Having spent about 10 years as SM, I appreciate the need for close contact between the SMs and their Director.   I talk with each of mine at least every two weeks, involve them with critical decisions and listen their concerns.

There seems to be a number of SMs who's expectations are for strong control and direction from HQ.  I think that is misguided and stymies creativity from the Field.  They are on the front line and should have the best understanding of what the needs of the Field Organization are.  They each should take the initiative to talk with their respective Director and bring those concerns (if any) to the Director's attention. 

Inaction by any SM bears serious investigation.  When the SM candidate signed up for the job, the position descriptions was agreed to, and included the need to report regularly.   They need to be challenged to to that.  Further, ignoring an e-mail from HQ is irresponsible.   Ignoring two, calls for a personal discussion about the SM's future in the position.

I think there is a significant responsibility that lies with us as Directors to maintain a close liaison with our Section Managers.   It's part of Leadership and we must Lead the Leaders.

73,

Dale WA8EFK

On 5/7/2021 10:17 AM, Arthur I. Zygielbaum wrote:

David,

I agree with the responses so far.  I'd like to know if the SMs in my Division responded.

As you indicated when you talked with our Division SMs, you are correct in working on a new approach.

Some things to think about.  Do we need a formal connection between the Directors and the SMs in their Division?  Could we get the SMs better involved by setting up some form of hierarchical organization -- like a Section Managers Council to help better integrate them with the HQ field managers?

73, Art

On 5/7/2021 9:10 AM, W0ND wrote:
Thanks Dave for the reality check on the Section Managers.  Can you let Bill, AC0W and myself know if you received responses from our 3 Section Managers?  The Section Manager duties are key to delivering hands on support in the field and would like to know if they are responding to Headquarters.  Your email is right on!
 
Thanks for the Field Service update.
 
Lynn Nelson – W0ND
ARRL Dakota Division Vice-Director
 
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 5:05 PM
Subject: [arrl-odv:32340] Field Service update
 

This is a very important update to understand the current struggle with working with the field organization.

 

The Field Service working group sent a survey to 71 ARRL Section Managers.  The survey asked ONE question, open ended, about what ONE thing we could be doing better.

 

Only 43 SM’s responded.

 

Personal emails followed to the other 28 SM’s asking them to please respond, and the deadline was even extended.  No further responses were received.

 

We have SM’s that are checked out.  I personally have tried to engage with one New England SM on three different occasions.  Crickets.

 

We need to be prepared for a discussion about how to manage SM’s that have chosen to disconnect from their responsibilities.  I know that the Board has the power to make changes where they are required. 

 

I am not suggesting we are there yet.

 

But this will need attention as we restructure the support, care and feeding of the field going forward.  If SM’s don’t want to be SM’s, how do we manage that without creating another member explosion over governance?

 

David


Virus-free. www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv


_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv