Embracing Diversity Challenging Minds Essay
Hello Raj Kumar,
Thanks so much for writing me!
I tend to like this quote of Margareth Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
My experience with working with managers is that most of them are quite open to new ideas if those are relevant to their work and shed some new light on the issues they face. The TED-lecture by Dan Pink, for example, really resonates with them, as does the lecture of John Seddon, 'Culture Change is Free'. Of course those managers already choose to attend our Challenging Minds sessions - or a specific session on a particular topic - so they obviously were curious anyway, but still. I can't get into too much detail here because after all I am discussing my work, but some ideas which we have asked attention for are now being brought to the attention of directors, who are in a position to really do something if they would want to.
So it is not just a matter of getting at least so many people involved (percentage), but – as important - a matter of who gets involved, at what level, with what kind of network and span of control (both formal and informal!). By addressing a wide audience at all kinds of levels and from all kinds of business lines we highten the chance that some ideas 'sing through'. As to managers having to categorize for context and neglecting to do what they don't have to do: the conversations help to contextualize, and the subjects we tackle are very obviously relevant to multiple 'formally recognized' issues anyway. Employee engagement sits high on the agenda of many organisations, as do trust, risk, ethics and customer focus. The financial crisis saw to that. Yes, incentives are a sure way to destroy commitment, along with a bunch of other negative effects, but many of the people for whose ideas we ask attention tackle incentives: Pink, Seddon, Mintzberg, Sutton to name just a few. The stuff on incentives in our alert hopefully helps to underpin the need to rethink incentives as well: http://groups.diigo.com/group/ibs-research-alert/search?what=incentives.
So I am not really pessimistic about the hurdles to participation and reflection you mention in your mail. However, I do not think that a solution to those and similar hurdles can be 'rolled out'. The idea of rolling out something may be valid for more simple stuff, but not for a complex process of influencing corporate thought & practice. Very important in our approach is that we improvise. We do something, something happens, we act on that. Or we learn through a colleague that something interesting happens elsewhere at work, and we get in touch and see whether we can help each other. This may sound quite slapdash, but we feel that complexity thinking (theory, research) substantiates our 'safe fail experiments' approach...
I have the same experience as you b.t.w.: web 2.0 (redubbed Enterprise 2.0 by software salespeople and consultants) doesn't work so well within organisations. One of the hurdles in my opinion is that people are stuck with departmental targets and their managers do not like it (let alone give or get credit) if a 'subordinate' does something for another department or for 'the common good'. I have some not so nice stories about that. Also, social media tends to be confused with social chit-chat. The term 'social' doesn't work within organisations: 'online collaboration' would be much better. But that still wouldn't solve the departmental goals issue.
Well, I do hope that I have answered your questions at least partially...
Thanks again for writing!
Embracing Diversity Challenging Minds
2946 WordsSep 18th, 201312 Pages
Breach of duty
Breach of duty is defined as when defendant has fallen below the standard of care required by law. Once it has been established that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the claimant must prove that the defendant was in breach of duty.
A breach of duty occurs when defendant has not taken care, i.e. has been negligent.
STANDARD OF CARE
Breach of duty in negligence liability is decided by the objective test, i.e. the defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person.
This test is from the case of:
Vaughan V Menlove
The defendant's haystack caught fire due to poor ventilation. Defendant had insured it, therefore would lose nothing if it caught…show more content…
On the day of the crash he had also been involved in two minor incidents.
Held: defendant was not in breach of duty. To apply an objective standard in a way that did not take into account of D’s condition would be to impose strict liability but that is not the law.
c. Professionals and special skills
Standard of an ordinary skilled member of the profession.
Vowles v Evans (2003)
A rugby player was injured as a result of a decision made by the referee.
CA said that the degree of care a referee was legally expected to exercise would depend on his grade & that of the match he was refereeing.This means that the same accident might amount to a breach of duty if the referee was a trained professional, but not if he was an amateur. Here the referee was a professional & was found liable.
Gates v Mc Kenna
A stage hypnotist was expected to take the precautions that a ‘reasonably careful exponent of stage hypnotism’ would take to prevent psychiatric injury to members of his audience.
Watson v Gray (1998)
A D professional footballer could only be liable for negligently injuring another player if a reasonable professional footballer would have known that what the D did carried a significant risk of serious injury.
Within a profession or trade there may be difference of opinion as to the best techniques and procedures in any situation .
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee
P, a patient was given drugs before electric shock