2 comments
J Berdou said...
Having read the contents of this blog as authored by Trevor Nel and several of his associated contributors, I decided to respond as per Nel's invite on the blog, to his version of the "attitude" of the current LRA board and related matters. I set this out as follows:
1. I find the depth of criticism, jaundiced interpretation of fact and perchance to insult and recrimination which is replete in regard to the present LRA board to be quite frankly disgusting, uncalled for and unnecessary not to mention the total antithesis of the community spirit Nel subscribes to or so he says.
2. The present LRA board are most certainly not subscribers to mediocrity in service delivery especially when it comes to the provision of security for the residents of Lonehill.The pursuit of zero defect in this respect is the top priority of the present LRA board and the SAPS statistics reveal that Lonehill experiences far lower levels of crime than any of its surrounding precincts which is a clear result of the LRA security initiative and its associated activities. The fact that some criminal activity still takes place in Lonehill, such as what happened to Nel and several other of our fellow Lonehill residents, is simply not acceptable and should spur us all to redouble our efforts to pull together as a community rather than embark on the route of blaming the LRA board, who incidentally consist of fellow Lonehill residents giving of their time and effort and whose families security is of equal concern as that of all other Lonehill residents. In short we are in this together. It should be remembered that criminal activity still took place in Lonehill from time to time from the inception of the Lonehill Residents Association initiative, including during the tenure of Mr Nel , so to ascribe the blame for occasional criminal activity that still takes place in Lonehill to the present LRA board is not factual.
3. The fact is that criminal activity evolves in cycles with vehicle borne armed gangs being the most dangerous. By placing unarmed security officers in reflector vests on streets to give such criminals a fright, as suggested by Nel, is simply not the answer. Readers of this blog will know what will happen to such personnel if such personnel were to confront these armed gangs. The only way to deal with such a threat is to institute roadblocks using properly trained, equipped , armed and legally authorised personnel and to site such roadblocks at places of our choosing as far away from homes and schools as possible for obvious reasons.
4. As such, the LRA board, in association with the SAPS, has launched an appeal for residents of Lonehill to volunteer to join the SAPS reservists. Such reservists will receive training, proper equipment including automatic weapons and will be legally empowered to conduct searches unlike ordinary security officers. Additionally, the LRA board is in the process of securing donations of equipment such as vehicles, radios and roadblock materials in association with sponsoring corporate contributors.
5. The LRA Board most certainly does not believe that they cannot benefit from inputs from the community and in fact owes its existence to such community and its inputs and participation. But this cannot surely be taken as an invitation to destructively criticise, insult and demean fellow Lonehill residents who happen to be serving on the LRA board at present.Im sure there is no reader of this blog who would appreciate being spoken about as Nel has spoken of the present LRA Board on this self same blogsite!
6. With the correct counselling and mediatorial interventions, perhaps the tremendous and remarkably extraordinary efforts that Nel goes to in his criticisms of the present LRA Board, could be channelled into co operative activities with the LRA Board who, contrary to the impression given on this blog, remain open to such joint activity.
7. We owe it to our community to put all of this ridiculous recrimination aside and to get on with the job of focussing our limited resources and time on protecting the residentsand bettering the environs of Lonehill for the benefit of all its residents. J BerdouFellow Lonehill ResidentMember of LRA Board
Fri Nov 14, 07:24:00 AM 2008
Trevor said...
if the cap fits wear it... far more productive to answer questions posed on this forum which will show what the LRA Board is actually doing, or at worst, planning to do. Refer previous post linked in main post above - Lonehill: 42 Days - NO Answers Yet From LRA Talk is cheap. What does the LRA Board want to have happen? Who do they want to deliver on the objectives? Allocate tasks to competent people (volunteers and/or professionals) who will make things happen... and then get out of the way.
Fri Nov 14, 08:59:00 AM 2008
Custom Search
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Lonehill: Who's Fooling WHO..?
Preface:
Please note that my comments in this email/post are not aimed at those who truly make things work and happen in Lonehill. I will never criticise those who honestly strive for excellence in delivery of our vision.
I aim my comments specifically at those whose lack of strategy, tactics and/or proactive action have resulted in the current failure in our community initiative to deliver a 24-hour total security solution. When guns against our foreheads in our homes are now the result of their short-of-the-mark efforts, I WILL call a spade a spade.
I am reminded that we all see things differently and that I acknowledge the right of others to hold a contrary opinion.
I apologise up-front to those who may take personal umbrage to my tone in this email (please forgive me) and ask that if we do seem to hold an adversarial position that you look past any tone that may upset you to the core issue/s in discussion. Please feel free to submit your argument/debate/opinions in response.
Summary Extracts: This forum post argues, with reasons derived from a 3-hour meeting with the LRA Board, that in my opinion:
1. Our current LRA Board provides lip-service to our Vision of zero-tolerance towards crime in Lonehill
2. Our current LRA Board accepts levels of innefficiency, incompetence, mediocrity, and deficiency in their service delivery under the justification - 'we're doing our best'.
3. Our current LRA Board no longer considers itself responsible for delivering on no-nonsense pro-active first-line-of-defense security for its community.
It is my contention that this current LRA Board is fooling themselves... and us as a community who believe that our Vision of 24-hour total security is being resolutely honoured and delivered upon by the LRA.
My primary observation from this meeting was that this Board clearly does not believe that the LRA can adequately protect this community against crime.
It has now passed the point where I actually FEAR the Peter-Principle incompetence, intransigence, ineffectiveness and crime-accepting-resignation of our 'leadership' MORE than I fear the criminals themselves.
This is now the third time in our twenty years in this community that I have experienced this sad showing of our LRA in Lonehill.
Some of this Board did not take kindly to my analogy of their attitude to their 'best efforts' being like constructing a 'Golden-Gate'-type bridge across an ever-widening Grand Canyon and having it fall 20 metres short of reaching the other end. Some still cannot see that all their 'best efforts' are rendered ineffective in delivering on the intended objective if 150% span, change, expansion, flexibility, innovation and growth et al are not built into the design of the bridge.
My Resolution: To return to shoring up our own personal home and family protection once again from our Home and Street outwards - recognising sadly that we're on our own again. And, at the same time, to do everything in my power to return the Lonehill Community initiative to the original Vision intended, no matter how unpopular that may make me in the eyes of some.
Summary Ends.
Now to the full post, for those who want the full insight and reasoning behind my opinion.
Warning: this post is lengthy because I am serious about safety & security for all in this community:
One of the easiest things to tell in the business world are those individual egos wrapped up in their own corporate arrogance. And often, these egos look to congregate in collectives (called Groupthink ) to engender support and seek 'official' confirmation to back up their arrogance... no matter that it further deepens the fools they make of themselves in the eyes of their publics.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
Or, put another way, there are none so blind as those with closed minds who make up their minds to manipulate the 'facts' to fit their own jaundiced perceptions and/or subjective assumptions.
Classic case (could well be a pun given the corporate in this story) of this occuring at the moment is in this story - Our Zero tastes just fine: Coke - where some Coke corporates appear to miss the entire point of one man's critical input and clearly enjoy the 'research' and rulings that support their arrogant view on the situation.
A real pity, because Coke is one of the world's greatest product and business stories of all time. But, great history does not protect an entity from the arrogance of a few individual egos in their midst.
Here's what I mean. In my taste-buds' collective opinions, there is no way in a generation of Sundays that Coke Zero tastes like Real Coke.
My taste buds are hooked on Real Coke..! They know the real thing.
That's all that one man was telling them (there's no way that Coke Zero tastes like Real Coke)... and they seemed to fight that one man with research data and a justification that is totally off issue (the point is not whether people like Coke Zero or not) seemingly not realising that they are fooling themselves and their publics by making patently unbelievable claims to which many just don't bother to jump up and say anything about.
