On this day in P1atter History...

"Ensuring that their interests are looked after could be used for all the constituencies"

9/3/96

To: US and CPL SilverPlatter Employees

On July 24, 1996, the US and CPL zones held an inquiry meeting at the MAC in Norwood. There were 68 employees who attended and contributed to the meeting. The meeting began with an introduction to the day given by DonnaL. There were six employees who volunteered and trained to facilitate small group discussion sections. The facilitators were AndyC of Technology Development, ChuckC of IPR, BettyK of Technology Development, SueK of US Distributor Relations, and JimM of IS. The facilitators did an excellent job of keeping the discussion moving and collecting the salient thoughts, opinions and ideas on the flip charts.

Each discussion group was a cross-functional representation of the company. The members of each group were pre-assigned to a group so that no one function in the company would be overly represented in one particular group and to facilitate the cross fertilization of ideas for discussion. The role of the facilitators was to ensure that the discussion kept flowing and that each person in the group had the opportunity to be heard. The groups met and discussed each questionand came back together with one member of each group reporting back to the group at large. Overall, the comments that the I received after the meeting were that the employees who attended enjoyed the interactive discussion. The newer employees felt that SP is a very unusual company in that we would hold meetings to encourage employees to give their point of view on such very important issues even if their opinions and statements might not be in agreement with upper management's point of view. Both the longer term and new employees hoped that the information would be passed on to the ET for consideration.

I committed to summarizing the information that was gathered on the flip charts for distribution. The following is that summary of the highlights:

Question 1:
In the fundamental beliefs, level 0, are these the constituencies that we should be serving? What changes, if any, would you recommend?

Group 1:
Did not recommend any additions or subtractions to the groups being served. Liked the statements for the investors and employees.
Would like a more specific statement for the society constituency. Wanted a more noble purpose. Under the customer constituency, felt that we should broaden the customers' statement seems to focus too much on existing customers, how about potential customers? Maybe changing customers to customer community to include, existing, potential and the larger community we serve.
Felt that the business partner statement is too vague. Ensuring that their interests are looked after could be used for all the constituencies and says nothing that is specific about the business partners.

Group 2:
No comment on changing or adding the constituencies. Group felt that the shifts in emphasis over a period of time are not shown on the diagram. There are tilts or shifts and also a lot of gray area between the constituents. Customers can be business partners, investors can be employees etc. There is some fluidity between the groups and we should show this. Currently it is felt that there is more emphasis on business partners than employees, customers and investors.

Group 3:
No comment on changing or adding constituencies. Serving investors seems less direct. Serving employees and outsourcing functions is not compatible. We should be serving society better by having more of a presence in public libraries. If we have the goal of hassle free products, we need more time for usability testing.

Group 4:
The emphasis is now more on the customer constituency and this creates tension regarding the other 3 constituencies. We seem to do whatever the customer wants without regard to what the investors and business partners want.
The employee constituency is not being served as well as it was. Employees are not as empowered as they once were. For example: some staff are not willing to help each other. The staff does not know who to talk with regarding work problems and how to get these solved. There is a lack of organizational infrastructure that hampers our effectiveness in working together. Those who are new are at a disadvantage in not knowing where they fit in the company.

That we serve society by serving the four constituencies could be made clearer.
Managers role at SP is changing. Less hands-on and more managing. Rewards for some-Managers-but not for staff.
An expanded idea of how we serve society is needed.

Group 5:
Cone diagram is an ideal (model). Employee should be at the center and society on the side. Need to keep educating employees.
Change seems to happen at upper levels and is not filtered down from the executive to the managerial level. There is a communication gap-we need to make sure that all employees really understand what SP does.

Group 6:
Focus on service is a good foundation. Need a better definition of ideas like "hassle-free". We are each other's customers and by serving ourselves best, we become enabled to serve the Customer constituency better. One way to serve each other better is through better communications. Being enabled and empowered meant no micro-management and people liked that. Managers do not always allow for decisions to be made by employee. Some in group felt that their managers were not living the empowering and enabling place to work.
We need to focus on what will make us truly international company. We should be proactively learning about multi-cultural needs. Does customer include the "end users".
Who are the investors? What are their needs? What impact does Phoenix's investment have? What is a good return?
With a greater emphasis on the need for profit, we feel that this may affect our availability of tools and resources to do our jobs.
What are business partners' interests?

