Thank you thank you thank you!!  (bounce bounce bounce) This is *exactly*
the input I needed to deal with the situation!! You've no *idea* how much
you've helped a whole bunch of people, Kathy.
>
I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I've been more or less
swamped with the new job, sudden expansion without the personnel in place to
deal with it (or to be trained to deal with it) my computer equipment
failing just when I needed it most - and (of course) the first Mother's Day
without Vern. (Good thing I was so busy - I was almost too busy to notice
the last)

> > If you could tell me some of the things that irked you the most about
> being
> > shoved into a new company when the one you were working for was sold, it
> > would help me to avoid making the same mistakes with the people in the
> > companies we're aquiring. What I resented the most when I was in that
> > situation, was the feeling that I was no longer a person, but just a
piece
> > of office furniture that had been bought and sold with the place.
>
> That was a big part of it -- you went from valued employee to the puke
> inspiring wallpaper they can't afford to get rid of yet.

So I got very strident to the people actually making the deal that Fran and
her staff had to know as soon as possible, and that they had to know they
were coming with the programme because they are skilled and valued. I used
your words that they must be assured they are not just furniture being
bought with the store.

> Nobody figured you could do your job

They are being brought in because they do know their job, and I emphasised
that they must know this. They must not just hear it as soothing words to
prevent the serfs from rebelling, but it must be shown to them to be so.

> you were not part of the "in crowd" of the new power structure

This is trickier, since it's true, and can only be solved by time and
"fitting in" so I dealt with it by saying it up front. "At
first you'll feel
as if you're not part of the "in crowd" because you don't know us and we
don't know you. It's only time that overcomes the "us and them" feeling -
that and being part of "us" when *we* bring in the next
unfortunate bunch of
"thems" and you're part of helping them to fit in. Coached hard
on the tones
of voice to be used in delivering the last line, talking hard about how it
feels to be the new kid in the classroom with the funny clothes that were
stylish where you came from, until I struck a cord. It worked. It got a
laugh and the shuffling which indicates change of body position (according
to the guys who made the presentation)

> you didn't know anyone in the new power structure so getting problems
> resolved became harder

I'm going to have to watch this one every moment. Thanks for the heads up.
I'm so busy that I would have forgotten to be sensitive to this unless you'd
reminded me. I'm printing your message out to keep on my desk at home so
that I remember to watch for this in my dealings with them

> getting approval for any new projects was impossible

That's likely to remain true for a while. Until we have this project up and
running, we can't add new ones

> any perks you'd managed to build up were usually taken away

I'm pushing hard to make sure we honour everything like this. We have to
find them all out, and that's something that will have to be between me and
the new staff, not only between the new staff and their old management,
because old management are apt to forget details like that in the overall
upheaval of selling off a part of their company and re-organising the
company without that part and those staff

> there was always an inevitable "re-organization" of either your little
> group, or the company at large so now you were not only trying to work
with
> people who knew nothing about what you do, but had to do it under new
rules
> with dumb expectations under a boss who didn't have a clue.
>
This is one of the reasons it was so important that I was not mislabelled
the way Stuart had told them about me, because Fran really does have the
title they were giving me. She knows that I know little of the actual work
she does, although I do know some and was doing it, she's had the schooling
for it, the experience, and a vastly higher volume than I ever did. I can
mitigate this somewhat by acknowledging that she's the expert, and her staff
work for her (avoiding telling them to do something over her head) but
there's not much I can do about the reorganisation of how they work, or new
rules, because our company's objectives are different from what their
company's objectives were. I can try hard not to have dumb expectations, and
to have no clue, but in the long run this is where it's going to be the most
difficult, because most of this is simply the fact of life of being bought
out by a company operating for a different purpose from the company they
were working for.

> and because of all that (and more) you find yourself resenting your boss,
> their boss, their boss, the Powers that Be, and the whole industry you
work
> in as well as all their lying, backstabbing lackeys.

This is what I remembered from being in their shoes, I didn't remember the
details of why I felt like that. The biggest way I can find to mitigate this
is to eliminate the lying, backstabbing lackeys. Honesty right up front,
even painful honesty (painful to people not used to working this way)
recognising why they feel the way they do, and doing everything possible to
not fall into the stereotypes.

> And you weren't too fond about the customers either.
>
And this is a real problem, because they're the people who'll be dealing
with the customers. That's what we want them for. We don't have time to hire
and train up service staff, so we brought all of the service staff in with
the competitor's programmes. We need them, they're not there because we
couldn't get the programme without them. They aren't just second hand
furniture, in this case they're vital. To deal well with customers who will
be asking constant stupid repetitive questions because this is a whole new
system that has never existed before, therefore everyone will be lost at
first (and second, and third) we need service staff who not only sound
patient, professional, and cheerful, they must *be* those things. This is my
greatest challenge. Making them feel part of doing something new and
exciting, not just flotsam bobbing in the wake of a ship that ran over their
dock.

> All of that was Shepard's...
>
Remembering what you went through was why I wanted your help with this. I
didn't have time to dredge up memories (nor the mind-space) and you were so
*clear* in what the biggest thorns were, that you've paved the way for these
people to feel excited, that an opportunity to be part of something neat has
come their way instead of feeling like sheep bought with a farm that was
purchased by cattlemen.

> Here at MCI, we weren't sold while I worked here -- that came before I
> started. But our happy, cohesive little group was "re-organized" for
> seemingly no reason at all, and Earl and I were sent off to MJ/J with the
> LTS applications.

