Robert Paterson has a link to a review of a book called Hope is Not a Method written by Gordon Sullivan and Michael Harper. It is considered to be one of the most important books in military and business management.
The book is an illuminating account of what it actually takes to build a learning organization in practice. Contrary to most conventional thinking, which says results come from good plans of planners executed by trained and compliant managers, it suggests that a learning organization is one designed to be successful in spite of plans which are imperfect, even though they are the best possible in an atmosphere of rapidly changing missions and resources. Good plans in a changing environment are those evolved during their accomplishment by those mandated to fulfill them, who must be willing to examine and learn from what worked and didn't work at each stage of the way.
The authors articulate some rules for successful renewal. The first three of these bear repeating here.
Rule One: change is hard work. "Leading change means doing two jobs at once - getting the organization through today and getting the organization into tomorrow. . . . Change will not spring full blown from the work of a committee or consultant. . . You have to spend a lot of time communicating, clarifying, generating enthusiasm, and listening (including listening to negative feedback, resistance and general disagreement)."
Rule two: leadership begins with values. "Shared values express the essence of an organization." They are what binds an organization together when practically everything else is changing.
Rule three: intellectual leads physical. "Strategic leadership is the front-end work- the in-depth, serious thinking by a leader and his or her team- that results in the creation of an intellectual framework for the future. . . Without the tough up-front work of intellectual change, physical change will be unfocused, random, and unlikely to succeed."
And the final pearl of wisdom that should resonate with most CEOs...
The toughest part of starting is starting. This is especially so for leaders pre-occupied with incidents and situations which are pushed to the top of the decision tree because the old strategic framework is far out-of-line with the actual demands of the time. Leaders are apparently too busy to lead. Thus, the first phase of the renewal journey could be called: "Restoring leadership to the leaders."
Cross-posted from tBBC blog.
When our Government leaders fail to protect and ignore the law, who pays? Corporate Executives decide, not what is right or wrong, but what they can get away with. Where is leadership when Government and Corporate Executives conspire and place US Citizens at risk?
The Department of State and U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Denies the Misconduct of American Companies that Confiscation U.S. Employees’ Passports
In Saudi Arabia, American Companies are confiscating American Citizen’s passports. The U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh agree with this practice and encourage it. This practice is extremely dangerous it places U.S. Citizens at risk, violates human rights, and as a nation, sends the wrong signals to struggling nations fighting for human rights issues in Saudi Arabia. An employee in a foreign country has no rights, no proof of validating their citizenship without the passport.
An example of this practice that disregards Saudi law: Computer Science Corporation Arabia (CSCA) a partnership between Computer Science Corporation (CSC) and Technology Boundaries (a Saudi Company) participates in the business practice of confiscating U.S. passports from their employees. The confiscation of the passports (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/07/saudia12622_txt.htm) is a tool to control and intimidate employees. Control is imposed to safeguard several outstanding issues:
• The head of the Minister of Interior (Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud) has a vested interest in CSCA.
• The partnership is operated by an American General Manager, working on multi-million-dollar contracts from the Minister of Interior Organization.
• U.S. Citizens are working on non-employment visas for six months.
The average U.S. Citizen looking for foreign employment is not aware of the environment they are about to enter. This practice sets the stage for the abuse and exploitation of workers (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/saudi0704/7.htm) from poorer nations like Indonesia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Sri Lanka. British Aerospace employees say they retain their passport and have not experienced this problem.
The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when asked to comment on this issue, “It is within the Saudi Labor law. The law requires that the employers should keep their employees passports while expatriates are employed in Saudi Arabia,” stated Mazen M. Shahan, in an email dated February 21, 2006. Only government officials can confiscate a passport, it is an illegal practice by private industry. The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh is trying to trivialize this practice to help support U.S. Company policies and is not actively protecting U.S. Citizens.
The Department of State was asked to comment on this issue. Michelle Bernier-Toth, Office of American Citizens Service and Crisis Management, stated in a letter dated March 20, 2006, “Under Saudi law, employers typically hold foreign employees’ passports, and such employees may not depart the country without the employer’s permission.” But while “typical,” the practice is not enshrined in Saudi Labor Law. Neither the Department of State nor the Embassy in Riyadh has been able to produce the relevant language from Saudi code legitimizing passport confiscation by private industry.
This is not surprising, because the language does not exist. The Department of State’s Report on Human Rights Practices 2005, (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61698.htm), states that “the Basic Law prohibits employers from retaining foreign workers' passports; however, in practice most sponsors reportedly often retained possession of foreign workers' passports.” It continues: "The law prohibits employers from holding their employees' passports without the employee's consent; however, this law was not well known to foreign employees and, as a result, was frequently violated.” The assertions of the Department of State, the Embassy in Riyadh and the Human Rights Report is problematic.
On February 9, 2006, the Saudi Labor Court System was petitioned to intervene on a confiscated passport event. The Saudi Labor Court made it clear that a passport confiscated by a private company was considered “stolen property.” They demanded that the CSC / CSCA General Manager return it immediately. While the Saudi Labor Court System should be applauded, its decision highlights further the problems caused by the reluctance of U.S. diplomats to stand up for the rights of their citizens.
Posted by: Ed Bull | April 23, 2006 at 05:59 AM