[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
Hi David, You're not going to like this answer but there is one person who seemingly has this all figured out - Dan Marler, K7REX. I would suggest starting with a conversation with him. In my experience dealing with section managers some are indeed completely checked out. They don't go to meetings, or interface with membership. But they have the red badge and the "prestige." On the other hand there are extremely hard workers who go to events and take initiative on their own. To begin with though, there really isn't much interest in an SM position in many sections. In NNJ it was hard to find one when Robert KA2PBT resigned. K2SO took over only to become SK some months later. Due to health and religious reasons he could never fully reach out to membership (Saturday events were completely out for him). The section managers have been asking to be more involved. Technical issues aside, did they simply not respond to email? What about phone calls? Many hams are horribly technophobic. They won't respond until they get a phone call. If you have any in Hudson that need follow up, I'd be happy to pick up the phone... 73 Ria, N2RJ On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
It's worth noting that even Dan Marler doesn't get much more participation in his activities than you got responses to the questionnaire. Mikek1twf -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> To: Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thu, May 6, 2021 6:37 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:32341] Re: Field Service update Hi David, You're not going to like this answer but there is one person who seemingly has this all figured out - Dan Marler, K7REX. I would suggest starting with a conversation with him. In my experience dealing with section managers some are indeed completely checked out. They don't go to meetings, or interface with membership. But they have the red badge and the "prestige." On the other hand there are extremely hard workers who go to events and take initiative on their own. To begin with though, there really isn't much interest in an SM position in many sections. In NNJ it was hard to find one when Robert KA2PBT resigned. K2SO took over only to become SK some months later. Due to health and religious reasons he could never fully reach out to membership (Saturday events were completely out for him). The section managers have been asking to be more involved. Technical issues aside, did they simply not respond to email? What about phone calls? Many hams are horribly technophobic. They won't respond until they get a phone call. If you have any in Hudson that need follow up, I'd be happy to pick up the phone... 73 Ria, N2RJ On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
I will echo what Ria has said. Like it or not, Marler has been able to bring most of the SMs together after they felt they (according to Marler), were being mostly ignored by HQ, and are troubled by decisions made at HQ that affected them, without asking for their input before the decisions were made. That said, even he has SMs that do not participate in his discussions. I also agree that it's hard to find good Section Managers. The League doesn't do enough marketing or promoting of the Field Organization (FO) these days. In fact those that are receiving OTA as their magazine of choice know nothing at all about the ARRL FO. I've asked that there be something put in the Resources page (Page 4 in the current issue that points to the Section Manager and Directors pages on the website), but so far nothing has happened. 73; Mike W7VO
On 05/06/2021 3:37 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David,
You're not going to like this answer but there is one person who seemingly has this all figured out - Dan Marler, K7REX. I would suggest starting with a conversation with him.
In my experience dealing with section managers some are indeed completely checked out. They don't go to meetings, or interface with membership. But they have the red badge and the "prestige." On the other hand there are extremely hard workers who go to events and take initiative on their own.
To begin with though, there really isn't much interest in an SM position in many sections. In NNJ it was hard to find one when Robert KA2PBT resigned. K2SO took over only to become SK some months later. Due to health and religious reasons he could never fully reach out to membership (Saturday events were completely out for him).
The section managers have been asking to be more involved. Technical issues aside, did they simply not respond to email? What about phone calls? Many hams are horribly technophobic. They won't respond until they get a phone call. If you have any in Hudson that need follow up, I'd be happy to pick up the phone...
