Coombs Chpt 8 &9 – by Liz Felter
Well Catherine and Mic did a fine job summarizing these two chapters.
I think evaluation should be looked at as lessons learned. All experiences are valuable even the ones that fail miserably once initiated. Not only can they improve the situation in the organization but you can take the experiences with you to other organizations as you advance in your career.
How do you know if you have the right person in the right position once a crisis goes into effect? Can you change mid stream if needed? I guess you could do strengths and weaknesses evaluation including performance by each person in each position and based on that data makes changes if needed. Sometimes that may be the only way to get around ego and attitude.
If evaluation is so important how come so many people either don’t budget for it as part of the planning process or they just don’t do it? Shouldn’t this be part of accountability? This just doesn’t make sense. It seems like it is as important if not more important than the actual crisis plan. The information gleaned from evaluation should be seen as a means to improve the plan and get closer to full proof.
Do organizations really have more than one communicator to deal with the external audience, the employees and stakeholder? This seems to be an area where they would cut corners to save money or streamline the operation by having one spokesperson. Has someone worked in an organization that has it separated out?
In reading the team 7 presentation information I couldn’t help but think about a class I took last spring called International Extension. Accountability, transparency and local buy-in were the key to success when working in a foreign country. Trust and credibility were the by-products of the previously mentioned. It doesn’t seem like any of those actions were considered let alone practiced. It also didn’t seem like any one cared if those actions were taken. How ironic that the wealth associated with petroleum was the actual catalyst to poverty and destitution.
These articles made me think about how accountability or the lack of seemed to be associated with corruption particularly in third world countries, especially those countries that have very little stability. Maybe the Niger Delta Development Commission will start to have an effect on that situation. The story about the different Americans was interesting in that they didn’t seem to care as long as they had gas in their car. Gas in their car is one thing I wonder how they will feel when it is a shortage of drinking water.
Both of these issues have one thing in common people don’t seem interested in caring until the tap or pump runs dry. Maybe Mark Twain was on to something when he said, " Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over".
I think evaluation should be looked at as lessons learned. All experiences are valuable even the ones that fail miserably once initiated. Not only can they improve the situation in the organization but you can take the experiences with you to other organizations as you advance in your career.
How do you know if you have the right person in the right position once a crisis goes into effect? Can you change mid stream if needed? I guess you could do strengths and weaknesses evaluation including performance by each person in each position and based on that data makes changes if needed. Sometimes that may be the only way to get around ego and attitude.
If evaluation is so important how come so many people either don’t budget for it as part of the planning process or they just don’t do it? Shouldn’t this be part of accountability? This just doesn’t make sense. It seems like it is as important if not more important than the actual crisis plan. The information gleaned from evaluation should be seen as a means to improve the plan and get closer to full proof.
Do organizations really have more than one communicator to deal with the external audience, the employees and stakeholder? This seems to be an area where they would cut corners to save money or streamline the operation by having one spokesperson. Has someone worked in an organization that has it separated out?
In reading the team 7 presentation information I couldn’t help but think about a class I took last spring called International Extension. Accountability, transparency and local buy-in were the key to success when working in a foreign country. Trust and credibility were the by-products of the previously mentioned. It doesn’t seem like any of those actions were considered let alone practiced. It also didn’t seem like any one cared if those actions were taken. How ironic that the wealth associated with petroleum was the actual catalyst to poverty and destitution.
These articles made me think about how accountability or the lack of seemed to be associated with corruption particularly in third world countries, especially those countries that have very little stability. Maybe the Niger Delta Development Commission will start to have an effect on that situation. The story about the different Americans was interesting in that they didn’t seem to care as long as they had gas in their car. Gas in their car is one thing I wonder how they will feel when it is a shortage of drinking water.
Both of these issues have one thing in common people don’t seem interested in caring until the tap or pump runs dry. Maybe Mark Twain was on to something when he said, " Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over".
posted by Liz Felter at
4/08/2007 06:27:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home