Support this site with your Contribution. Click on the Membership link below.
Home | Discussion Forums | Mission Statement | Membership | Links | Contact Us | Rules |

Assaultweb.net Forums  

Go Back   Assaultweb.net Forums > Specialties > Tactics and Strategies

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old August 15th, 2017, 07:58
9th Company 9th Company is offline
Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,897
Default Knowledge is Power Books

https://defensivetraininggroup.wordp...n-your-search/

The simple sabotage book is interesting:

How and why some of the most destructive sabotage within an organization is unintentional and therefore preventable

According to Robert Galford, Bob Frisch, and Cary Greene, the title refers to "the day-to-day routine interactions and processes we rely on as we work that are undermined by unintentional sabotage." They suggest a four-stage process (i.e. identify, calibrate, remediate, and inoculate) by which to prevent "the hundreds or even thousands of small, barely perceptible irritants -- the 'sand' that clogs the machinery" -- and thereby increase effectiveness, spur creativity, and improve working relationships. Whatever the given level or area, "we'll show you how to help your group become as productive as it can be."

In 1944, at the height of World War II, the United States' Office of Strategic Services (OSS) -- predecessor of the CIA -- published The Simple Sabotage Field Manual, a classified document to help various resistance movements in Europe destroy the Axis powers from within. These acts of sabotage were premeditated, intentional, often uncomplicated, and remarkably effective. Today, comparable acts of "simple," unintentional sabotage can also be remarkably effective. Galford, Frisch, and Greene focus on nine:

o Insist on doing everything "through channels" (e.g. lengthy and complicated approval process)
o Talk as frequently as possible and at great length (e.g. emails)
o Whenever possible, refer all matters to committees
o Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible
o Haggle over precise wordings of communications
o Refer back to decisions previously made and issues resolved
o Urge conferees to be "reasonable" and to avoid being "hasty"
o Be concerned about what is "proper" and politically correct
o Send updates and progress reports as frequently as possible, even to those peripherally involved (“Sabotage by CC”)

Keep in mind that these and other acts of "simple sabotage" are taken for what are claimed to be sound reasons: "touching all bases," "keeping the lines open," "deferring to collective judgment," "not letting anything slip through the cracks," "connecting all the dots," "being empathetic to others' feelings," etc. etc. etc.

Galford, Frisch, and Greene explain how leaders in almost any organization, whatever its size and nature may be, can identify these and other mindsets, calibrate a range of tolerance (e.g. time frames, deadlines, and budget limits), eliminate damaging behaviors in a constructive way, and finally, "introduce tools, metrics, and process changes to prevent the sabotage from recurring (or from occurring in the first place) and help develop a low-sabotage culture."

In this context, I am again reminded of a GE annual meeting when its then chairman and CEO, Jack Welch, explained the reasons why he admired small companies:

“For one, they communicate better. Without the din and prattle of bureaucracy, people listen as well as talk; and since there are fewer of them they generally know and understand each other. Second, small companies move faster. They know the penalties for hesitation in the marketplace. Third, in small companies, with fewer layers and less camouflage, the leaders show up very clearly on the screen. Their performance and its impact are clear to everyone. And, finally, smaller companies waste less. They spend less time in endless reviews and approvals and politics and paper drills. They have fewer people; therefore they can only do the important things. Their people are free to direct their energy and attention toward the marketplace rather than fighting bureaucracy.”
__________________
“I have a Right to my Life; I have a Right to the Fruits of my Labor. If you concede the principle of the Income Tax, you concede the principle that the government owns ALL your income and permits you to keep a certain percentage of it.”
─Ron Paul, interview by Time on Sep 17, 2009.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 to 2008 Assaultweb.net