Anyway I was having a think about the last post (NB: not the Last Post) and suggest this as analysis and/or basis for any conversation that may - or more likely may not, at least hereabouts - occur. It goes like this:
- when we all kicked off (2004) we wondered why it was us, not the exec level - didn't we?
- Ms Harmony's bolter of an idea was aimed at the exec level;
- as conceived, it would certainly be a great piece of fun with the potential to actually have some beneficial outcomes on any exec selected for the exercise;
- but if you look at who we discussed would be good candidates, I think you can draw a direct line to my "those who deserve a boot up the date" comment - or is this way too harsh?
- if valid, though, it takes us back to square 1: there were candidates in the exec who were recognised as needing change but that was too difficult, so instead a whole bunch of us got a paid introspective examination and outlook rectification - for which we are grateful of course;
- I am genuinely
sorryashamed that my initial response was a quick listing of the impediments, because that is very prehistoric (ie the history that started in 2004) thinking - but I'll need to keep my black hat and argue them out with you because the black hat says they're valid. Which is its job, after all.
So who's yellow?
No comments:
Post a Comment