Fifth law of worker entropy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
===Examples=== | ===Examples=== | ||
*'''[[Human resources]]''': The organisation will wrack itself for four months of the year crashing mainframe computer systems trying to get a performance appraisal system to work; enforcing its [[clear desk policy]], formulating and updating its [[risk taxonomy]] and promoting an internal [[career fair]], but expend no energy promoting actual risk managemenbt or risk reduction. | *'''[[Human resources]]''': The organisation will wrack itself for four months of the year crashing mainframe computer systems trying to get a performance appraisal system to work; enforcing its [[clear desk policy]], formulating and updating its [[risk taxonomy]] and promoting an internal [[career fair]], but expend no energy promoting actual risk managemenbt or risk reduction. | ||
*'''[[Negotiation]]''': A [[negotiator]] will spend literally days battling away on the precise waterfall of dispute fallbacks for a NAV trigger, but will | *'''[[Negotiation]]''': A [[negotiator]] will spend literally days battling away on the precise waterfall of dispute fallbacks for a [[NAV trigger]] — never to be used once the agreement is signed, except to periodically waive triggers that will have inevitably been set too sensitively — but will agree a [[failure to pay]] event of default — the one realistic event ever needed — without her counterparty so much as pausing to for breath before moving onto the next item. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 24 February 2020
|
The Jolly Contrarian’s fifth law of worker entropy states that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of time, t, a worker spends on a task and its overall importance, i, to the organisation.
Examples
- Human resources: The organisation will wrack itself for four months of the year crashing mainframe computer systems trying to get a performance appraisal system to work; enforcing its clear desk policy, formulating and updating its risk taxonomy and promoting an internal career fair, but expend no energy promoting actual risk managemenbt or risk reduction.
- Negotiation: A negotiator will spend literally days battling away on the precise waterfall of dispute fallbacks for a NAV trigger — never to be used once the agreement is signed, except to periodically waive triggers that will have inevitably been set too sensitively — but will agree a failure to pay event of default — the one realistic event ever needed — without her counterparty so much as pausing to for breath before moving onto the next item.