Employee Induction Quotes

In the case a bricklayer working for a subcontractor on the Perth Stadium construction project suffered serious injuries when he single-handedly began to remove two overhead steel purlins that were in the way when he was building a wall. One of the discussions in the case was the extent to which the principal should have provided training to the subcontractor about workplace health and safety hazards associated with the work. In that context, the court observed: Pursuant to its contract, NeoWest had autonomy in how it was to complete the works and it was the appropriate body to provide the training and induction within its specialised area and to specify the methods to be used in performing the tasks required of its workers. It would not have been reasonably practicable, or indeed wise, for the first defendant to impinge on NeoWest's training and induction of its own employees as to the proper and safe method of completing the works within its scope of works and area of expertise and specialised knowledge, possibly to override or even contradict that training and induction. Each individual trade's expertise and specialist knowledge was the very reason why the first defendant engaged subcontractors to perform the various works in the first place, rather than complete them itself.60 This limited (although still very onerous) obligation is consistent with a social approach to managing wicked problems. As I argue later in the book, you cannot solve wicked problems – we cannot solve safety. All we can do is “tame” the problem of safety – do the best we can.

so therefore it is true. By contrast, an inductive study will start with very open-ended questions like, “What is going on in our organization? How are employees feeling? What are their concerns, if any?” Such a study seeks to understand, “What is important?

The problems start at the beginning. For one, the options outlined are only based on the experience and knowledge of the consultant. Even consultants who tout their expertise, once they undertake delivering the series of workshops, for instance, to engage the company’s employees, the workshops are based on their existing thinking. They do not include the outliers or ideas that may lead to a revolution of the business. There may well be talk of embracing good or best practice, but that does not mean that they are current practices and there is a saying, ‘best practices are someone’s past practices.’ Also the work is typically based on a small set of examples. Therefore, the applicability, in this context, is not tested; it is basically an inductive model. The approach is fundamentally based on an idealized end-state model that assumes that we can second guess the market, that we have largely perfect knowledge, and that we can affect the market with the consultant’s limited strategy. As Paul Ormerod and Bridgett Rosewell’s paper indicates, this is inconsistent with reality. We need a new model that reflects the reality that we exist in today and allows us to discover, as Dave Snowden suggests, “The evolutionary potential of the present.