|
I think Bill gets it! Nice work and thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake Hi Philip On Sep 17, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Council
should bear in mind that there is sometimes an inherent conflict between
transparency and freedom to dialogue. For
an individual, or small business there is likely to be no such conflict. For
an employee of a publicly quoted company or other organisation of reputation,
there is a high likelihood of this conflict. In some situations, not others. Typically
an employee of such a company in the knowledge their comments may be publically
archived in oral or written form will be constrained in what they are able to
say by internal guidelines or practise. These guidelines will typically be
established to protect the corporation from legal suit, to protect reputation
or to protect the share price. Given
the choice of continual checking with in-house legal counsel and silence,
they may choose silence. Legal suit? Share prices? What sort of complaint
session do you have in mind here? Adrian described it as people saying
stuff like On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
Is this really the sort of topic that would be likely to
give rise to legal action or affect your share price? Remind me again how this exercise is going to promote group
cohesion and effectiveness...?
I'm fascinated that you consider transparency and accountability
to be just disposable rhetoric. And that you're so shy about expressing
your feelings, who knew? Cheers, Bill |