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
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 From: Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 5:05 PM To: arrl-odv 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
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 *From:* Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <mailto:dminster@arrl.org> *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2021 5:05 PM *To:* arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *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
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
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 *From:* Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <mailto:dminster@arrl.org> *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2021 5:05 PM *To:* arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *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
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
I agree that lack of section manager interaction with HQ and with members is a huge problem. It is an impediment to our growth. In some places, the disappearance of the section manager after an election is a laughingstock. In certain sections, I have been to multiple club meetings where I’ve been asked to explain the recall process – which is all but impossible to do, it appears. Other sections, it is perennially the same SM – no new blood, no succession plan by the current SM. If a health problem or a death intercedes, the section denigrates into chaos. I agree that we need to fix this, but this goes back to a need to an overhaul in our by-laws and the need to restructure based on facts. With the largest population of members in the Southeastern Division – by 50% - I get a lot of input. Unfortunately, “I never hear from my section manager” is high on the list of complaints. I’ve heard stories that, decades ago, there was a strong field manager at HQ that used an iron hand to “manage out” the inactive SMs. Steve Ewald is great – but can you imagine managing 71 direct reports? It is impossible. These days, it appears that the SM position is no longer recognized as a position of honor and leadership that it should be. It is up to us, the people on this list, to do something about this issue. Let’s not allow this to languish for years like we seem to do for many issues. This is at the heart of organizational contact with members and deserves immediate attention. I’m an ideas and action person. I’ve been an active ARRL member as long as anyone here, and have expertise in organizational dynamics. Forgive the assumptions, but here are some ideas in order to get a discussion going toward addressing the issues that we ALL know exists. CEO Minster has identified a real, serious issue that indicates a lack of engagement of the field organization. Here are some ideas about how we might address this… 1. Provide more recognition for section managers. * Monthly “SM Profile” in QST recognizing one standout SM with a profile and photo. * Field Organization “SM’s of the year” in each division, and an overall winner from those 15. * Identify SM engagement in publicity. 1. Provide more guidance to SM. * Make attending the HQ orientation mandatory within the first 90 days. * The “SM Handbook” needs updating and perhaps some evaluation criteria so that SMs can self-evaluate. * I have had several “cabinet” meetings with SMs, but the same problem SMs don’t show. I have an SM that is new January and hasn’t returned phone calls or emails. * Should we (the board) insert ourselves into the SM management with more overt acts such as removing inactive SMs based on lack of activity, not returning phone calls, etc? 1. We’re missing a member contact tracking system. Members call into HQ and are directed to the Lab, VEC or to other departments. If we had a tracking system, member issues could be captured and escalated or noticed to the Field Organization. The Lab is great about doing this manual. A good tracking system would include a mechanism for online action. This SHOULD involve the Field Organization. Come on folks, we have 160,000 members! I have 3 sections with around 3,000 members each! 2. ARES appointments all come from the SMs. One of the issues with ARES is that the SEC appointments come and go with SM elections. This just happened in Puerto Rico. Is it time to bifurcate the ARES and Field organizations and make SEC’s a Division/HQ appointment? Are a third of our ARES organizations “rudderless? Just food for thought. Let me know how I might help! -- Mickey Baker Director, Southeastern Division ARRL Phone (561) 320-2775 Email: n4mb@arrl.org From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> 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
Good thoughts, Mickey. So far my SMs are willing to attend meetings and seem enthusiastic. But there is a lack of follow-through on items. I'm working to motivate a teamwork ethic. 73, Art On 5/7/2021 10:57 AM, Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) wrote:
I agree that lack of section manager interaction with HQ and with members is a huge problem.
It is an impediment to our growth. In some places, the disappearance of the section manager after an election is a laughingstock. In certain sections, I have been to multiple club meetings where I’ve been asked to explain the recall process – which is all but impossible to do, it appears.
Other sections, it is perennially the same SM – no new blood, no succession plan by the current SM. If a health problem or a death intercedes, the section denigrates into chaos.
I agree that we need to fix this, but this goes back to a need to an overhaul in our by-laws and the need to restructure based on facts.
With the largest population of members in the Southeastern Division – by 50% - I get a lot of input. Unfortunately, “I never hear from my section manager” is high on the list of complaints.
I’ve heard stories that, decades ago, there was a strong field manager at HQ that used an iron hand to “manage out” the inactive SMs. Steve Ewald is great – but can you imagine managing 71 direct reports? It is impossible.
These days, it appears that the SM position is no longer recognized as a position of honor and leadership that it should be.
*//*
*/It is up to us, the people on this list, to do something about this issue. Let’s not allow this to languish for years like we seem to do for many issues. This is at the heart of organizational contact with members and deserves immediate attention. /*
*//*
I’m an ideas and action person. I’ve been an active ARRL member as long as anyone here, and have expertise in organizational dynamics. Forgive the assumptions, but here are some ideas in order to get a discussion going toward addressing the issues that we ALL know exists.