Question 2:
Discussion about the Intention Statement

Group 1:
All members of the group felt that they did not like calling this an intention statement. They felt it is really a goal to be reached and should be called something other than an intention statement. Intention was not decisive enough. The group rewrote the statement:
"Enabling the qualification, dissemination and exchange of knowledge in a world-wide digital community through collaboration and technology."

Group 2:
The group felt that "intention" implies future rather than present and trying rather than doing. The group felt that the intention statement or what ever we decide to call it should be level 0 not level 1 on the diagram. They suggested changing "the emergence of a worldwide library" with "creation and exchange of worldwide knowledge".

Group 3:
The members of the group felt that they are working the intention. They also felt that the intention statement has an external focus. They would like a statement that is also inner focused. This statement is better than previous version since people outside the company can understand it. Intention or mission statement should not have a level, it should be before the diagram.

Group 4:
The group felt that to enable the world wide digital library is assuming a role that is more central than is warranted. The WW library is going to exist and grow with or without SP. Our intention should be to participate in it as fully as possible. We need to identify the primary targets for collaborating and be proactively seeking opportunities to work with them. We should include "content" as a key part of our intention.

Group 5:
Similar ideas to group 3. Felt that statement should reflect more upon the constituents. Would like to see added to the end of the statement "to serve our constituents. Statement seems to make us look like a non profit. Statement doesn't give a picture of SP.

Group 6:
Wording was felt to be too vague and weak. We need to focus more upon world wide-we are too English language centric. Group would like words such as: new, futuristic, easy, cost-effective and better in the statement. Who are the users and/or customers of the worldwide digital library?

Question 3:
Discussion of the key behaviors

Group 1:
The group as a whole did not feel it necessary to have a list of behaviors. They also felt if we are going to have such a list that it be written so that people can understand it. For example: For number 1: "take responsibility for your own actions. For number 6: Say what you want and engage others in an inquiry about how to get it". This is not just for managers-it should apply to everyone.

Group 2:
Write them in a way that is more clear and concise. The current language causes resentment. Leaving nothing in the unsaid can not stand on its on. We need to add "foster a safe environment". The group would like to add, "Don't complain without providing a suggestion/plan/proposal."

Group 3:
Why do we need rules to act?
Some suggested changes: "Be responsible for your own actions. Voice your opinions. Strive to communicate and express yourself clearly. Are you checking in with all the constituencies?"

Group 4:
Language is too ambiguous. If we want SP to have a uniform understanding of the behaviors, then why don't we say what we mean?
Not all SP employees know and follow behaviors.
The behaviors are a manifestation of the SP culture and lead to consensus decision making. We do a lot more talking than doing.
Restatement of behaviors:
Be responsible for your actions. Take ownership of your part, your area of responsibility.
Don't be afraid to speak up.
Ask questions to clarify what you have heard.
Managers may need to say how things are done, not just what is to be done.
We should also anticipate problems and needs further down the line, not just react well to the breakdowns.
Add the following:
Be honest and direct.
Be respectful to each other.
When you bring up a problem, be prepared to propose a solution to it.
When making a decision, think of the effect on other zones or departments.

Group 5:
Some like the language, some didn't. Words are often a barrier and should be reworked. It feels like someone is imposing a belief system upon me. What is missing is having fun. Delete the #8, about checking in to see if we are living these beliefs. What is missing is respect for others and cooperation. List does not promote teamwork, it is individualistic.

Group 6:
Although the group had no problem understanding what the statements meant, they would like to see them stated in simpler language.
For example:

1. There are no victims. Don't hide behind policy.
2. Be honest-you may not be right but be honest. (this is the most frequently quoted behavior on the list)
3. The listener has a responsibility as well as the sender.
4. Same as 2.
5. Giving praise should not be limited to managers to employees. It should be from peers to peers and should also occur cross departments.
6. Don't use staff. Use the word "others". Also, this behavior doesn't create ideas from staff as to what needs to be done.
7. Relates to #1, take responsibility for getting around the breakdowns.
8. Some people may need reminding. Most behave this way anyway.

[Back to 'On This Day'] [Back to Secretp1atter] [the 'other' P1atter]