as the Stevens v Sony litigation. Part Three questions whether the new safe harbours protection for Internet service providers will adversely affect the sale of Telstra. This article concludes that there is a need for judicial restraint in interpreting the AUSFTA. There is an urgent call for the Federal Government to pass ameliorating reforms — such as an open–ended"

Pete's Points

This article is worth reading. Recommended for those with an interest in Australian politics.

Whats in it for them?

Knowledge sharing, knowledge hoarding: "

Most organisations view knowledge acquired 'on the job' as belonging to the organisation rather than the individual – and certainly something that should be shared. But many employees don't see it that way.

When it comes to job knowledge, few know more about it than the person doing the job. Employees accumulate a wealth of information and along the way, often develop efficiencies that make them more productive.

Yet, according to Dr David Zweig, an assistant professor of organisation behaviour at the University of Toronto, they are often reluctant, for various reasons, to pass along that knowledge to others within the organisation.

'Knowledge sharing is often one of the most troubling issues facing employers and they keep trying to develop effective ways to encourage employees to share what they have learned on their jobs. It remains a difficult goal,' he says.

Zweig and Dr Susan Brodt of Queens University and several colleagues have been studying why people are reluctant to share their knowledge. They will be presenting their full findings at the annual conference of The Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology in Dallas May 5-7."

Pete's Points

Most organisations are selfish.

Most people in Senior Management are selfish (witness their salary packages.)

Organisations pay workers as little as possible, generally minimize their work entitlements, have slogans like "do more with less" "maximise the bottom line".

Meanwhile, prices are rising, taxes are increasing, life is becoming harder and harder and more and more dangerous.

So people who work in this environment LEARN how to be selfish or perhaps more appropriately have learnt the lesson that "there is no such thing as a free lunch."

They now tend to say:

"If I am fortunate enough to learn something in the process for working with tight fisted managers and shareholders who care about themselves and don't give a fig about me, then the question arises WHY should I help THEM for free?"

Rather I would ask the question, "What's in it for ME?"

Intellectual property is earned the hard way by people who work hard and actually THINK about their work and their work situation. This intellectual property is - or should be - marketable.

So PAY people for their knowledge with whatever they want to ease their lives and then there may be a greater degree of sharing.