CEO Minster has identified a real, serious issue that indicates a lack of engagement of the field organization. Here are some ideas about how we might address this…
1. Provide more recognition for section managers. 1. Monthly “SM Profile” in QST recognizing one standout SM with a profile and photo. 2. Field Organization “SM’s of the year” in each division, and an overall winner from those 15. 3. Identify SM engagement in publicity.
2. Provide more guidance to SM. 1. Make attending the HQ orientation mandatory within the first 90 days. 2. The “SM Handbook” needs updating and perhaps some evaluation criteria so that SMs can self-evaluate. 3. I have had several “cabinet” meetings with SMs, but the same problem SMs don’t show. I have an SM that is new January and hasn’t returned phone calls or emails. 4. Should we (the board) insert ourselves into the SM management with more overt acts such as removing inactive SMs based on lack of activity, not returning phone calls, etc?
3. *We’re missing a member contact tracking system*. Members call into HQ and are directed to the Lab, VEC or to other departments. If we had a tracking system, member issues could be captured and escalated or noticed to the Field Organization. The Lab is great about doing this manual. A good tracking system would include a mechanism for online action. This SHOULD involve the Field Organization. Come on folks, we have 160,000 members! I have 3 sections with around 3,000 members each! 4. *ARES *appointments all come from the SMs. One of the issues with ARES is that the SEC appointments come and go with SM elections. This just happened in Puerto Rico. *Is it time to bifurcate the ARES and Field organizations and make SEC’s a Division/HQ appointment? * Are a third of our ARES organizations “rudderless? **
**
*Just food for thought. Let me know how I might help!*
--
*Mickey Baker***
*Director, Southeastern Division*
ARRL
Phone (561) 320-2775
Email: n4mb@arrl.org
*From: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM *To: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I have one SM that is just the opposite. He is an ex-Marine, and a proponent of "chain of command". When he first became SM and I introduced myself, he told me in no uncertain terms that I was NOT in his chain of command, and therefore there was nothing further that he needed of me. I have probably spoken to him twice or three times since, and that was three years ago. It's also interesting that he ran for SM because he wanted to be the SEC, but nobody would appoint him to that position. So, he ran unopposed and then appointed himself SEC. He then appointed Assistant SMs to handle the SM duties. Yes, SMs come in all flavors! ;-) 73; Mike W7VO
On 05/07/2021 12:04 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote:
Good thoughts, Mickey.
So far my SMs are willing to attend meetings and seem enthusiastic. But there is a lack of follow-through on items. I'm working to motivate a teamwork ethic.
73, Art
On 5/7/2021 10:57 AM, Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) wrote:
> >
I agree that lack of section manager interaction with HQ and with members is a huge problem.
It is an impediment to our growth. In some places, the disappearance of the section manager after an election is a laughingstock. In certain sections, I have been to multiple club meetings where I’ve been asked to explain the recall process – which is all but impossible to do, it appears.
Other sections, it is perennially the same SM – no new blood, no succession plan by the current SM. If a health problem or a death intercedes, the section denigrates into chaos.
I agree that we need to fix this, but this goes back to a need to an overhaul in our by-laws and the need to restructure based on facts.
With the largest population of members in the Southeastern Division – by 50% - I get a lot of input. Unfortunately, “I never hear from my section manager” is high on the list of complaints.
I’ve heard stories that, decades ago, there was a strong field manager at HQ that used an iron hand to “manage out” the inactive SMs. Steve Ewald is great – but can you imagine managing 71 direct reports? It is impossible.
These days, it appears that the SM position is no longer recognized as a position of honor and leadership that it should be.
It is up to us, the people on this list, to do something about this issue. Let’s not allow this to languish for years like we seem to do for many issues. This is at the heart of organizational contact with members and deserves immediate attention.
I’m an ideas and action person. I’ve been an active ARRL member as long as anyone here, and have expertise in organizational dynamics. Forgive the assumptions, but here are some ideas in order to get a discussion going toward addressing the issues that we ALL know exists.
