82,891
edits
Empowerment: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}When that [[inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation]] has been going so long there are sizeable parts of your risk management team who were still | {{a|devil|}}When that [[inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation]] has been going so long there are sizeable parts of your risk management team who were still in school when it began, and others, then in the primes of their careers, have since retired, we wonder whether the crux of the problem really is the scope of the requested [[sovereign immunity]] waiver, or whether it hasn’t got more to do with how your own organisation is ''organised'', and how it fails to ''[[empower]]'' — or ''trust'' — those it puts in the front line ''of'' the negotiation. | ||
“Send people authorised to make a decision” is a management truism that seems well out of fashion. | |||
We are talking about [[empowerment]] not in the sense of touchy-feely [[yogababble]] about how we should all be actualised to [[Be the best version of yourself|be the best versions of ourselves]] — [[HR]] will be all over that, and they can have it, frankly — but in the sense of having the autonomy and authority to make pragmatic decisions to move an your own part of your own organisation ''on''. | We are talking about [[empowerment]] not in the sense of touchy-feely [[yogababble]] about how we should all be actualised to [[Be the best version of yourself|be the best versions of ourselves]] — [[HR]] will be all over that, and they can have it, frankly — but in the sense of having the autonomy and authority to make pragmatic decisions to move an your own part of your own organisation ''on''. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
In any commercial collective, there is an enduring tussle between the (sadly) resistible force of [[subject matter expert]]ise — wielded limply by those who know what they are doing, understand the proximate ramifications of their actions and derive professional pride and no small amount of job satisfaction from ''the act of applying their expertise to the betterment of the firm'' — and the hardly moveable object of [[policy]], [[process]], [[precedent]] and sclerotic infrastructure that trusts no such executive agent further than she can be thrown, and is stout in the resistance of any kind of risk, however theoretical or academic. | In any commercial collective, there is an enduring tussle between the (sadly) resistible force of [[subject matter expert]]ise — wielded limply by those who know what they are doing, understand the proximate ramifications of their actions and derive professional pride and no small amount of job satisfaction from ''the act of applying their expertise to the betterment of the firm'' — and the hardly moveable object of [[policy]], [[process]], [[precedent]] and sclerotic infrastructure that trusts no such executive agent further than she can be thrown, and is stout in the resistance of any kind of risk, however theoretical or academic. | ||
Those two forces — of [[substance]] and of [[form]] — wrestle in any organisation; the bigger and older the firm | Those two forces — of [[substance]] and of [[form]] — wrestle in any organisation; the bigger and older the firm, the more likely the executive who yearns for a crumb of authority to conduct its affairs will be disappointed. She may want little more than the opportunity to stand on the deck, in the sun, blowing wistfully into the sail, an action that, by itself, will vouchsafe ineffable ''meaning'' in her grim working life even if it doesn’t noticeably propel the vessel, but even that will be denied her. | ||
She will be institutionalised, worn down and broken. Her fresh | She will be institutionalised, worn down and broken. Her fresh eyes will cloud, her shoulders will sag, she will mutter distractedly, using the world “[[leverage]]” when she means “use” — all these deteriorations in the service of a descent towards the same fate we all share: a lifetime nosing boulders back up that very same slope we have just slithered down. | ||
We all know the feeling: the [[credit department]] policy that requires [[cross default]] in a spot contract; the [[clearing house]] which demands an unlimited [[indemnity]] for losses it might suffer — but that it cannot articulate even in the hypothetical — whilst carrying out a trade-matching service; the absurd contractual [[disclaimer]] of liability for losses arising from ones’ notwithstanding normal or even [[gross negligence]]. | We all know the feeling: the [[credit department]] policy that requires [[cross default]] in a spot contract; the [[clearing house]] which demands an unlimited [[indemnity]] for losses it might suffer — but that it cannot articulate even in the hypothetical — whilst carrying out a trade-matching service; the absurd contractual [[disclaimer]] of liability for losses arising from ones’ notwithstanding normal or even [[gross negligence]]. | ||