> At a company one of the strong assumptions revealed by the management team
> was: "fellow managers are guilty of corruption"...
> The question I have is: are such issues (and there are others of a similar
> gravity), which imo are career threatening to senior management and
> potentially explosive to the entire organisation, suitable subjects for
> learning via improving the quality of conversation amongst management?
> Ian Lawson
IMO, conversation about strong assumptions is always appropriate,
especially when the subject is corruption or illegality. Consider the
alternatives; either the assumption is right, it is partially right, or it
is wrong. Conversation clarifies false reports, acts as a brake on
potential trouble, and verifies actual occurrences of something you don't
No company can afford to give the impression it ignores corruption.
However, whether or not the senior managers believe it is a suitable topic
for conversation speaks less to the seriousness of corruption that it does
to their personal concerns about the efficacy of conversation. To address
assumptions requires a climate of understanding and trust, knowledge of
appropriate techniques, and most importantly, some results to fuel the
Lon Badgett email@example.com "If a lie can become the truth simply by being repeated enough, what does the truth become when it is shared by enough people?" Emil Gobersneke
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>