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.