This is my first foray into the mist of CIPD online discussions and I have to admit to being a bit disappointed with the quality of some discussion for debate.
Not to say that the items listed are not relevant but I think it would be better to have an 'advice section' for those individuals who have simple questions about practice to be answered?
Then the space for discussions can be recogised and valued more as one where real debate will occur.
Once again it appears we prove the maxim that statistics can be interpreted to say almost anything one wants them too! (....And perhaps also further defer to Amanda's suggestion that our debates, once initiated, tend to stray from the original topic, as I am about to)!
Does an "involvement" level of only c10% and an active response level of c0.01%of that 10% suggest apathy? Or does it suggest active disinterest? Or is it passive agreement?
....Because all three positions can be (and have been) argued on similar statistics in other contexts.
Personally I take the "Schroedinger's Cat" approach: If the cat's in the box you don't know if it's alive or dead, and if you open the box then your opening it may itself have created the result you observe, then is the cat alive or dead? (If you don't know about Schroedinger's Cat look it up on Wikipedia... there isn't space here!), but bear with me....
There can be a dozen (or many more) reasons why a member does not even read "Communities", these having nothing whatever to do with their qualities as an HR Professional, or indeed their opinions on the subjects under discussion.
Equally there can be many reasons why those who do read some of the contributions do not read them all (specific areas of interest and time being just two blatantly obvious ones) and yet more why someone reading a specific debate/comment/monologue... call them what you will... do not themselves comment; although I have to suggest that apathy or disagreement are less likely than agreement (since if we read something thoroughly we are not likely to be apathetic to it's subject and if we disagree with something we are more likely to challenge it if empowered to do so than remain silent).
So the great "silent majority" are just that: We have no idea why they are silent, nor are we thus justified in making assumptions about what their thoughts are unless (like Amanda) they have been prepared to comment and say (loosely): "I'd be more likely to contribute to this if the debates were better."
That is an opinion. We may disagree; we may recognise it's validity but (as I did) challenge that validity in context; equally we may long to see the end of frivolous comments, comparisons of the virtues of various guitars, memoirs of snowy days in Yorkshire, curt "one liners" or even ............................ (for our own imaginations to fill in!)
But look at the House of Commons TV sometimes: three or four members picking their fingernails (or noses if they think they're not being watched) while one other chunters on about the importance of amending paragraph 16(a)(1)(iv) of the "Washing Lines; Tensioning and Flexibility Regulations (1996)"; or some other high-profile issue. Do they all stop at the end and say "There are only five of us here, guys, so that bit of law we just passed is less valid than any other"? Or do they whip out calculators and work out what percentage of the population they collectively represent and fractionalise the significance of the legislation on that basis?
No: because the debate was worth having, and is equally valid, however many were present of contributed to it.
It is only when they are trying to convince the public that 95% of 6% of 13% of 3% of the population (and his/her dog) agree with and are excited by their/the other lot's election promises that they start "spinning" numbers from being "unknown, unknowable and irrelevant" to being "agreement"; "disagreement"; or "apathy".
For me: If there's one person out there who wants to exchange ideas, explore possibilities or seek support then I'm around to participate in that discussion and I don't care how many % of x% of 0 we are.
....Even if the debate is about the validity of counting beans. :-)
Surely "Communities" is here for those who want it, and if they want it to change then they are free to say so and expect it to change?
We who are already here are certainly free to challenge that, but not on any "territorial" basis or from "right of ownership".
....and if it changes in ways we do not appreciate, then maybe we will become the "silent majority" not expressing our opinions but with an equal right not to have them presumed by those who chose to express theirs.
Peter
Once again it appears we prove the maxim that statistics can be interpreted to say almost anything one wants them too! (....And perhaps also further defer to Amanda's suggestion that our debates, once initiated, tend to stray from the original topic, as I am about to)!
Does an "involvement" level of only c10% and an active response level of c0.01%of that 10% suggest apathy? Or does it suggest active disinterest? Or is it passive agreement?
....Because all three positions can be (and have been) argued on similar statistics in other contexts.
Personally I take the "Schroedinger's Cat" approach: If the cat's in the box you don't know if it's alive or dead, and if you open the box then your opening it may itself have created the result you observe, then is the cat alive or dead? (If you don't know about Schroedinger's Cat look it up on Wikipedia... there isn't space here!), but bear with me....
There can be a dozen (or many more) reasons why a member does not even read "Communities", these having nothing whatever to do with their qualities as an HR Professional, or indeed their opinions on the subjects under discussion.
Equally there can be many reasons why those who do read some of the contributions do not read them all (specific areas of interest and time being just two blatantly obvious ones) and yet more why someone reading a specific debate/comment/monologue... call them what you will... do not themselves comment; although I have to suggest that apathy or disagreement are less likely than agreement (since if we read something thoroughly we are not likely to be apathetic to it's subject and if we disagree with something we are more likely to challenge it if empowered to do so than remain silent).
So the great "silent majority" are just that: We have no idea why they are silent, nor are we thus justified in making assumptions about what their thoughts are unless (like Amanda) they have been prepared to comment and say (loosely): "I'd be more likely to contribute to this if the debates were better."
That is an opinion. We may disagree; we may recognise it's validity but (as I did) challenge that validity in context; equally we may long to see the end of frivolous comments, comparisons of the virtues of various guitars, memoirs of snowy days in Yorkshire, curt "one liners" or even ............................ (for our own imaginations to fill in!)
But look at the House of Commons TV sometimes: three or four members picking their fingernails (or noses if they think they're not being watched) while one other chunters on about the importance of amending paragraph 16(a)(1)(iv) of the "Washing Lines; Tensioning and Flexibility Regulations (1996)"; or some other high-profile issue. Do they all stop at the end and say "There are only five of us here, guys, so that bit of law we just passed is less valid than any other"? Or do they whip out calculators and work out what percentage of the population they collectively represent and fractionalise the significance of the legislation on that basis?
No: because the debate was worth having, and is equally valid, however many were present of contributed to it.
It is only when they are trying to convince the public that 95% of 6% of 13% of 3% of the population (and his/her dog) agree with and are excited by their/the other lot's election promises that they start "spinning" numbers from being "unknown, unknowable and irrelevant" to being "agreement"; "disagreement"; or "apathy".
For me: If there's one person out there who wants to exchange ideas, explore possibilities or seek support then I'm around to participate in that discussion and I don't care how many % of x% of 0 we are.
....Even if the debate is about the validity of counting beans. :-)
Surely "Communities" is here for those who want it, and if they want it to change then they are free to say so and expect it to change?
We who are already here are certainly free to challenge that, but not on any "territorial" basis or from "right of ownership".
....and if it changes in ways we do not appreciate, then maybe we will become the "silent majority" not expressing our opinions but with an equal right not to have them presumed by those who chose to express theirs.
Peter