CEO Minster has identified a real, serious issue that indicates a lack of engagement of the field organization. Here are some ideas about how we might address this…
1. Provide more recognition for section managers. 1. Monthly “SM Profile” in QST recognizing one standout SM with a profile and photo. 2. Field Organization “SM’s of the year” in each division, and an overall winner from those 15. 3. Identify SM engagement in publicity.
1. Provide more guidance to SM. 1. Make attending the HQ orientation mandatory within the first 90 days. 2. The “SM Handbook” needs updating and perhaps some evaluation criteria so that SMs can self-evaluate. 3. I have had several “cabinet” meetings with SMs, but the same problem SMs don’t show. I have an SM that is new January and hasn’t returned phone calls or emails. 4. Should we (the board) insert ourselves into the SM management with more overt acts such as removing inactive SMs based on lack of activity, not returning phone calls, etc?
1. We’re missing a member contact tracking system. Members call into HQ and are directed to the Lab, VEC or to other departments. If we had a tracking system, member issues could be captured and escalated or noticed to the Field Organization. The Lab is great about doing this manual. A good tracking system would include a mechanism for online action. This SHOULD involve the Field Organization. Come on folks, we have 160,000 members! I have 3 sections with around 3,000 members each! 2. ARES appointments all come from the SMs. One of the issues with ARES is that the SEC appointments come and go with SM elections. This just happened in Puerto Rico. Is it time to bifurcate the ARES and Field organizations and make SEC’s a Division/HQ appointment? Are a third of our ARES organizations “rudderless?
Just food for thought. Let me know how I might help!
--
Mickey Baker
Director, Southeastern Division
ARRL
Phone (561) 320-2775
Email: n4mb@arrl.org mailto:n4mb@arrl.org
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> mailto:dminster@arrl.org Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org 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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto: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
That's why I suggested that the Director's relationship to the field organization ( if there should be an operational relationship!) needs to be defined. My SMs seem to really appreciate that I've got close contact with them. They are appearing at our monthly "Division Section Managers" zoom meetings. Art On 5/7/2021 2:51 PM, Michael Ritz wrote:
I have one SM that is just the opposite. He is an ex-Marine, and a proponent of "chain of command". When he first became SM and I introduced myself, he told me in no uncertain terms that I was NOT in his chain of command, and therefore there was nothing further that he needed of me. I have probably spoken to him twice or three times since, and that was three years ago. It's also interesting that he ran for SM because he wanted to be the SEC, but nobody would appoint him to that position. So, he ran unopposed and then appointed himself SEC. He then appointed Assistant SMs to handle the SM duties. Yes, SMs come in all flavors! ;-) 73; Mike W7VO
On 05/07/2021 12:04 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote:
Good thoughts, Mickey.
So far my SMs are willing to attend meetings and seem enthusiastic. But there is a lack of follow-through on items. I'm working to motivate a teamwork ethic.
73, Art
On 5/7/2021 10:57 AM, Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) wrote:
I agree that lack of section manager interaction with HQ and with members is a huge problem.
It is an impediment to our growth. In some places, the disappearance of the section manager after an election is a laughingstock. In certain sections, I have been to multiple club meetings where I’ve been asked to explain the recall process – which is all but impossible to do, it appears.
Other sections, it is perennially the same SM – no new blood, no succession plan by the current SM. If a health problem or a death intercedes, the section denigrates into chaos.
I agree that we need to fix this, but this goes back to a need to an overhaul in our by-laws and the need to restructure based on facts.
With the largest population of members in the Southeastern Division – by 50% - I get a lot of input. Unfortunately, “I never hear from my section manager” is high on the list of complaints.
I’ve heard stories that, decades ago, there was a strong field manager at HQ that used an iron hand to “manage out” the inactive SMs. Steve Ewald is great – but can you imagine managing 71 direct reports? It is impossible.
These days, it appears that the SM position is no longer recognized as a position of honor and leadership that it should be.
