Nate email@example.com 01/16/11
Thanks for the insight--it's important to be reminded that the process of collaboration can disguise, and thereby enable, the competitive intentions of the parties. For a method of preventing collaboration from being so "easily gamed," read the CRQ article on co-resolution (Vol 26 no 2) or visit www.co-resolution.com.
David , Wellington firstname.lastname@example.org 01/11/11
The hallmark of a valuable paper is the extent to which it triggers self-reflection and further questions. As in "what is the basis and sustenance of my own "moral compass"?" How does it fit with "The Moral Landscape"(Sam Harris 2010 Bantham Press; and the New Atheist debates with Church based morality) or www.edge.org - The New Science of Morality Conference of last year. Should professional bodies have a Moral Code as well an Ethical one? Does at some point in some contexts impartiality become immoral? So - for both the content and the thoughts so triggered - I add my thanks.
ken cloke, santa monica ca email@example.com 01/04/11
Excellent article Peter. As in other cases, most notably with democracy, listening, and similar virtues, we need to distinguish between saying all the right things while allowing image, pretense and "being nice" to obscure the fact that our hearts are not really in it, and the hard work that is required in order to genuinely collaborate with people - especially those we disagree with. As I read your list, it reminds me of the use of "legal" definitions, i.e., of democracy, which are often used to block the real thing. Thanks, as always, for your insights. Ken
susan , Denver CO 01/04/11
Always a pleasure to read your views, the sin in reference to stakeholder omission is common in the regulatory world, it's hard to get our arms around all the players! Hope you are well and enjoyed the holidays! Best in 2011, Susan
David Bogan, Auckland firstname.lastname@example.org 01/04/11
Seven Deadly Sins
Thanks Peter, it's a very timely New Year's reminder for us all.