We just won't buy the stuff.
If anything the unwitting 'genius' in their claim (for which I doubt that they can seek credit) is that it's probably doing more for improving the sales of Real Coke due to the marked 'yugh' factor from the first taste-test of the new product. I immediately bought a Coke to wash away the after-taste of the Coke Zero.
The corporate arrogance of such individuals cannot see that it is not what you say that is important, but what you do/deliver as a customer experience.
You can do everything you want - cute slogans, adverts, studies, legal opinion, and press releases - to fool my taste-buds into believing that it taste like Real Coke... but what you actually deliver is the true acid test. That's where your integrity gets found out.
And so it is with the LRA right now.
The LRA's new slogan could well be: LRA Zero - just like the Real LRA.
Here's why I say this.
Just like the Real Coke... our Real LRA was taken over in 2001 by an active community (the Lonehill Security Action Group formed in 2000) to deliver on the Vision: To create an up-market village community where all residents are free to live, shop and exercise in pristine surroundings with total peace of mind in their personal safety and security.
I will argue below why today's LRA Zero is a pretender delivering on PARTIAL safety and security and placing our families and homes at risk... as opposed to TOTAL safety and security.
As promised, I followed through on requesting a 3-hour meeting of the LRA Board last Friday 24th October and introduced them to six outsiders from my vast contact network of business specialists with resource, experience and skills in the fields of business strategy, innovation, leadership and crisis centre management.
Personally, I was extremely disappointed with the outcome of the meeting, having prefaced my opening comment with my committment to subordinate my emotions of the attack on my family, friend and home, and to allowing past happenings within the LRA to be water under the bridge, in preference for finding positive ways to move our initiative forward.
I think that the invited outsiders were also a little taken aback at what they witnessed: See - Attack Meeting: Outsiders Feedback & Thank You Thread
I chose to ignore the earlier attempts at stonewalling the agenda despite being invited to set the agenda - 'Trevor, Our understanding was that this session today was specifically to address the security issues at hand, at a high level, with a few people, in order to prepare for a more open public session. Your agenda details otherwise, and seems to want to focus on a myriad of other matters. This will not happen, and the focus will remain on the security issues. RG' - with my simple response: 'Sorry... this is the agenda... it is not your meeting'. See link: Friday 24 Oct 2008 Meeting Agenda Thread
Update insert: This intransigence and arrogance continues 15 days later with the LRA Board not releasing draft minutes of the meeting to all attendees who participated, but preferring to release it to their select few for their sanitising first before releasing it to others (even the sanitised version is not yet released). My response to the LRA Chairman (still ignored) was this : 'I would think it far more appropriate and transparent to allow ALL who took the trouble to participate in this meeting an opportunity to comment on the 1st draft minutes of that meeting.' Sadly, the LRA Board seems incapable of assessing how such action has the potential to render any such sanitised minutes to be unreliable and not representative of those who attended, and for how it shows a lack of respect and disregard for the value of the time and input of others.
I ignored the fact that the agenda was claimed not to have been received by the LRA Board and therefore not printed for circulation at the meeting despite all clearly having been copied on the agenda email: From: Rob Gillespie - To: 'Trevor Nel' - Cc: Don Perry ; Hamish McBain ; Jean Berdou ; Michael Goodwin ; Ray Stride ; Ray Stride ; Rob Gillespie ; Roger McKee ; Sally Pearson ; Simon Bradshaw - Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:03 AM - Subject: RE: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
However, instead of allowing the meeting to flow down the direction of brainstorming ideas for achieving innovative excellence and positive change to the 'don't cross this line in the sand' attitude to crime in our community that is our Vision and Mission, the verbal ripostes from the LRA Board members highlighted their frail, defensive, protective sensitivities as a collective - demonstrating a seemingly misguided loyalty to each other as individuals - towards any comment made by this writer on this forum.
The first indication of their intended direction was when they embarrassed themselves with a puerile show of unmitigated suspicion towards representatives of a Crisis Management Centre that had traveled a long way without condition as part of my team of invited outsiders to lend of their experience in brainstorming possible solutions.
The LRA Board's general 'NO, We Can't' poor attitude to almost every innovative approach made to them is in stark contrast to Barack Obama's 'YES WE CAN' campaign that swept him to victory in the US Presidential elections. Just as Gregg thompson writes in When The Leader Speaks…. : 'Things happen! People become engaged. Teams gel. Customers are served. Problems are solved. Products are invented. Such is the power of a leader’s communication'. Would that our leaders would just deign to read this article link, if nothing else.
There are some that patently could not hide their deep embitterment for myself and this forum's comments (which they interpret has wholly negative), leading to non-helpful emotional comments and barbs arising from the LRA Board, such as... 'there are many people in Lonehill who hate you'... 'if we bring you onto the Board there are many who will leave - they just won't work with you'... and... 'it seems that you have something to sell..' and even an after-meeting follow up telephone contact comment to one of the attendees to say '..he's lost the plot'.
All such silly barbs do is to compound my lack of respect for their leadership immaturity. I'm not into politics. I couldn't care less for what other people think of my looking to protect my family, home and community from armed gangs running around at will through our current security initiative which currently leaks like a sieve.
I have no desire to be on such intransigent Board lacking in any innovative growth-oriented qualities at all - I've already committed over four and a half years to establishing this initiative and being on the Board. Besides, they would never be able to take the honest feedback and input of an individual like myself on the current Board... worse, they subscribe to none of the minimum standards and principles that I use as a base measure for governance, openness, inclusivity and transparency, et al - judging by their shutters coming down the moment I referred back to our original Lonehill Manifesto proposals.
And, to confirm my consistent stance on this forum, if the LRA Board is going to waste R100 000's to millions of our hard-earned Rands on non-delivery by incompetent people, as has happened, I'd rather see competent people in Lonehill being paid to deliver what we really want. But, I recognise that given my role on this forum, it's hardly likely that I could give away ice-cold Real Coke to an immature LRA Board dying of thirst in a desert... let alone 'sell' them anything!
The issue is not about smokescreens, bruised egos, false perceptions of power and control, personalities and silly internal politics - that's just pathetic in any community - and it turns me off to see it consistently at play here in Lonehill.
So, what's the issue?
It's about the hard-core issue of non-delivery on our most critical objective - total 24-hour security.
It's about being an individual responsible for striving to achieve the difference between effective delivery vs. ineffective delivery of this key objective in our community.
Maybe it's time for the sensitive softies (who all have an equal place in this community) to separate themselves into focusing on the soft issues that keeps them 'so busy' - sterilising feral cats, garden competitions, et al... and to bring in the hard-core to focus on the hard issues.
I just believe that it's time again for some of the fragile egos on the LRA Board obstructing our community progress on our core issue of providing 24-hour total security to step aside and allow fresh, mature leadership to lead the way forward!
In my opinion, it seems that many of the current LRA Board are more intent on protecting their personal egos/integrities, which they perceive to be under 'attack' from this writer/forum, than they are committed to seeking and innovating solutions for providing 24-hour total security to us homeowners in this community.
They should read: Lonehill: Uphold The Right To Comment, Critique, Disagree & Criticise .
On my asking why we only had +-300 LRA members from +- 6000 householders after almost 3 years of this new Board's tenure and given the changes to the LRA AGM voting participation requirement process, only one individual on the Board, to his credit, had the honesty to call a spade a spade (which I do repect) and to admit a core area/s of failure of the LRA - Marketing & Communication - which led to a positive suggestion from self to address the problem at the root of our community: To conduct a market research interview of EVERY household.
The response to this market research proposal floored me, to paraphrase: 'We already use Fidelity to conduct this type of market research feedback and the findings are excellent'.
