[ID] => 10898
[post_author] => 34
[post_date] => 2019-04-15 07:48:26
[post_date_gmt] => 2019-04-15 06:48:26
[post_content] => A few days ago I was invited by Cofano, a risk management software company, as keynote speaker at their seminar on ’Steering Risks’ in Holland. I showed the audience a presentation on how to collect information (all of it) and use that as the energy to maintain business stability and thus reducing risks. I told that in fact all we have to do is observe nature and use the science of control - aka cybernetics - to steer our organisation to operate within the boundaries of functionality or the limits of reality which I coined ’Realimiteit’.
And hooray, they understood. I finally had been able to simplify the message from complex scientific research into a visual experience which proved that ‘reality is real’. To prevent risks we must endeavour to obtain and use all relevant information (even that information that might be inconvenient).
Nature does that too. A human being’s automated survival maintenance system continuously collects information which keeps him or her alive as long as possible. To understand this, the first thing to do is to exchange our usual ‘risk analysis’ method and replace this with ‘risk synthesis’ method which includes all relationships and all interdependent networks, not forgetting people, environment and society.
I know, this may all sound a bit technical and it probably is - until other ingredients to prevent risks are added: ethics and morality. Without these spices a cake can’t be baked. Ethics as a risk controlling requisite is an essential part to build and sustain a business for the long term. When morality is ignored, the direct risk will be vulnerability of the whole organisation. The objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand described it as follows: ‘You can’t have your cake and eat it too.’
Did you follow the news that a major oil company will be planting trees to offset its CO2 emissions? As a business ethicist my question would be? What is the true intention? Is this an ulterior motive to justify the continuation of emitting CO2? Could planting trees be used to suppress cognitive dissonance within the organisation?
Because reality is real, morality is real too. We can’t be half genuine. Path-dependent industries would have but one choice left and that would to redesign harmful industries which are ‘negative interdependent’ i.e. benefiting some, but at the cost of… , into positive interdependent industries, i.e. benefiting everyone. This can be done from within such organisations if management would just mimic nature. Quite simple really.
Peter Drucker put this distinction dramatically when he said there is a difference between doing things right (the intent of reformations) and doing the right thing (the intent of transformations). The righter we do the wrong thing, the wronger we become. When we make a mistake doing the wrong thing and correct it, we become wronger. When we make a mistake doing the right thing and correct it, we become righter. Therefore, it is better to do the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right. Is going green right or wrong?
This is the latest in a series of articles by Arend van Campen, founder of TankTerminalTraining. More information on the company’s activities can be found at www.tankterminaltraining.com. Those interested in responding personally can contact him directly at email@example.com.
[post_title] => Learning by Training: You can't have your cake...
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_name] => learning-training-cant-cake
[post_modified] => 2019-04-15 07:48:26
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-04-15 06:48:26
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://www.hcblive.com/?p=10898
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw