On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 AM, aki <aki275@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Gakuru Alex <alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM, aki <aki275@googlemail.com> wrote:
Frankly not funny since nobody's input has ever been coerced. It actually offends when one reads directive-like from "above", fulani I have allocated you to x, nani do y, you fit there etc.. Folks should take ownership of their initiatives and that includes leadership of whatever it is that they start- i.e. not start by designating practical responsibilities while they remain safely shielded behind a technology veil.
@Alex, Collective responsibilty is also about people thinking for themselves, what needs to be done and what can be done. So definately we are opposites when it comes to doing things. I respect your view on " ownership" but you should also respect mine on " collective ". To me " ownerships " build dictators, " collective " build communities. In my future posts on any ideas will have the Collective Responsibilty Clause along with them. Those who wish to participate will know terms of engagement and really no one should have to bother if its such a big deal to them.
You got me wrong. I did not mean "ownership" in the sense of "shareholders" or "title deed" class of contexts. I meant participants feeling that they "own" the collective success e.g. http://www.leadershipandbusiness.com/2005/12/establishing_a_.html I had wished you would have also addressed other points that I raised?