Hmmmm... well, they would be, wouldn't they? Why not just get the criminal elements that attack us to conduct another even more 'unbiased' market research opinion of our security initiative?
What is frightening, is that some of these Board members truly believe some of the absurd logic and assumptions they verbally espouse and do everything in their power to control or browbeat contrary opinions into oblivion. I focus on' verbally', as it is almost impossible to get this LRA Board to make and clarify such absurd logic and assumptions in writing. Most disingenuous. Refer: Lonehill: 42 Days - NO Answers Yet From LRA - this link also includes an indication of how draft minutes from our meeting will not be circulated to all attendees for comment prior to sanitisation by the LRA Board.
Who's fooling who..?
Let me just say that the divide between certain individuals on this Board and self is so wide as to have us more than Poles apart on our viewpoints.. ;-)
My primary observation from this meeting was that this Board clearly does not believe that the LRA can adequately protect this community against crime... and therefore they are resigned to doing 'the best we can' and look to justify their service and actions by comparison against statistics in other areas.
In other words, in my opinion, this Board does not believe in the most critical part of their mandate as stated in our Vision derived from our original security mission - '..to provide 24-hour total security..' and consequently they choose to focus on softer issues that they feel they can deal with operationally.
Not that I have any problem with what they're attempting to achieve on the softer issues - see: Lonehill: Should We Be IMPRESSED? - I am just more concerned with the hard issue of how we can protect families in our community from being attacked in their homes and driveways with guns to their heads as we were.
Individual Board members highlighted clearly their views that the responsibilty for protecting oneself against crime in this community vests in the householders themselves at their home base... and that the LRA was merely just another incidental line of defense. Some, of course, blamed the government and the police, which just was not useful comment at all.
There is an attitude of resigned 'acceptable deficiency' that prevails. The current LRA Board is accepting that crime will happen in our community... and, I repeat, are happy that their best is OK as long as we 'look' better than the stats from surrounding areas.
This attitude, in my opinion, has resulted in a marked decline in any semblance of pro-active security visibility.
It is now becoming rare to see a Lonehill Security vehicle parked off anywhere (whilst one notices them either travelling outside of our community or parked off at the LRA office - what good is that?) and roving guards are becoming difficult to see. No wonder criminals are seeing us as easy meat once again.
This attitude also has some on our LRA Board REACTING to any of my/our pushing for expected service delivery ... by themselves pushing back in often belligerent, defensive, protective, aggressive and even obstructive (stonewalling) fashion... rather than accepting our questions and feedback as essential input to be applied positively to attaining our ideal of total 24-hour security in our community.
It is clear that the LRA Board's jaundiced attitude to questions asked by this community is that such questions are designed to undermine the LRA... whereas in actual fact, their not answering simple questions honestly, with openness and transparency, foolishly undermines their very integrities they seek to protect.
It would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that people have been attacked in their homes in Lonehill whilst I believe this LRA Board must know in their heart-of-hearts that they have NOT been focussing on protecting us to the levels of excellence that we expect... and, all the more pathetic in that that they almost always seem to begrudgingly react after serious incidents to launch stop-gap reactionary attempts at short-term security visibilty in damage-control mode to minimise the fall-out from their publics.
That's too LATE!
The LRA Board must know their deficiencies, they must know that they react no different to the way that most security companies react in most communities, and they must know that they appear not to have a clue what to do to make this initiative sustainable and PROACTIVE in delivering total 24-hour security for our community.
This LRA Board does not appear to know where they want to go and seem intent on just keeping the ships engines turning... and therefore they meander around in circles painting the decks and re-arranging the deck chairs.
It has now passed the point where I actually FEAR the Peter-Principle incompetence, intransigence, ineffectiveness and crime-accepting-resignation of our 'leadership' MORE than I fear the criminals themselves.
This is now the third time in our twenty years in this community that I have experienced this sad showing of our LRA in Lonehill.
As further indication, from the experience I have from the reaction and follow-up to our attack, it is my opinion that their sad attitude is now endemic from LRA top-down and permeates through to the E-grade guards on the ground who are now too scared to communicate (those that have the ability to communicate) with us as a community - their clients on the ground.
Sadly, I had to witness the patent fear of an intelligent proactive guard who applied his street-smart savvy towards reporting suspicious activity (very likely, from the descriptions, a return of our attackers) to a non-appreciative and threatening internal management structure. To me, this fear stems from the autocratic, subjective, closed, 'I'll fire you' management-by-fear style that emanates from the top of our LRA, that has people on the ground, and management in-between, too scared to comment for fear of retribution.
Bully-Boy 'threat' and 'fear' seems to be a consistent weapon/tactic of choice employed by some on this Board as I have personally experienced in both the threatened litigation of self for comments I make on this forum - See: Lonehill: The BEST of People... The WORST of People... and Everybody In-Between ... and in responses to my dealing with unfair labour practice issues on behalf of a loyal LRA staffer who was not having his simple questions answered. What for? These are out-dated management-style tactics that belong to a bygone pre-1994 era... and should have disappeared with The Ark.
Consequently, it's my opinion, the LRA Board gets only the feedback that their fearful subservients believe they want to hear.
Some of this Board did not take kindly to my analogy of their attitude to their 'best efforts' being like constructing a 'Golden-Gate'-type bridge across an ever-widening Grand Canyon and having it fall 20 metres short of reaching the other end. Some still cannot see that all their 'best efforts' are rendered ineffective in delivering on the intended objective if 150% span, change, expansion, flexibility, innovation and growth et al are not built into the design of the bridge.
It will collapse at some point!
It's like the car manufacturer advertising 'zero-tolerance' in their brand whilst having a built in 'acceptable-deficiency' which can have four lock-nuts left off a rear wheel.
So, I sadly left our 3-hour meeting recognising that we (my family and household) can no longer depend on these LRA Board members to protect us as an initiative with a no-nonsense first-line-of-defense, as they no longer feel accountable for that... and that any reference to 'zero-tolerance' to crime as I read in a recent LRA e-mail is purely lip-service from this LRA Board.
They have almost returned our initiative to back to being not much better than any other security reaction service in any other community.
What they are really saying is - LRA Zero - just like the Real LRA - and sadly, in my opinion, they operate to that mantra and they will not allow the facts to interfere with a good story that they're going to stick by.
Here's my offer to each current LRA Board member, please enjoy a Coke Zero on me and tell me if you truly believe it is the Real Coke. And then ask yourself whether you believe that what you offer to us as a zero-tolerance 24-hour total security service in our community right now is truly that.
Regards
Trevor Nel - Lonehill Resident
011 - 705-2790
Please note that my comments in this email/post are not aimed at those who truly make things work and happen in Lonehill. I will never criticise those who honestly strive for excellence in delivery of our vision.
I aim my comments specifically at those whose lack of strategy, tactics and/or proactive action have resulted in the current failure in our community initiative to deliver a 24-hour total security solution. When guns against our foreheads in our homes are now the result of their short-of-the-mark efforts, I WILL call a spade a spade.
I am reminded that we all see things differently and that I acknowledge the right of others to hold a contrary opinion.
I apologise up-front to those who may take personal umbrage to my tone in this email (please forgive me) and ask that if we do seem to hold an adversarial position that you look past any tone that may upset you to the core issue/s in discussion. Please feel free to submit your argument/debate/opinions in response.
Summary Extracts: This forum post argues, with reasons derived from a 3-hour meeting with the LRA Board, that in my opinion:
1. Our current LRA Board provides lip-service to our Vision of zero-tolerance towards crime in Lonehill
2. Our current LRA Board accepts levels of innefficiency, incompetence, mediocrity, and deficiency in their service delivery under the justification - 'we're doing our best'.
3. Our current LRA Board no longer considers itself responsible for delivering on no-nonsense pro-active first-line-of-defense security for its community.
It is my contention that this current LRA Board is fooling themselves... and us as a community who believe that our Vision of 24-hour total security is being resolutely honoured and delivered upon by the LRA.
My primary observation from this meeting was that this Board clearly does not believe that the LRA can adequately protect this community against crime.
It has now passed the point where I actually FEAR the Peter-Principle incompetence, intransigence, ineffectiveness and crime-accepting-resignation of our 'leadership' MORE than I fear the criminals themselves.
This is now the third time in our twenty years in this community that I have experienced this sad showing of our LRA in Lonehill.
Some of this Board did not take kindly to my analogy of their attitude to their 'best efforts' being like constructing a 'Golden-Gate'-type bridge across an ever-widening Grand Canyon and having it fall 20 metres short of reaching the other end. Some still cannot see that all their 'best efforts' are rendered ineffective in delivering on the intended objective if 150% span, change, expansion, flexibility, innovation and growth et al are not built into the design of the bridge.
My Resolution: To return to shoring up our own personal home and family protection once again from our Home and Street outwards - recognising sadly that we're on our own again. And, at the same time, to do everything in my power to return the Lonehill Community initiative to the original Vision intended, no matter how unpopular that may make me in the eyes of some.
Summary Ends.
Now to the full post, for those who want the full insight and reasoning behind my opinion.
Warning: this post is lengthy because I am serious about safety & security for all in this community:
One of the easiest things to tell in the business world are those individual egos wrapped up in their own corporate arrogance. And often, these egos look to congregate in collectives (called Groupthink ) to engender support and seek 'official' confirmation to back up their arrogance... no matter that it further deepens the fools they make of themselves in the eyes of their publics.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
Or, put another way, there are none so blind as those with closed minds who make up their minds to manipulate the 'facts' to fit their own jaundiced perceptions and/or subjective assumptions.
Classic case (could well be a pun given the corporate in this story) of this occuring at the moment is in this story - Our Zero tastes just fine: Coke - where some Coke corporates appear to miss the entire point of one man's critical input and clearly enjoy the 'research' and rulings that support their arrogant view on the situation.
A real pity, because Coke is one of the world's greatest product and business stories of all time. But, great history does not protect an entity from the arrogance of a few individual egos in their midst.
Here's what I mean. In my taste-buds' collective opinions, there is no way in a generation of Sundays that Coke Zero tastes like Real Coke.
My taste buds are hooked on Real Coke..! They know the real thing.
That's all that one man was telling them (there's no way that Coke Zero tastes like Real Coke)... and they seemed to fight that one man with research data and a justification that is totally off issue (the point is not whether people like Coke Zero or not) seemingly not realising that they are fooling themselves and their publics by making patently unbelievable claims to which many just don't bother to jump up and say anything about.
We just won't buy the stuff.
If anything the unwitting 'genius' in their claim (for which I doubt that they can seek credit) is that it's probably doing more for improving the sales of Real Coke due to the marked 'yugh' factor from the first taste-test of the new product. I immediately bought a Coke to wash away the after-taste of the Coke Zero.
The corporate arrogance of such individuals cannot see that it is not what you say that is important, but what you do/deliver as a customer experience.
You can do everything you want - cute slogans, adverts, studies, legal opinion, and press releases - to fool my taste-buds into believing that it taste like Real Coke... but what you actually deliver is the true acid test. That's where your integrity gets found out.
And so it is with the LRA right now.
The LRA's new slogan could well be: LRA Zero - just like the Real LRA.
Here's why I say this.
Just like the Real Coke... our Real LRA was taken over in 2001 by an active community (the Lonehill Security Action Group formed in 2000) to deliver on the Vision: To create an up-market village community where all residents are free to live, shop and exercise in pristine surroundings with total peace of mind in their personal safety and security.
I will argue below why today's LRA Zero is a pretender delivering on PARTIAL safety and security and placing our families and homes at risk... as opposed to TOTAL safety and security.
As promised, I followed through on requesting a 3-hour meeting of the LRA Board last Friday 24th October and introduced them to six outsiders from my vast contact network of business specialists with resource, experience and skills in the fields of business strategy, innovation, leadership and crisis centre management.
Personally, I was extremely disappointed with the outcome of the meeting, having prefaced my opening comment with my committment to subordinate my emotions of the attack on my family, friend and home, and to allowing past happenings within the LRA to be water under the bridge, in preference for finding positive ways to move our initiative forward.
I think that the invited outsiders were also a little taken aback at what they witnessed: See - Attack Meeting: Outsiders Feedback & Thank You Thread
I chose to ignore the earlier attempts at stonewalling the agenda despite being invited to set the agenda - 'Trevor, Our understanding was that this session today was specifically to address the security issues at hand, at a high level, with a few people, in order to prepare for a more open public session. Your agenda details otherwise, and seems to want to focus on a myriad of other matters. This will not happen, and the focus will remain on the security issues. RG' - with my simple response: 'Sorry... this is the agenda... it is not your meeting'. See link: Friday 24 Oct 2008 Meeting Agenda Thread
Update insert: This intransigence and arrogance continues 15 days later with the LRA Board not releasing draft minutes of the meeting to all attendees who participated, but preferring to release it to their select few for their sanitising first before releasing it to others (even the sanitised version is not yet released). My response to the LRA Chairman (still ignored) was this : 'I would think it far more appropriate and transparent to allow ALL who took the trouble to participate in this meeting an opportunity to comment on the 1st draft minutes of that meeting.' Sadly, the LRA Board seems incapable of assessing how such action has the potential to render any such sanitised minutes to be unreliable and not representative of those who attended, and for how it shows a lack of respect and disregard for the value of the time and input of others.
I ignored the fact that the agenda was claimed not to have been received by the LRA Board and therefore not printed for circulation at the meeting despite all clearly having been copied on the agenda email: From: Rob Gillespie - To: 'Trevor Nel' - Cc: Don Perry ; Hamish McBain ; Jean Berdou ; Michael Goodwin ; Ray Stride ; Ray Stride ; Rob Gillespie ; Roger McKee ; Sally Pearson ; Simon Bradshaw - Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:03 AM - Subject: RE: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
However, instead of allowing the meeting to flow down the direction of brainstorming ideas for achieving innovative excellence and positive change to the 'don't cross this line in the sand' attitude to crime in our community that is our Vision and Mission, the verbal ripostes from the LRA Board members highlighted their frail, defensive, protective sensitivities as a collective - demonstrating a seemingly misguided loyalty to each other as individuals - towards any comment made by this writer on this forum.
The first indication of their intended direction was when they embarrassed themselves with a puerile show of unmitigated suspicion towards representatives of a Crisis Management Centre that had traveled a long way without condition as part of my team of invited outsiders to lend of their experience in brainstorming possible solutions.
The LRA Board's general 'NO, We Can't' poor attitude to almost every innovative approach made to them is in stark contrast to Barack Obama's 'YES WE CAN' campaign that swept him to victory in the US Presidential elections. Just as Gregg thompson writes in When The Leader Speaks…. : 'Things happen! People become engaged. Teams gel. Customers are served. Problems are solved. Products are invented. Such is the power of a leader’s communication'. Would that our leaders would just deign to read this article link, if nothing else.
There are some that patently could not hide their deep embitterment for myself and this forum's comments (which they interpret has wholly negative), leading to non-helpful emotional comments and barbs arising from the LRA Board, such as... 'there are many people in Lonehill who hate you'... 'if we bring you onto the Board there are many who will leave - they just won't work with you'... and... 'it seems that you have something to sell..' and even an after-meeting follow up telephone contact comment to one of the attendees to say '..he's lost the plot'.
