We’re learning some lessons about tampering with a traditional event such as our Long-Service Award Ceremony. The announcement of format changes has been greeted with a consistent stream of negative feedback, and not all of it could be considered respectful.
What we can obviously acknowledge is the fact that many, including myself, enjoyed that evening in May when we could enjoy a delicious meal with our cadre of cronies. So perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by the tide of discontent when offering an alternate format toward extending corporate appreciation.
But there is a considerable gap in the conversation. The dialogue to date is one-dimensional, and no dignified organization would condone the proliferation of a gang-style barrage of emails to voice disapproval of an event that has not yet happened. Past corporate communication policies have tried to prohibit this from occuring, but if we want to live our corporate value of openness, there may be another electronic communication solution.
A blog like this can level the playing field, and there is another side to this Long-service Ceremony issue.
· Some frame it as a cost saving issue. The difference in the cost of this year’s format is anticipated to be less than 5% of the cost of the old format, a savings that will be considered irrelevant in a moment.
· The representation from our colleagues in Brockville was very low. This was a made-in-Ottawa event that did not successfully adjust to respectfully include both sites.
· Even in Ottawa approximately 60% of staff could not/did not attend or bother to pick up recognition prizes. For the critics who frame it as a financial issue, more money has been lost through non-participation in the old format than saved in the new format.
· There are people, albeit quiet, who asked for a change when the organizers solicited their feedback. What about those 2/3rds of staff who could not be recognized in the old format? Do they not deserve a voice? Of course they do.
· The organization views employee reward and recognition as a 12-month project. The recent Fall Harvest Country Fair and ROMHC BBQ are examples of events that involve a lot of people and dollars.
I don’t make these points to suggest this new long-service format is the obvious thing to do, but only to make the conversation fair and to end the “piling on” that is occurring in a one-side e-mail dialogue. The old format wasn't perfect. In fact some of the flaws were significant, but it was also an appreciated event in the minds of those who could participate.
This year’s event will be evaluated and we can only hope that staff will be honest and respectful in their participation and assessment.
You can continue the conversation through this blog because it is our intention to continue the dialogue, debate or whatever you consider it. As per our Blog policy, the views presented are those of the author, not the organization, and respectful comments and opinions are gratefully encouraged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Although I'm not one of the "really long-service" recipients (I've only been here 11 years), I am one of the ones that would rather attend a celebration during working hours and I'm fortunate to be able to do that. The last time I attended a long service celebration, was for my 5yr anniversary, and it was a coffee pot in the old crush space. (I received a lovely mug at that time, which I'm still using). I look forward to the celebration this year; maybe I'll be recognized for my 10yrs of service.
"The representation from our colleagues in Brockville was very low. This was a made-in-Ottawa event that did not successfully adjust to respectfully include both sites"
- I attended the ceremonies in Ottawa on two separate occasions. The bus was full each time. Not a bad showing from the Brockville site considering we had just become "as one " with ROH.
- Sensoring e-mail ... you got that right. Surprised...NOT, typical of our "centre of excellence"
don't worry I am writing this from home.
This request is being termed by some as censorship.
One dictionary defines the act of censoring as "to examine and expurgate (To remove erroneous, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material from (a book, for example) before publication)
C'mon now - that's not what is happening here at all. Everyone is free to comment. Nothing is being changed or modified.
There were a lot of people who quietly disapproved of these conversations as they used their email for the purposes it was intended. This is a more appropriate place for this type of discussion.
Peter here with comments sent following the direction to move this debate off email to the blog.
If anyone disputes the validity they can see me and I'll be happy to prove their existence.
"Thank you for finding a great solution to this problem! This one sided conversation seems to happen a lot at the ROMHC, and I find it quite disrespectful. I hope this works,"
"Thanks,
I would have left the thank you on the blog but I do not have an account."
note - that issue has been fixed.
"Very creative and respectful response Peter. "
"Can you assure that future communications to the staff are not insulting. No intelligent person would, for example, consider it "exciting news" that the long service recognition has changed from a lovely sit down dinner with wine in a very nice hall to a few snacks in the hospital's gymnasium. I resent receiving communications which do not respect the intelligence of the staff. Most staff I have talked to hold the same view. I may not like the decisions being made but please respect my intelligence when communicating them to me."
"Thank you for dealing with this."
"Alleluia! : - )"
"Are you censoring e-mail now? The staff would not need to use e-mail for communication if there truly was 'open and honest communication and dialogue' within the organization. You're right! The communication is one-sided. Let's make the ROMHC a "centre of excellence" and let's begin with excellent communication. I have too much work to do to go to a blog site but I am interested in the opinion, values of peers and colleagues."
"If the current dialogue is "one sided and missing key facts and perspectives" it is only because management has chosen to remain silent regarding this issue. If management truly, as an organization, "espoused the values of honesty and openness" there would be response to the concerns that staff are voicing, and not an attempt to censor us. In addition, the amount of interest generated in ithis topic leads one to the conclusion that it is symptomatic of a much larger issue."
"Very well summarized on your blog site. Kudos."
Come on folks...does this really surprise you???!!! The ROH has always been about the almighty "$" They don't give a "?" about anything else! esp..STAFF. I don't think they are going to back down from this! Front line workers have never had a voice..what makes you think thats going to change...LOL We at BPH though we had it bad with The Ministry Of Health...if only we could turn back the clock!
Hey lets change the subject, and start a new blog on the ROHCG internet policy and how we are "responsible for persons under our supervision" abide by this policy. Lets babysit our co workers and report them to management. I think that is an "exciting change" and should really improve employee relations!!
The new internet policy...lets call it."The ROHCG Daycare Policy" How they think they can hold anyone responsible for others actions, on a computer is beyond my comprehension!!!
Judy Einfeldt said: First of all, I am surprised that there are not more entries about the Long-service Ceremony since the conversation was moved to Peter's blog, and secondly, most of responses on the blog have been 'anonymous' which, in my view, misses the whole point of commenting. I agree that e-mail was not the appropriate forum for comment, but interestingly, it certainly was not anonymous.
I have attended several of the "gala" ceremonies, traveling by bus from Brockville. Many groups of people from Brockville also have attended in private cars and vans. We always have (had) a lot of fun on the bus, as well as at the dinner, meeting people whose names we knew, but not their faces.
I do not recall seeing anything soliciting opinions about changing the format of the event. Generally when information is to be disseminated to all staff, there is an attachment on our pay stub. Did I miss something?
Thanks again to everyone for their comments. Some follow-up to the points made...
* Responders have the choice of posting ananymously, or selecting "other" and putting their names. It will be interesting to observe the choices.
* There are some points made about the internet policy. I was also put-off when I first saw this, but since meeting with IM I now accept that something had to be done to deal with their evidence that some are using corporate internet access inappropriately, and our fragile (I won't say more than that) wireless network in Ottawa is adversely affected by internet habits that are fairly common and acceptable in a wired network. It is a shame it had to come to that - but I don't think any conscientious internet user should be threatened by it.
All respectful points and sentiments made in this blog forum will be taken forward to management or any other decision makers. Again - thank you for moving the conversation to this interactive site.
Peter
Post a Comment