On this day in P1atter History...

"one group queried if you can truly leave nothing in the unsaid"

5/96

INQUIRY MEETING MAY 1996
EUROPEAN ZONE

SUMMARY

The EZ believes in the need to be clear about the values of SP, however the Cones Diagram, as it stands needs revamping, quite significantly. A clear message was the need to stop using what is considered to be jargon (SP behaviours) and use plain English - especially as we are a multi national Company. Aditionally most groups felt that the values should not be solely focussed on the individual, which staff believe is the current situation, but on supportive, interdependent relationships too. Finally, the majority of the groups felt that the order of the elements in the diagram does not flow logically and should be redesigned, with perhaps the addition of a fifth constituent - the community/environment.

Please find below the consolidated findings, from the above meetings

Cones Diagram Inquiry - Level 0

Are the constituents truly of equal size? What does equal mean? In reality the constituents are unequal for example the investors have a larger say than employees. One group felt the Cones Diagram "sounds incredibly arrogant" - both in the "way we hold it and regurgitate it". The majority of the groups noticed the fact that the word serve is not mentioned on the diagram. Additionally, it was noticed that level 0 contains nothing that differentiates SP from any other organisation.

A suggestion was made to replace the cones diagram - "it has become more complicated. Why not present it as a 2 dimensional wheel?"

Focusing on the society element, the question was posed by one group - How much does SP serve society? Should it be there? One group raised the question - should Society be a fifth constituency? What do we mean by Society? One group felt that by placing society in the centre was confusing and could imply some reduction in importance. Again the inclusion of society was queried it was noticed that all four constituents have a relationship with us and vice versa but that "society does not know it has a relationship with SP". Finally, it was felt that by saying we want to be an example of what a business can be is not sufficiently clear e.g. the Mafia could be an example of what a business can be.

Two groups felt that the local community/environment somehow needed to be represented.

It was felt that the statement under Business Partners should include the fact that we want to grow their business too. One group raised - "should we say 'our' interests, to mean SP & Partners, rather than simply 'their interests'. Following on from that another group felt that the statement should reflect the mutuality of the relationship. One group felt the use of Business Partners is too vague and unexciting (while another group felt we should break the meaning down). They think that the business partners need constant stimulation and therefore, key words to be included should be nurture;growth;collaboration.

Moving to the customer constituent, one group felt that the term was confusing and needs to be more specific eg user base and end user. All groups felt the statement needed to be more positive emphasising quality products (stressing the capability/accessibility of the products). service and meeting current and future needs.

Staff suggested that the following words could be used under the employee constituency rewarding; learning; stimulating; fun; employees being treated with courtesy and respect; supportive environment.

With regards to the investor constituency it was felt (by two groups) that there should be some mention of investors reinvesting into SP eg time, commitment. It was also suggested that the word "good" could be replaced by "agreed" return. One group felt that the current definition makes it unclear that "we are building a better future" i.e. most of our strategic initiatives will not see a return for a long time.

LEVEL 1

The majority of the groups felt the order of levels 0 and 1 should be reversed. Or that the mission statement should be separate from the diagram as it didn't naturally flow with level 1 in its current position. Additionally, it was suggested that the mission statement was designed as level 0, with statements explaining the intention behind each key word.

It was suggested that the word digital should be excluded as it was limiting the possibilities e.g. paper would be part of the wwl; the word library brings up different pictures for different people - this could be replaced by data resource or information repository; "the word enable did not feel right", could be replaced by contribute to; organsing; reversing the statement fits better - through collaboration and technology it is our intention.....;add 'and development' to emergence of a ww digital library; create a more formal link between level 0 and 1 by stating 'to better serve society, it is our intention...';the addition of professionals and students into the statement was thought to be useful by one group. The use of the word intention was questioned - is it strong enough? Does it show true comittment It was suggested that there might be further elements than technology and collaboration; the word digital was questioned - "why don't we be consistent and use DRL instead of ERL" - it was therefore felt that digital should be replaced by electronic; one group felt the word technology (albeit important) should not be included as it appears to be singled out; needs to be concise; easy to understand as English is not everybody's first language.

KEY BEHAVIOURS - OUTPUT FROM BRAINSTORMING SESSIONS

Straight not devious; honest; lucid;constructive;dynamic;positive; realistic;fun/happy;engaging;co operative;inspirational;relaxed;solutions oriented;accountable;welcoming;opportunistic;agile;
creative;agile;positive;integrity;clarity;open;effective;protective;recognition;flexibility;change;serve;fluid;innovative;proactive;adding value;tolerance;creative;working together;joint problem solving;trusting;nurturing;
enabling;rewarding;empowering; enjoyable; trusting;collabarative

CURRENT BEHAVIOURS - Suggested by one group only

Change; not aggressive,;verbal;critical;slow;integrity;productive;honest responsive;confused;cocoperativ; innovative; clarity; busy; learning; earnest;pompous.

DO THE KEY BEHAVIOURS WORK?

Language is difficult to understand, needs to be written in plain English especially as we are a multi national Company. The SP language should be eliminated. At most have key words which describe our values. Two groups suggested amending the current terminology so that it is in plain English. Behaviours are very individualistic which is at odds with our intended collaborative approach. The behaviours feel prescriptive - the SP commandments. Some groups had difficulty with the sentence ..."breakthroughs through breakdown - encouraging breakdowns could be stressful.

In general the groups felt that the behaviours reflected how we want to be (although one group queried if you can truly leave nothing in the unsaid). The group that suggested the current behaviours above believe that the following areas were necessary to move from the current to the ideal position - comitment,discipline,application,self criticism.communication

Some suggested rephrasing:

be accountable; be open and honest; be supportive;`be responsible for clear communication; productive effective relationships (new behaviour)

[Back to 'On This Day'] [Back to Secretp1atter] [the 'other' P1atter]