All such silly barbs do is to compound my lack of respect for their leadership immaturity. I'm not into politics. I couldn't care less for what other people think of my looking to protect my family, home and community from armed gangs running around at will through our current security initiative which currently leaks like a sieve.
I have no desire to be on such intransigent Board lacking in any innovative growth-oriented qualities at all - I've already committed over four and a half years to establishing this initiative and being on the Board. Besides, they would never be able to take the honest feedback and input of an individual like myself on the current Board... worse, they subscribe to none of the minimum standards and principles that I use as a base measure for governance, openness, inclusivity and transparency, et al - judging by their shutters coming down the moment I referred back to our original Lonehill Manifesto proposals.
And, to confirm my consistent stance on this forum, if the LRA Board is going to waste R100 000's to millions of our hard-earned Rands on non-delivery by incompetent people, as has happened, I'd rather see competent people in Lonehill being paid to deliver what we really want. But, I recognise that given my role on this forum, it's hardly likely that I could give away ice-cold Real Coke to an immature LRA Board dying of thirst in a desert... let alone 'sell' them anything!
The issue is not about smokescreens, bruised egos, false perceptions of power and control, personalities and silly internal politics - that's just pathetic in any community - and it turns me off to see it consistently at play here in Lonehill.
So, what's the issue?
It's about the hard-core issue of non-delivery on our most critical objective - total 24-hour security.
It's about being an individual responsible for striving to achieve the difference between effective delivery vs. ineffective delivery of this key objective in our community.
Maybe it's time for the sensitive softies (who all have an equal place in this community) to separate themselves into focusing on the soft issues that keeps them 'so busy' - sterilising feral cats, garden competitions, et al... and to bring in the hard-core to focus on the hard issues.
I just believe that it's time again for some of the fragile egos on the LRA Board obstructing our community progress on our core issue of providing 24-hour total security to step aside and allow fresh, mature leadership to lead the way forward!
In my opinion, it seems that many of the current LRA Board are more intent on protecting their personal egos/integrities, which they perceive to be under 'attack' from this writer/forum, than they are committed to seeking and innovating solutions for providing 24-hour total security to us homeowners in this community.
They should read: Lonehill: Uphold The Right To Comment, Critique, Disagree & Criticise .
On my asking why we only had +-300 LRA members from +- 6000 householders after almost 3 years of this new Board's tenure and given the changes to the LRA AGM voting participation requirement process, only one individual on the Board, to his credit, had the honesty to call a spade a spade (which I do repect) and to admit a core area/s of failure of the LRA - Marketing & Communication - which led to a positive suggestion from self to address the problem at the root of our community: To conduct a market research interview of EVERY household.
The response to this market research proposal floored me, to paraphrase: 'We already use Fidelity to conduct this type of market research feedback and the findings are excellent'.
Hmmmm... well, they would be, wouldn't they? Why not just get the criminal elements that attack us to conduct another even more 'unbiased' market research opinion of our security initiative?
What is frightening, is that some of these Board members truly believe some of the absurd logic and assumptions they verbally espouse and do everything in their power to control or browbeat contrary opinions into oblivion. I focus on' verbally', as it is almost impossible to get this LRA Board to make and clarify such absurd logic and assumptions in writing. Most disingenuous. Refer: Lonehill: 42 Days - NO Answers Yet From LRA - this link also includes an indication of how draft minutes from our meeting will not be circulated to all attendees for comment prior to sanitisation by the LRA Board.
Who's fooling who..?
Let me just say that the divide between certain individuals on this Board and self is so wide as to have us more than Poles apart on our viewpoints.. ;-)
My primary observation from this meeting was that this Board clearly does not believe that the LRA can adequately protect this community against crime... and therefore they are resigned to doing 'the best we can' and look to justify their service and actions by comparison against statistics in other areas.
In other words, in my opinion, this Board does not believe in the most critical part of their mandate as stated in our Vision derived from our original security mission - '..to provide 24-hour total security..' and consequently they choose to focus on softer issues that they feel they can deal with operationally.
Not that I have any problem with what they're attempting to achieve on the softer issues - see: Lonehill: Should We Be IMPRESSED? - I am just more concerned with the hard issue of how we can protect families in our community from being attacked in their homes and driveways with guns to their heads as we were.
Individual Board members highlighted clearly their views that the responsibilty for protecting oneself against crime in this community vests in the householders themselves at their home base... and that the LRA was merely just another incidental line of defense. Some, of course, blamed the government and the police, which just was not useful comment at all.
There is an attitude of resigned 'acceptable deficiency' that prevails. The current LRA Board is accepting that crime will happen in our community... and, I repeat, are happy that their best is OK as long as we 'look' better than the stats from surrounding areas.
This attitude, in my opinion, has resulted in a marked decline in any semblance of pro-active security visibility.
It is now becoming rare to see a Lonehill Security vehicle parked off anywhere (whilst one notices them either travelling outside of our community or parked off at the LRA office - what good is that?) and roving guards are becoming difficult to see. No wonder criminals are seeing us as easy meat once again.
This attitude also has some on our LRA Board REACTING to any of my/our pushing for expected service delivery ... by themselves pushing back in often belligerent, defensive, protective, aggressive and even obstructive (stonewalling) fashion... rather than accepting our questions and feedback as essential input to be applied positively to attaining our ideal of total 24-hour security in our community.
It is clear that the LRA Board's jaundiced attitude to questions asked by this community is that such questions are designed to undermine the LRA... whereas in actual fact, their not answering simple questions honestly, with openness and transparency, foolishly undermines their very integrities they seek to protect.
It would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that people have been attacked in their homes in Lonehill whilst I believe this LRA Board must know in their heart-of-hearts that they have NOT been focussing on protecting us to the levels of excellence that we expect... and, all the more pathetic in that that they almost always seem to begrudgingly react after serious incidents to launch stop-gap reactionary attempts at short-term security visibilty in damage-control mode to minimise the fall-out from their publics.
That's too LATE!
The LRA Board must know their deficiencies, they must know that they react no different to the way that most security companies react in most communities, and they must know that they appear not to have a clue what to do to make this initiative sustainable and PROACTIVE in delivering total 24-hour security for our community.
This LRA Board does not appear to know where they want to go and seem intent on just keeping the ships engines turning... and therefore they meander around in circles painting the decks and re-arranging the deck chairs.
It has now passed the point where I actually FEAR the Peter-Principle incompetence, intransigence, ineffectiveness and crime-accepting-resignation of our 'leadership' MORE than I fear the criminals themselves.
This is now the third time in our twenty years in this community that I have experienced this sad showing of our LRA in Lonehill.
As further indication, from the experience I have from the reaction and follow-up to our attack, it is my opinion that their sad attitude is now endemic from LRA top-down and permeates through to the E-grade guards on the ground who are now too scared to communicate (those that have the ability to communicate) with us as a community - their clients on the ground.
Sadly, I had to witness the patent fear of an intelligent proactive guard who applied his street-smart savvy towards reporting suspicious activity (very likely, from the descriptions, a return of our attackers) to a non-appreciative and threatening internal management structure. To me, this fear stems from the autocratic, subjective, closed, 'I'll fire you' management-by-fear style that emanates from the top of our LRA, that has people on the ground, and management in-between, too scared to comment for fear of retribution.
Bully-Boy 'threat' and 'fear' seems to be a consistent weapon/tactic of choice employed by some on this Board as I have personally experienced in both the threatened litigation of self for comments I make on this forum - See: Lonehill: The BEST of People... The WORST of People... and Everybody In-Between ... and in responses to my dealing with unfair labour practice issues on behalf of a loyal LRA staffer who was not having his simple questions answered. What for? These are out-dated management-style tactics that belong to a bygone pre-1994 era... and should have disappeared with The Ark.