*//*
*/It is up to us, the people on this list, to do something about this issue. Let’s not allow this to languish for years like we seem to do for many issues. This is at the heart of organizational contact with members and deserves immediate attention. /*
*//*
I’m an ideas and action person. I’ve been an active ARRL member as long as anyone here, and have expertise in organizational dynamics. Forgive the assumptions, but here are some ideas in order to get a discussion going toward addressing the issues that we ALL know exists.
CEO Minster has identified a real, serious issue that indicates a lack of engagement of the field organization. Here are some ideas about how we might address this…
1. Provide more recognition for section managers. 1. Monthly “SM Profile” in QST recognizing one standout SM with a profile and photo. 2. Field Organization “SM’s of the year” in each division, and an overall winner from those 15. 3. Identify SM engagement in publicity.
2. Provide more guidance to SM. 1. Make attending the HQ orientation mandatory within the first 90 days. 2. The “SM Handbook” needs updating and perhaps some evaluation criteria so that SMs can self-evaluate. 3. I have had several “cabinet” meetings with SMs, but the same problem SMs don’t show. I have an SM that is new January and hasn’t returned phone calls or emails. 4. Should we (the board) insert ourselves into the SM management with more overt acts such as removing inactive SMs based on lack of activity, not returning phone calls, etc?
3. *We’re missing a member contact tracking system*. Members call into HQ and are directed to the Lab, VEC or to other departments. If we had a tracking system, member issues could be captured and escalated or noticed to the Field Organization. The Lab is great about doing this manual. A good tracking system would include a mechanism for online action. This SHOULD involve the Field Organization. Come on folks, we have 160,000 members! I have 3 sections with around 3,000 members each! 4. *ARES *appointments all come from the SMs. One of the issues with ARES is that the SEC appointments come and go with SM elections. This just happened in Puerto Rico. *Is it time to bifurcate the ARES and Field organizations and make SEC’s a Division/HQ appointment? * Are a third of our ARES organizations “rudderless?
**
*Just food for thought. Let me know how I might help!*
--
*Mickey Baker*
*Director, Southeastern Division*
ARRL
Phone (561) 320-2775
Email: n4mb@arrl.org
*From: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM *To: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *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
_______________________________________________ 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
I had one SM basically do that. Saying he didn’t have to talk to me. He was loyal to Mike Lisenco and also said all sorts of derogatory things, personal attacks about me to all sorts of people. We do need to define the relationship and any such hostile relationship between the SMs and the board, particularly their own division director should not be tolerated. Especially not the personal attacks. Ria N2RJ On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:23 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote:
That's why I suggested that the Director's relationship to the field organization ( if there should be an operational relationship!) needs to be defined.
My SMs seem to really appreciate that I've got close contact with them. They are appearing at our monthly "Division Section Managers" zoom meetings.
Art On 5/7/2021 2:51 PM, Michael Ritz wrote:
I have one SM that is just the opposite. He is an ex-Marine, and a proponent of "chain of command". When he first became SM and I introduced myself, he told me in no uncertain terms that I was NOT in his chain of command, and therefore there was nothing further that he needed of me. I have probably spoken to him twice or three times since, and that was three years ago.
It's also interesting that he ran for SM because he wanted to be the SEC, but nobody would appoint him to that position. So, he ran unopposed and then appointed himself SEC. He then appointed Assistant SMs to handle the SM duties.
Yes, SMs come in all flavors! ;-)
73; Mike W7VO
On 05/07/2021 12:04 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> <aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote:
Good thoughts, Mickey.
So far my SMs are willing to attend meetings and seem enthusiastic. But there is a lack of follow-through on items. I'm working to motivate a teamwork ethic.
73, Art On 5/7/2021 10:57 AM, Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) wrote:
I agree that lack of section manager interaction with HQ and with members is a huge problem.
It is an impediment to our growth. In some places, the disappearance of the section manager after an election is a laughingstock. In certain sections, I have been to multiple club meetings where I’ve been asked to explain the recall process – which is all but impossible to do, it appears.
Other sections, it is perennially the same SM – no new blood, no succession plan by the current SM. If a health problem or a death intercedes, the section denigrates into chaos.
I agree that we need to fix this, but this goes back to a need to an overhaul in our by-laws and the need to restructure based on facts.
