| Revision as of 08:11, 28 January 2007 editDcicchel (talk | contribs)156 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:12, 28 January 2007 edit undoZoe (talk | contribs)35,376 edits afdNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Undelete| |{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|<div style="display:none;">}} {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |#default={{error:wrong namespace}}<div style="display:none;">}}|{{error:not substituted|AFD}}<div style="display:none;">}}}} {{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|</div></div>}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 0px 7px; background: #EDF1F1; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> | |||
| '''This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's ]]'''<br /> | |||
| You may share your thoughts on the matter at ''']''' on the ] page.<br /> | |||
| Please improve the article if possible, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the ].<br/> | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>'']: <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:afd}} • ''OR'' <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:afd2|pg={{PAGENAME}}|cat=|text=}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> • <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:afd3|pg={{PAGENAME}}}} | |||
| </small></div> | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |#default=</div>}}|</div>}} | |||
| {{{category|]}}} | |||
| <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> | |||
| '''Within corporate culture''', it is necessary that critical, independent thinking and communication be fostered. Conversely, cultural norms can be established which display for the , both in staffing and in the thinking nutured within the organization, that is necessary to strengthen that weakness. | '''Within corporate culture''', it is necessary that critical, independent thinking and communication be fostered. Conversely, cultural norms can be established which display for the , both in staffing and in the thinking nutured within the organization, that is necessary to strengthen that weakness. | ||
Revision as of 08:12, 28 January 2007
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.
You may share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Please improve the article if possible, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.
Steps to list an article for deletion: {{subst:afd}} • Preloaded debate OR {{subst:afd2|pg=Organizational models of accidents|cat=|text=}} ~~~~ • {{subst:afd3|pg=Organizational models of accidents}} log
Within corporate culture, it is necessary that critical, independent thinking and communication be fostered. Conversely, cultural norms can be established which display intolerance for the diversity, both in staffing and in the thinking nutured within the organization, that is necessary to strengthen that weakness.
A lack of diversity in a workgroup can lead to disasterous results, as is evidenced by the groupthink displayed by President John F. Kennedy's cabinet during what is known as the Bay of Pigs. The group, perhaps comprised of individuals who were too similar in thinking, led one another down a path resulting in severe oversight. Had at least one individual been a part of the group who saw the problem from a different perspective, had a tendency to problem solve in a different way, and been allowed a voice, the Bay of Pigs may never have happened. Similarly, British Petroleum, known as BP, may not have been required to spend $700 million correcting the results of a refinery blast which killed 15 people. The cultural climate within BP did not foster diversity in thinking or in expression of that thinking, a problem which has since been acknowledged and is being corrected.
Analogy
A visual illustration of this principle can be demonstrated. Assemble five slices of cheese from a single block. Note that the airspace is the same between all five slices, representative of a lack of substance.
Assemble the five disparate slices in a single stack. Note that there is very little airspace, or lack of substance.
Example of Practical Application
A problem arose in a large corporation which was costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, and was stressing thousands of employees nation wide to the breaking point. Three separate teams of individuals in related departments were brought in to work on the problem. Two months later, the three teams were no closer to resolution than when the problem was discovered.
A single technician who had a tendancy to approach problem solving from a different perspective decided to work on the problem. The necessary pieces of equipment were assembled, with one known working printer, one known non-working printer, one computer and one printer cable. After two hours of running simple tests on these two hardware configurations, that technician announced what the problem was.
It took another two months for the three teams to prove that the technician was correct in their diagnosis of the problem. This meant that additional hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost, and two more months of agony on the part of workers nationwide was experienced. The question is, why was the technician uncomfortable with becoming involved in the problem solving process in the first place, and once a contribution was made to correcting the issue, why was that person ridiculed by the other individuals involved? In this case, the concept of controlling culture based on ridicule of expressions different from the cultural norm directly resulted in loss of company profitability.
Final Analysis
If in a given workgroup, most individuals are very much alike, and a small percentage of members of the group are different, then it is different to be different. The similar members of the group will naturally disassociate themselves from those who are different, and the advantage of problem solving from a variety of perspectives is lost. The only way to give full advantage to a workgroup is to make that group as diverse as possible, to foster a positive attitude toward that diversity, and to reward the voice of the individual as well as the voice of the group.