Consequently, it's my opinion, the LRA Board gets only the feedback that their fearful subservients believe they want to hear.
Some of this Board did not take kindly to my analogy of their attitude to their 'best efforts' being like constructing a 'Golden-Gate'-type bridge across an ever-widening Grand Canyon and having it fall 20 metres short of reaching the other end. Some still cannot see that all their 'best efforts' are rendered ineffective in delivering on the intended objective if 150% span, change, expansion, flexibility, innovation and growth et al are not built into the design of the bridge.
It will collapse at some point!
It's like the car manufacturer advertising 'zero-tolerance' in their brand whilst having a built in 'acceptable-deficiency' which can have four lock-nuts left off a rear wheel.
So, I sadly left our 3-hour meeting recognising that we (my family and household) can no longer depend on these LRA Board members to protect us as an initiative with a no-nonsense first-line-of-defense, as they no longer feel accountable for that... and that any reference to 'zero-tolerance' to crime as I read in a recent LRA e-mail is purely lip-service from this LRA Board.
They have almost returned our initiative to back to being not much better than any other security reaction service in any other community.
What they are really saying is - LRA Zero - just like the Real LRA - and sadly, in my opinion, they operate to that mantra and they will not allow the facts to interfere with a good story that they're going to stick by.
Here's my offer to each current LRA Board member, please enjoy a Coke Zero on me and tell me if you truly believe it is the Real Coke. And then ask yourself whether you believe that what you offer to us as a zero-tolerance 24-hour total security service in our community right now is truly that.
Regards
Trevor Nel - Lonehill Resident
011 - 705-2790
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Attack Meeting: Outsiders Feedback & Thank You Thread
The following thread from bottom to top are thank you's to LRA Board and Outsiders, and Outsider's responses received:
Ivan Andersen writes:
Hi Trevor,
Only a pleasure. Sorry I could not do more in moving the process toward a mutually acceptable way forward.
My feeling is that there appears to be just too much baggage on both sides to get to point where the parties could/would sit around the same table and be able to leave the personal sensitivities and egos behind and focus on the “right” solution for the community as a whole. This feeling was confirmed when statements like “if Trevor is to join the board, some members would leave ...” were made. This clearly shows division and differing agendas, in my opinion, as that comment was made after a proposal for you to be co-opted and positive statements w.r.t. your passion, energy and experience had been voiced.
This is unfortunate, because initiatives like this, depend on people working together for the greater good. As soon as there is fragmentation of effort and agenda the system WILL break down and fail.
It would appear to me, as an outsider to the community, and with my limited exposure to the inner workings of the LRA, that a shake-up is required.
My perception, as a frequent visitor into the Lonehill area is that there has been a noticeable drop-off and reduction in visible policing (Fidelity foot & bicycle guards), specifically in the last six weeks or so. I clearly recall a number of discussions we have had in this regard over the last few years and have noticed the disappearance and re-appearance and disappearance of these guards from time-to-time. This to me is also an indication of the challenges faced internally by the LRA.
As I mentioned on Friday, clearly one’s priority must be the safety of your own family and home first, so the decisions need to be made from that basis.
All the best
Ivan
Morne Mostert writes:
Hi Trevor
I am always cautious not to oversimplify these things, but here are a few thoughts:
The LRA requires a clear vision of what they intend to achieve in the next 18-24 months. I don't just mean what actions will they take, but what will Lonehill look like in 18-24 months from today as a result of their management practices
They may then benefit from articulating a number of Values that will govern their behaviour, such as client centricity, safety first, etc - this will depend on the unique challenges and character of Lonehill
Then they need to be clear on a few strategic objectives with regards to issues like safety, client engagement, internal management, decision-making processes,etc.
Internally, they then need to respond to some challenges, such as their Human Resources: If they only have one person for communication & marketing, what strategies will they employ to overcome this constraint? They cannot simply point it out it is a constraint. This includes possible solutions such as a communication drive for co-opting volunteers, ensuring each board member is managing a committee of volunteers, etc., establishing LRA sub-committees, etc.
On Marketing & Communication, there appears to be a lack of feedback mechanisms for residents to respond to them. They then argue that no news is good news. It's a bit like saying no-one has ever complained about living on the the planet Jupiter, so it must be a great place to live!
In terms of broader stakeholder engagement, I am not convinced they are interacting regularly with bodies corporate of complexes, other security companies in their area, business networks, etc. They appear to operate in a highly isolated way.
On Finance, they may want to consider sponsored advertising by local businesses on all their communication. This will reduce costs dramatically.
In terms of their overall functioning, such a more strategic approach will make them less reactive.
They then need to communicate these commitments to the community and report regularly on progress made.
I hope this helps a little - we all have our own angles on ways for improving effectiveness.
Kind regards
Morne Mostert
Director of Leadership Leadership Options
Tel: +27 (0) 11 467 9985
Mobile: +27 (0) 82 855 7328
Fax: +27 (0) 866 133 476
morne@leadershipoptions.co.za
http://www.leadershipoptions.co.za/
DataDeal Place, 41 Wessels Road, Rivonia, 2191
P.O. Box 104, Petervale, Bryanston, Johannesburg, 2151
Marilyn Overend writes:
Hi Trevor
Yes, we were not prepared for the highly emotional interaction from both sides. However I do believe they were compassionate about your situation. I think there are very few South Africans that would not feel for your situation. It happened to my younger son two months ago – and he is lucky to be with us. So I understand the anger and despair and fear.
From our perspective we felt there was blaming on both sides rather than finding some common ground to move forward to the start of a solution.
As you have a lot of experience Trevor, then maybe you need to move back onto the committee. I think it was a good idea to “put a stake in the ground” and move forward – learn from what is not working and try new ideas.
Warmest regards
Marilyn Overend
Assessor - Corporate College International
Assessor No. 175733US
Futuristic Training and Development
Cell: +27 82 601 0056
Tel: +27 11 704 6838
Fax: +27 11 704 6815
http://www.futuristictraining.com/
marilyn@futuristictraining.com
Kevin Foot writes:
Hi Trev,
Firstly it was no trouble!! And you are not beholden to anyone….favours are not given or stored for cashing in later; they are given with love and respect and with no expectations.
Only a pleasure to assist and participate….I only wishes I had known sooner about the incident, and been in a position to give you and Ivan more support.
Any time, anywhere…it’s only a phone call, and I will do whatever I can. Both of you know that.
My thoughts today are not changed from the conversation we had at the Wimpy. And Ivan summed it up very well. And your final remarks about securing the home, the street etc are most valid.
To carry on interacting with the LRA now, is a “mission” I think you should delay and give yourself time to heal.
Cheers.
Kevin
PS. On 3 occasions this week; today at about midday, Thursday morning, And Monday...can't remember time.......I drove thru Lonehill and around the "big Loop" and was surprised to note that the Bobby on the Beat was conspicuous by their absence. Not so long ago, the security personnel were visible all over the area, including vehicles. Has there been a cut back in the number/activity?
From: Trevor Nel [mailto:growth@global.co.za] Sent: 25 October 2008 09:30 AMTo: Kevin FootCc: Ivan Andersen; Marilyn Overend; Jacques Grobbelaar; charlvj@lantic.net; Morne Mostert; Lindy BoulangerSubject: My Thanks - Fw: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Kevin, Marilyn, Morne, Jacques, Renier, Charl, Ivan, Lindy
Many thanks for volunteering your valuable time to attend yesterday's meeting.
I cannot express adequately how much I APPRECIATE your trouble taken to lend an ear and participate.
I am beholden to return the favour to each of you, I am at your call... :-)
Below is the response to the LRA Board attendees FYI.