With the largest population of members in the Southeastern Division – by 50% - I get a lot of input. Unfortunately, “I never hear from my section manager” is high on the list of complaints.
I’ve heard stories that, decades ago, there was a strong field manager at HQ that used an iron hand to “manage out” the inactive SMs. Steve Ewald is great – but can you imagine managing 71 direct reports? It is impossible.
These days, it appears that the SM position is no longer recognized as a position of honor and leadership that it should be.
*It is up to us, the people on this list, to do something about this issue. Let’s not allow this to languish for years like we seem to do for many issues. This is at the heart of organizational contact with members and deserves immediate attention. *
I’m an ideas and action person. I’ve been an active ARRL member as long as anyone here, and have expertise in organizational dynamics. Forgive the assumptions, but here are some ideas in order to get a discussion going toward addressing the issues that we ALL know exists.
CEO Minster has identified a real, serious issue that indicates a lack of engagement of the field organization. Here are some ideas about how we might address this…
1. Provide more recognition for section managers. 1. Monthly “SM Profile” in QST recognizing one standout SM with a profile and photo. 2. Field Organization “SM’s of the year” in each division, and an overall winner from those 15. 3. Identify SM engagement in publicity.
1. Provide more guidance to SM. 1. Make attending the HQ orientation mandatory within the first 90 days. 2. The “SM Handbook” needs updating and perhaps some evaluation criteria so that SMs can self-evaluate. 3. I have had several “cabinet” meetings with SMs, but the same problem SMs don’t show. I have an SM that is new January and hasn’t returned phone calls or emails. 4. Should we (the board) insert ourselves into the SM management with more overt acts such as removing inactive SMs based on lack of activity, not returning phone calls, etc?
1. *We’re missing a member contact tracking system*. Members call into HQ and are directed to the Lab, VEC or to other departments. If we had a tracking system, member issues could be captured and escalated or noticed to the Field Organization. The Lab is great about doing this manual. A good tracking system would include a mechanism for online action. This SHOULD involve the Field Organization. Come on folks, we have 160,000 members! I have 3 sections with around 3,000 members each! 2. *ARES *appointments all come from the SMs. One of the issues with ARES is that the SEC appointments come and go with SM elections. This just happened in Puerto Rico. *Is it time to bifurcate the ARES and Field organizations and make SEC’s a Division/HQ appointment? * Are a third of our ARES organizations “rudderless?
*Just food for thought. Let me know how I might help!*
--
*Mickey Baker*
*Director, Southeastern Division*
ARRL
Phone (561) 320-2775
Email: n4mb@arrl.org
*From: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> <dminster@arrl.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM *To: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttps://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 listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttps://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
What a shame, Ria. A Section Manager needs to display an attitude of professionalism at all times and to all people. The SM is often the image that Amateur Radio presents to the public eye and serving is that capacity one must by virtue of the position and its visibility, take the proverbial high road. I totally agree that we need to examine these relationships and set some reasonable standards. I am not saying we all need to like everyone, but we do need to show respect towards one another. Demeaning comments have no place in any part of the ARRL Field organization. Let's see if we can formalize a working group thru PSC to look at the options. I chuckle at Mike's comment about the subject SM appointing himself as SEC. It is like a ship Captain assigning himself as the Exec officer. How strange.. - All the best, Dale WA8EFK On 5/7/2021 5:06 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
I had one SM basically do that. Saying he didn’t have to talk to me. He was loyal to Mike Lisenco and also said all sorts of derogatory things, personal attacks about me to all sorts of people.
We do need to define the relationship and any such hostile relationship between the SMs and the board, particularly their own division director should not be tolerated. Especially not the personal attacks.
Ria N2RJ
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:23 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com <mailto:aiz@ctwsoft.com>> wrote:
That's why I suggested that the Director's relationship to the field organization ( if there should be an operational relationship!) needs to be defined.
My SMs seem to really appreciate that I've got close contact with them. They are appearing at our monthly "Division Section Managers" zoom meetings.
