A team with an abundance of creative and operational talents were responsible for an agricultural development and production which was largely funded by income from the first development phase which was the clearing of the forested property (logging and milling of lumber and the production of an assortment of ‘wood products’.).  The cleared lands were subsequently used for producing wheat.

This agricultural development was a huge success, financially and socially, employing and developing a new skills and income base for more than 200 people.

As often happens, people are divided over whether the success of an enterprise came more from the will and commitment of the overall workforce, of more from the ‘design’ intelligence and insight of the management directing the operation.

A strong split in how employees perceived the source of the successful operation arose in the design phase of an employee profit sharing plan.  Roughly half of the employees believed that the insight and intelligence of the founder and senior management should be accorded most credit for sourcing such a successful venture, while the other half believed that the source of their success derived from the overall synergy of the full body of staff and management contributors.

As discussions on how to design the profit-sharing plan continued, a division on how to allocate credit for the sourcing of their success, became increasingly evident, exposing the familiar schism between those with a more ‘conservative’ outlook — wherein ‘One good man at the top makes all the difference between success and failure’ (or conversely, ‘One bad apple can source rotting of the whole barrel), — versus —- the polar opposite coming from those with a ‘liberal’ outlook whose understanding was that “it takes a whole community to raise a child”, who favoured attributing the source of the successful operations to the workforce ‘community’ as ‘a whole’, supporting a profit sharing plan on that basis.