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?