Art
On 5/7/2021 2:51 PM, Michael Ritz wrote:
I have one SM that is just the opposite. He is an ex-Marine, and a proponent of "chain of command". When he first became SM and I introduced myself, he told me in no uncertain terms that I was NOT in his chain of command, and therefore there was nothing further that he needed of me. I have probably spoken to him twice or three times since, and that was three years ago. It's also interesting that he ran for SM because he wanted to be the SEC, but nobody would appoint him to that position. So, he ran unopposed and then appointed himself SEC. He then appointed Assistant SMs to handle the SM duties. Yes, SMs come in all flavors! ;-) 73; Mike W7VO
On 05/07/2021 12:04 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> <mailto:aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote:
Good thoughts, Mickey.
So far my SMs are willing to attend meetings and seem enthusiastic. But there is a lack of follow-through on items. I'm working to motivate a teamwork ethic.
73, Art
On 5/7/2021 10:57 AM, Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) wrote:
I agree that lack of section manager interaction with HQ and with members is a huge problem.
It is an impediment to our growth. In some places, the disappearance of the section manager after an election is a laughingstock. In certain sections, I have been to multiple club meetings where I’ve been asked to explain the recall process – which is all but impossible to do, it appears.
Other sections, it is perennially the same SM – no new blood, no succession plan by the current SM. If a health problem or a death intercedes, the section denigrates into chaos.
I agree that we need to fix this, but this goes back to a need to an overhaul in our by-laws and the need to restructure based on facts.
With the largest population of members in the Southeastern Division – by 50% - I get a lot of input. Unfortunately, “I never hear from my section manager” is high on the list of complaints.
I’ve heard stories that, decades ago, there was a strong field manager at HQ that used an iron hand to “manage out” the inactive SMs. Steve Ewald is great – but can you imagine managing 71 direct reports? It is impossible.
These days, it appears that the SM position is no longer recognized as a position of honor and leadership that it should be.
*//*
*/It is up to us, the people on this list, to do something about this issue. Let’s not allow this to languish for years like we seem to do for many issues. This is at the heart of organizational contact with members and deserves immediate attention. /*
*//*
I’m an ideas and action person. I’ve been an active ARRL member as long as anyone here, and have expertise in organizational dynamics. Forgive the assumptions, but here are some ideas in order to get a discussion going toward addressing the issues that we ALL know exists.
CEO Minster has identified a real, serious issue that indicates a lack of engagement of the field organization. Here are some ideas about how we might address this…
1. Provide more recognition for section managers. 1. Monthly “SM Profile” in QST recognizing one standout SM with a profile and photo. 2. Field Organization “SM’s of the year” in each division, and an overall winner from those 15. 3. Identify SM engagement in publicity.
2. Provide more guidance to SM. 1. Make attending the HQ orientation mandatory within the first 90 days. 2. The “SM Handbook” needs updating and perhaps some evaluation criteria so that SMs can self-evaluate. 3. I have had several “cabinet” meetings with SMs, but the same problem SMs don’t show. I have an SM that is new January and hasn’t returned phone calls or emails. 4. Should we (the board) insert ourselves into the SM management with more overt acts such as removing inactive SMs based on lack of activity, not returning phone calls, etc?
3. *We’re missing a member contact tracking system*. Members call into HQ and are directed to the Lab, VEC or to other departments. If we had a tracking system, member issues could be captured and escalated or noticed to the Field Organization. The Lab is great about doing this manual. A good tracking system would include a mechanism for online action. This SHOULD involve the Field Organization. Come on folks, we have 160,000 members! I have 3 sections with around 3,000 members each! 4. *ARES *appointments all come from the SMs. One of the issues with ARES is that the SEC appointments come and go with SM elections. This just happened in Puerto Rico. *Is it time to bifurcate the ARES and Field organizations and make SEC’s a Division/HQ appointment? * Are a third of our ARES organizations “rudderless?
