The problem I encountered in the workplace was in which I was co-ordinating Aboriginal Heritage surveys. The problem was that the elders who had to participate in the survey were becoming very elderly and them having to go on long distances in remote country was not good for their health. The mining company and myself identified this issue and decided to have a meeting to work out a solution for this.
At our meeting we put forward various solutions that could enable the elders to participate without any adverse effects to their health. We identified 2 solutions one being that we expand the survey time but this was not feasible as we had time constraints upon us. The second solution was that bring in a helicopter to make it quicker and more accessible to reach isolated areas. One of the problems was that the helicopter could only fit in a few people and we had 10 elders a compromise was that a few elders would do the surveys but everybody got paid the same amount.
The company was in agreement to this and we had a have consensus from the elders which was provided. It was important that the elders agree because they each hold different information and knowledge about their country. The company had to agree in order to satisfy their legal requirements not to damage any heritage sites as they wanted to show respect and not be prosecuted under legislation. So they could convert the Indigenous traditional knowledge into a western style format.
We then hired a helicopter which was more convenient at the time and the elders were happy with this as it enabled them to complete the surveys quicker. Both parties were engaged in risk minimisation. The mining company is held accountable by western law for any damage to heritage sites. The elders are also held accountable by traditional law for any damage to heritage sites. Both parties can be punished according to their own law for any damage to heritage sites.
The paradox for Aboriginal people is sometimes even revealing a sacred site to an initiated party they can then be held accountable to traditional law. This can be a significant barrier to the passing on of information.
According
to the Stacey Matrix this could be put into the areas of complexity in in that
there are complex decision to be made to come to a satisfactory answer.
Links for further research:
http://gp-training.net/training/communication_skills/consultation/equipoise/complexity/stacey.htm
http://www.bpminstitute.org/resources/articles/role-decision-modeling-business-decision-management
Links for further research:
http://gp-training.net/training/communication_skills/consultation/equipoise/complexity/stacey.htm
http://www.bpminstitute.org/resources/articles/role-decision-modeling-business-decision-management
Graeme has clearly articulated the competing responsibilities well in regard to to western obligations and Aboriginal cultural law. It s clear from the situation that the groups operated independently within their own systems but in this case there had to be some common ground and compromise to achieve a most suitable outcome to the problem. In my view an amicable arrangement did not abrogate responsibility of neither group nor did it create an environment of a stalemate. Graeme articulated to me that upon gathering all the relevant information in an open and honest manner this created the opportunity for all the relevant and pertinent information to contribute the the final decision being made in the best interest of all parties involved. This scenario resulted in a positive result and maintained the stakeholder relationship in the highest regard for a continued relationship of mutual respect.
ReplyDeletehttp://mba6030-2016-barry-winmar.blogspot.com.au/