Realising that it must have been very difficult to enter such meeting totally uninformed (that was necessary so as not to create preliminary bias from any perspective) and try to evaluate 8 years of history in such a short session, I would however like for you to be brutally honest in what you assessed as being at play from your specific specialist skills-set point of view.
I will forward that to the LRA Board, either as anonymous comment, or under your professional signature so that the LRA can contact you direct for your professional input or otherwise. You choose - just let me know.
You are more than welcome to contact the LRA Board in your professional or personal capacities, as you see fit, to offer advice/service/solutions.
Regards
Trevor - 011 - 705-2790
----- Original Message -----
From: Trevor Nel
To: Rob Gillespie
Cc: Don Perry ; Hamish McBain ; Jean Berdou ; Michael Goodwin ; Ray Stride ; Ray Stride ; Rob Gillespie ; Roger McKee ; Sally Pearson ; Simon Bradshaw ; info@lra.org.za
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
To all in attendance
Many thanks for taking of your valuable time to attend this meeting.
I will reserve my personal comment pending:
i. Review of minutes/notes taken by Elmarie/Jenny - please forward ASAP compiled.
ii. Feedback from outsider specialists invited. (will copy you on their feedback).
Rob/Jean, as regards your joint claims that the http://www.lonehillaction.blogspot.com/ forum does not post your comments, this is surprising as it is an OPEN forum where any comment can be posted by anyone under the comments and Post a Comment facilities.
My records shows 2 posts from LRA directors - LRA Director Comments & LRA Chairman Responds - and I have personally posted - LRA 2008 AGM - Chairman's Report & LRA AGM 2008 Minutes - to represent the LRA's views to this community.
I am unaware of any request from yourselves requiring publication to this blog not being published, kindly copy myself on any such request having been made and I will ensure that it is published.
You are, of course, cordially invited to respond to the questions asked on Lonehill: 28 Days - NO Answers Yet From LRA .
Thank You
Trevor Nel - 011 - 705-2790
Lonehill Resident
Ivan Andersen writes:
Hi Trevor,
Only a pleasure. Sorry I could not do more in moving the process toward a mutually acceptable way forward.
My feeling is that there appears to be just too much baggage on both sides to get to point where the parties could/would sit around the same table and be able to leave the personal sensitivities and egos behind and focus on the “right” solution for the community as a whole. This feeling was confirmed when statements like “if Trevor is to join the board, some members would leave ...” were made. This clearly shows division and differing agendas, in my opinion, as that comment was made after a proposal for you to be co-opted and positive statements w.r.t. your passion, energy and experience had been voiced.
This is unfortunate, because initiatives like this, depend on people working together for the greater good. As soon as there is fragmentation of effort and agenda the system WILL break down and fail.
It would appear to me, as an outsider to the community, and with my limited exposure to the inner workings of the LRA, that a shake-up is required.
My perception, as a frequent visitor into the Lonehill area is that there has been a noticeable drop-off and reduction in visible policing (Fidelity foot & bicycle guards), specifically in the last six weeks or so. I clearly recall a number of discussions we have had in this regard over the last few years and have noticed the disappearance and re-appearance and disappearance of these guards from time-to-time. This to me is also an indication of the challenges faced internally by the LRA.
As I mentioned on Friday, clearly one’s priority must be the safety of your own family and home first, so the decisions need to be made from that basis.
All the best
Ivan
----------------------------------------------------------
Morne Mostert writes:
Hi Trevor
I am always cautious not to oversimplify these things, but here are a few thoughts:
The LRA requires a clear vision of what they intend to achieve in the next 18-24 months. I don't just mean what actions will they take, but what will Lonehill look like in 18-24 months from today as a result of their management practices
They may then benefit from articulating a number of Values that will govern their behaviour, such as client centricity, safety first, etc - this will depend on the unique challenges and character of Lonehill
Then they need to be clear on a few strategic objectives with regards to issues like safety, client engagement, internal management, decision-making processes,etc.
Internally, they then need to respond to some challenges, such as their Human Resources: If they only have one person for communication & marketing, what strategies will they employ to overcome this constraint? They cannot simply point it out it is a constraint. This includes possible solutions such as a communication drive for co-opting volunteers, ensuring each board member is managing a committee of volunteers, etc., establishing LRA sub-committees, etc.
On Marketing & Communication, there appears to be a lack of feedback mechanisms for residents to respond to them. They then argue that no news is good news. It's a bit like saying no-one has ever complained about living on the the planet Jupiter, so it must be a great place to live!
In terms of broader stakeholder engagement, I am not convinced they are interacting regularly with bodies corporate of complexes, other security companies in their area, business networks, etc. They appear to operate in a highly isolated way.
On Finance, they may want to consider sponsored advertising by local businesses on all their communication. This will reduce costs dramatically.
In terms of their overall functioning, such a more strategic approach will make them less reactive.
They then need to communicate these commitments to the community and report regularly on progress made.
I hope this helps a little - we all have our own angles on ways for improving effectiveness.
Kind regards
Morne Mostert
Director of Leadership Leadership Options
Tel: +27 (0) 11 467 9985
Mobile: +27 (0) 82 855 7328
Fax: +27 (0) 866 133 476
morne@leadershipoptions.co.za
http://www.leadershipoptions.co.za/
DataDeal Place, 41 Wessels Road, Rivonia, 2191
P.O. Box 104, Petervale, Bryanston, Johannesburg, 2151
--------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Overend writes:
Hi Trevor
Yes, we were not prepared for the highly emotional interaction from both sides. However I do believe they were compassionate about your situation. I think there are very few South Africans that would not feel for your situation. It happened to my younger son two months ago – and he is lucky to be with us. So I understand the anger and despair and fear.
From our perspective we felt there was blaming on both sides rather than finding some common ground to move forward to the start of a solution.
As you have a lot of experience Trevor, then maybe you need to move back onto the committee. I think it was a good idea to “put a stake in the ground” and move forward – learn from what is not working and try new ideas.
Warmest regards
Marilyn Overend
Assessor - Corporate College International
Assessor No. 175733US
Futuristic Training and Development
Cell: +27 82 601 0056
Tel: +27 11 704 6838
Fax: +27 11 704 6815
http://www.futuristictraining.com/
marilyn@futuristictraining.com
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Foot writes:
Hi Trev,
Firstly it was no trouble!! And you are not beholden to anyone….favours are not given or stored for cashing in later; they are given with love and respect and with no expectations.
Only a pleasure to assist and participate….I only wishes I had known sooner about the incident, and been in a position to give you and Ivan more support.
Any time, anywhere…it’s only a phone call, and I will do whatever I can. Both of you know that.
My thoughts today are not changed from the conversation we had at the Wimpy. And Ivan summed it up very well. And your final remarks about securing the home, the street etc are most valid.
To carry on interacting with the LRA now, is a “mission” I think you should delay and give yourself time to heal.
Cheers.
Kevin
PS. On 3 occasions this week; today at about midday, Thursday morning, And Monday...can't remember time.......I drove thru Lonehill and around the "big Loop" and was surprised to note that the Bobby on the Beat was conspicuous by their absence. Not so long ago, the security personnel were visible all over the area, including vehicles. Has there been a cut back in the number/activity?
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Trevor Nel [mailto:growth@global.co.za] Sent: 25 October 2008 09:30 AMTo: Kevin FootCc: Ivan Andersen; Marilyn Overend; Jacques Grobbelaar; charlvj@lantic.net; Morne Mostert; Lindy BoulangerSubject: My Thanks - Fw: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Kevin, Marilyn, Morne, Jacques, Renier, Charl, Ivan, Lindy
Many thanks for volunteering your valuable time to attend yesterday's meeting.
I cannot express adequately how much I APPRECIATE your trouble taken to lend an ear and participate.
I am beholden to return the favour to each of you, I am at your call... :-)
Below is the response to the LRA Board attendees FYI.
Realising that it must have been very difficult to enter such meeting totally uninformed (that was necessary so as not to create preliminary bias from any perspective) and try to evaluate 8 years of history in such a short session, I would however like for you to be brutally honest in what you assessed as being at play from your specific specialist skills-set point of view.
I will forward that to the LRA Board, either as anonymous comment, or under your professional signature so that the LRA can contact you direct for your professional input or otherwise. You choose - just let me know.
You are more than welcome to contact the LRA Board in your professional or personal capacities, as you see fit, to offer advice/service/solutions.
Regards
Trevor - 011 - 705-2790
----- Original Message -----
From: Trevor Nel
To: Rob Gillespie
Cc: Don Perry ; Hamish McBain ; Jean Berdou ; Michael Goodwin ; Ray Stride ; Ray Stride ; Rob Gillespie ; Roger McKee ; Sally Pearson ; Simon Bradshaw ; info@lra.org.za
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
To all in attendance
Many thanks for taking of your valuable time to attend this meeting.
I will reserve my personal comment pending:
i. Review of minutes/notes taken by Elmarie/Jenny - please forward ASAP compiled.
ii. Feedback from outsider specialists invited. (will copy you on their feedback).
Rob/Jean, as regards your joint claims that the http://www.lonehillaction.blogspot.com/ forum does not post your comments, this is surprising as it is an OPEN forum where any comment can be posted by anyone under the comments and Post a Comment facilities.
My records shows 2 posts from LRA directors - LRA Director Comments & LRA Chairman Responds - and I have personally posted - LRA 2008 AGM - Chairman's Report & LRA AGM 2008 Minutes - to represent the LRA's views to this community.
I am unaware of any request from yourselves requiring publication to this blog not being published, kindly copy myself on any such request having been made and I will ensure that it is published.
You are, of course, cordially invited to respond to the questions asked on Lonehill: 28 Days - NO Answers Yet From LRA .
Thank You
Trevor Nel - 011 - 705-2790
Lonehill Resident
Monday, November 03, 2008
Friday 24 Oct 2008 Meeting Agenda Thread
Posted for recordal purposes:
From: Trevor Nel
To: Rob Gillespie
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Sorry... this is the agenda... it is not your meeting
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Gillespie
To: 'Trevor Nel'
Cc: Don Perry ; Hamish McBain ; Jean Berdou ; Michael Goodwin ; Ray Stride ; Ray Stride ; Rob Gillespie ; Roger McKee ; Sally Pearson ; Simon Bradshaw
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Trevor
Our understanding was that this session today was specifically to address the security issues at hand, at a high level, with a few people, in order to prepare for a more open public session.
Your agenda details otherwise, and seems to want to focus on a myriad of other matters. This will not happen, and the focus will remain on the security issues.
RG
From: Trevor Nel [mailto:growth@global.co.za] Sent: 24 October 2008 08:52 AM
To: Rob Gillespie
Cc: info@lra.org.za
Subject: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Hi Rob
Herewith guideline agenda - I will facilitate initially and hand over to an outsider 'Chair' asap during process
Please can you arrange light refreshments/snacks/ cool drinks for all attending to keep them energised.
Flexible Agenda for LRA Meet - Friday 24th Oct 2:30 to 5:30
To all attending:
The purpose of this afternoon is to conduct an informal Current Situation Analysis and Brainstormer Session for further progress.
Specialist outsiders have been invited to facilitate impartiality, balance and input where they feel so inclined - 5 confirmed attending - others trying to change diaries.
It appears that some Lonehillers are determined to attend as observers from feedback I am receiving - cannot confirm, numbers unknown - should they attend they will be given 10 minutes at end of each 35 minute segment discussion to comment/provide input.
LRA to provide simple show and tell feedback with samples/visuals/graphics/maps/financials of feedback shared at weekly/monthly security and LRA Board meetings
The agenda for this afternoon will progress in simple discussion units of top 3 priorities per segment.
2:30 - Introductions
2:45 - feedback on LRA's Top 3 Priorities
1. Security
2. Community Contributions/Commitment - Financials, Contributors and Demographics
3. Marketing/Promotions
3:30
Soft Issues related to LRA attitudes towaeds Leadership/Vision/Strategy
1. LRA attitude towards community
2. LRA attitude to internal service/competence levels
3. LRA attitude to openness/transparency
4:15
Change, Innovation, Growth
1. Shattering the dogma of mediocrity and 'best practice'
2. Constructing a change-oriented eco-system - a living, breathing organism 'built to thrive'
3. Understanding the Age of Transparency
5:00
General
5:15
Closing question for LRA Board: Is there any reason why the LRA will not commit to supporting the changes discussed..?
5:30 Ends
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Gillespie
To: Trevor Nel
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
I have arranged for Friday afternoon starting 2.30pm at the LRA offices, for your discussion forum. Please let me have an agenda if there is one, or else we can put it together at the meeting.
RG
From: Trevor Nel
To: Rob Gillespie
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Sorry... this is the agenda... it is not your meeting
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Gillespie
To: 'Trevor Nel'
Cc: Don Perry ; Hamish McBain ; Jean Berdou ; Michael Goodwin ; Ray Stride ; Ray Stride ; Rob Gillespie ; Roger McKee ; Sally Pearson ; Simon Bradshaw
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Trevor
Our understanding was that this session today was specifically to address the security issues at hand, at a high level, with a few people, in order to prepare for a more open public session.
Your agenda details otherwise, and seems to want to focus on a myriad of other matters. This will not happen, and the focus will remain on the security issues.
RG
From: Trevor Nel [mailto:growth@global.co.za] Sent: 24 October 2008 08:52 AM
To: Rob Gillespie
Cc: info@lra.org.za
Subject: Agenda - Re: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
Hi Rob
Herewith guideline agenda - I will facilitate initially and hand over to an outsider 'Chair' asap during process
Please can you arrange light refreshments/snacks/ cool drinks for all attending to keep them energised.
Flexible Agenda for LRA Meet - Friday 24th Oct 2:30 to 5:30
To all attending:
The purpose of this afternoon is to conduct an informal Current Situation Analysis and Brainstormer Session for further progress.
Specialist outsiders have been invited to facilitate impartiality, balance and input where they feel so inclined - 5 confirmed attending - others trying to change diaries.
It appears that some Lonehillers are determined to attend as observers from feedback I am receiving - cannot confirm, numbers unknown - should they attend they will be given 10 minutes at end of each 35 minute segment discussion to comment/provide input.
LRA to provide simple show and tell feedback with samples/visuals/graphics/maps/financials of feedback shared at weekly/monthly security and LRA Board meetings
The agenda for this afternoon will progress in simple discussion units of top 3 priorities per segment.
2:30 - Introductions
2:45 - feedback on LRA's Top 3 Priorities
1. Security
2. Community Contributions/Commitment - Financials, Contributors and Demographics
3. Marketing/Promotions
3:30
Soft Issues related to LRA attitudes towaeds Leadership/Vision/Strategy
1. LRA attitude towards community
2. LRA attitude to internal service/competence levels
3. LRA attitude to openness/transparency
4:15
Change, Innovation, Growth
1. Shattering the dogma of mediocrity and 'best practice'
2. Constructing a change-oriented eco-system - a living, breathing organism 'built to thrive'
3. Understanding the Age of Transparency
5:00
General
5:15
Closing question for LRA Board: Is there any reason why the LRA will not commit to supporting the changes discussed..?
5:30 Ends
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Gillespie
To: Trevor Nel
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Meeting with the LRA and Fidelity
I have arranged for Friday afternoon starting 2.30pm at the LRA offices, for your discussion forum. Please let me have an agenda if there is one, or else we can put it together at the meeting.
RG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