**
*Just food for thought. Let me know how I might help!*
--
*Mickey Baker*
*Director, Southeastern Division*
ARRL
Phone (561) 320-2775
Email: n4mb@arrl.org <mailto:n4mb@arrl.org>
*From: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> <mailto:dminster@arrl.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM *To: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <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
You are in the Marine’s chain of command - he isn’t looking high enough! Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 3:51:08 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:32350] Re: Field Service update I have one SM that is just the opposite. He is an ex-Marine, and a proponent of "chain of command". When he first became SM and I introduced myself, he told me in no uncertain terms that I was NOT in his chain of command, and therefore there was nothing further that he needed of me. I have probably spoken to him twice or three times since, and that was three years ago. It's also interesting that he ran for SM because he wanted to be the SEC, but nobody would appoint him to that position. So, he ran unopposed and then appointed himself SEC. He then appointed Assistant SMs to handle the SM duties. Yes, SMs come in all flavors! ;-) 73; Mike W7VO On 05/07/2021 12:04 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote: Good thoughts, Mickey. So far my SMs are willing to attend meetings and seem enthusiastic. But there is a lack of follow-through on items. I'm working to motivate a teamwork ethic. 73, Art On 5/7/2021 10:57 AM, Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) wrote: I agree that lack of section manager interaction with HQ and with members is a huge problem. It is an impediment to our growth. In some places, the disappearance of the section manager after an election is a laughingstock. In certain sections, I have been to multiple club meetings where I’ve been asked to explain the recall process – which is all but impossible to do, it appears. Other sections, it is perennially the same SM – no new blood, no succession plan by the current SM. If a health problem or a death intercedes, the section denigrates into chaos. I agree that we need to fix this, but this goes back to a need to an overhaul in our by-laws and the need to restructure based on facts. With the largest population of members in the Southeastern Division – by 50% - I get a lot of input. Unfortunately, “I never hear from my section manager” is high on the list of complaints. I’ve heard stories that, decades ago, there was a strong field manager at HQ that used an iron hand to “manage out” the inactive SMs. Steve Ewald is great – but can you imagine managing 71 direct reports? It is impossible. These days, it appears that the SM position is no longer recognized as a position of honor and leadership that it should be. It is up to us, the people on this list, to do something about this issue. Let’s not allow this to languish for years like we seem to do for many issues. This is at the heart of organizational contact with members and deserves immediate attention. I’m an ideas and action person. I’ve been an active ARRL member as long as anyone here, and have expertise in organizational dynamics. Forgive the assumptions, but here are some ideas in order to get a discussion going toward addressing the issues that we ALL know exists. CEO Minster has identified a real, serious issue that indicates a lack of engagement of the field organization. Here are some ideas about how we might address this… 1. Provide more recognition for section managers. * Monthly “SM Profile” in QST recognizing one standout SM with a profile and photo. * Field Organization “SM’s of the year” in each division, and an overall winner from those 15. * Identify SM engagement in publicity. 1. Provide more guidance to SM. * Make attending the HQ orientation mandatory within the first 90 days. * The “SM Handbook” needs updating and perhaps some evaluation criteria so that SMs can self-evaluate. * I have had several “cabinet” meetings with SMs, but the same problem SMs don’t show. I have an SM that is new January and hasn’t returned phone calls or emails. * Should we (the board) insert ourselves into the SM management with more overt acts such as removing inactive SMs based on lack of activity, not returning phone calls, etc? 1. We’re missing a member contact tracking system. Members call into HQ and are directed to the Lab, VEC or to other departments. If we had a tracking system, member issues could be captured and escalated or noticed to the Field Organization. The Lab is great about doing this manual. A good tracking system would include a mechanism for online action. This SHOULD involve the Field Organization. Come on folks, we have 160,000 members! I have 3 sections with around 3,000 members each! 2. ARES appointments all come from the SMs. One of the issues with ARES is that the SEC appointments come and go with SM elections. This just happened in Puerto Rico. Is it time to bifurcate the ARES and Field organizations and make SEC’s a Division/HQ appointment? Are a third of our ARES organizations “rudderless? Just food for thought. Let me know how I might help! -- Mickey Baker Director, Southeastern Division ARRL Phone (561) 320-2775 Email: n4mb@arrl.org<mailto:n4mb@arrl.org> From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org><mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org><mailto:dminster@arrl.org> Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:05 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org><mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> 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 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto: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
participants (8)
-
Arthur I. Zygielbaum -
Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) -
Dale Williams -
Michael Ritz -
Mike Raisbeck -
Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) -
rjairam＠gmail.com -
W0ND