Well, I think that's the crux right there - the seemingly no reason at all.
The way to get around that is to make Fran part of any of those kinds of
decisions, so that she not only knows the reasons behind everything, she's
part of doing it, it's not being done to her and her happy little band. If
she's part of the re-organisation (and, inevitably, there will have to be
some) she'll be able to explain it to her group. There's not that many of
them, so I'll see if they can all be part of at least some of the meetings
(someone will always have to "watch the shop" so they can't all be there
every time) so that nothing is done behind their backs, or without reason

> Since they were the "old" cluster of apps and not the
> exciting new ones (DTS) we felt there was something personal in it since
we
> weren't chosen to work on the new stuff. I wanted to know if that was the
> case though so I asked... it would have been nice if it had been explained
> to us BEFORE the split that the reason we were going with LTS was that LTS
> was far more labor intensive, more requiring of expertise, more inclined
to
> *need* the expertise, that the new bosses would need people they could
trust
> and rely on while they got up to speed, and that we could be trusted to
work
> without our hands being held etc.... but hearing it afterward (even if I
had
> to ask) was nice. So Earl and I had been thinking we were being tossed
> aside, when in fact it was nothing like that. I guess my point in all that
> is that people get to feeling like there's some implacable force out there
> trying to screw with them, and doing so for no reason.... when if the
powers
> that be took just a moment to explain the thinking behind it it could all
be
> swallowed much easier.
>
This is one of my main reasons for total honesty up front from the word go.
Then the feeling of being screwed with doesn't have a chance to grow. And if
some of them are always part of the decision making meetings, then nothing
will be done behind their backs, and they'll know why these things are
happening, even if I do get too busy to remember to make sure they have the
explanations ahead of time. I *intend* to never let people go on without
knowing what's going on and why, but this is taking off faster, harder, and
bigger than we'd prepared for, and the reality is that I'm so pushed I'm
afraid things will get missed. If I tell them upfront that I see that as a
problem, and if they have questions like that to email me immediately,
perhaps that'll help. I think the main way, though, it so make sure someone
from each department (as we grow and departmentalise) is part of meetings so
that there's never a feeling of "behind closed doors"

> The other problem here is that we've all felt like we're walking around
with
> targets, waiting for the dart of unemployment to hit us in the ass while
> we're bent over at the water fountain.

It'll be the opposite with us - even with this group not on board yet, we're
already needing more people. Explosive growth can destroy a business for
just this reason - you outgrow something before it's in place, so no one
ever gets used to and good at anything

> And that's something none of the
> mangement in our group can do anything about -- they're frequently not
told
> until the last second that they're losing people.

I'll have to remember to make sure that the management of each group always
knows as soon as possible that they'll be taking on a new group

>And none of believe them when
> they say "that's the last" because we know the unspoken
conclusion to that
> sentence is "for now." What's really burned us all, is that
the layoffs
have
> *nothing* to do with our skills or work ethic. I could be let go tomorrow
> despite breaking my back for them for more than two years -- and that has
> *management* as demoralized as the troops.

It's lies and hidden truths that create this. I don't lie, and I'll have to
do everything I can to avoid keeping things hidden by mistake (mostly just
being too overwhelmed to remember to pass the word along)

> What we do doesn't matter,

This is pure bad management

>and that's the only rope folks have to hold onto sometimes... that the job
they
> do matters, and the skill with which they do it will protect them.
>
We don't even know the skill level of the new people yet (the sale isn't
complete, so they aren't with us yet) and two huge groups jumped on the band
wagon Friday - the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and the BC
Association of Notaries - both wanting to use our programme as their primary
source. We spent the weekend scrambling, meetings have been set up, we have
to create a demonstration/seminar team, and we don't have the people for it.
We have lawyers coming down from Northern BC the week of May 20 - 23 to see
what we're doing, and we aren't ready

> The other problem here -- and with a lot of companies going through big
> changes -- is secrecy. It's appalling. *Everything* is a big stinking
> secret. They won't tell you anything, and when they do it's a bald-faced
lie
> half the time, because they seem to think the truth would bring about
> armageddon or something. I've always believed that the more information
you
> give your employees (within reason of course) the better. But
institutional
> rules say "don't tell them about layoffs" (when all the employees know
there
> are layoffs) or don't tell them X -- when all the employees are worrying
> constantly about X. People aren't stupid. They talk, they analyze, they
look at
> the Big Picture and frequently smell the stink on the wind before it ever
> hits the official weather chart. To institutionally deny that makes
> management look stupid and dismisses the feelings/intelligence of the
> employees. If communications were open and honest they'd find employees
> often have useful ideas and might even be good partners in
decision-making.
>
Exactly

> all that said -- I do recognize that unless you're the very top dog (CEO),

I'm not. I'm second string

> your ability to have open/honest communications are severely limited, so
not
> sure how much any of that would be useful to you.
>
All of it. It's excellent. It sharpened my focus to exactly where the main
problems are in purchasing people with a company (we're already buying
another company as well, before the purchase of this first one is done) so I
was able to put pressure on the CEO to insist on it being done "my way"
because we need these people, and we need them happy and excited about it,
and we don't have time for them to settle in and find their natural level,
and we can't afford to lose them.
As a result (thanks to you) the salesman/PR person was the person to make
the presentation to the employees. (Fran and her staff) This presentation
was made on Thursday, way in advance of when the employees would normally
get wind of anything. It took a lot of pressure on their boss-emeritis to
allow this, since the sale is not yet complete, so they aren't yet "our"
employees and therefore technically we have no right to talk to them or to
give them word of impending changes.
This was the first strike against doing things to them from behind their
backs. As a result Fran is involved in making the changes themselves. The
direct quote from the salesman is "Fran from conveymaster (with whom I am
working through "job description" and conversion rates for existing client
base and who wants a better understanding of the product and how she can
define her role/services and establish a comfort level to convert clients)"
Fran's boss could see no reason to do this, and is still unconvinced that it
could possibly make any difference, but in the end he gave in because we
told him the deal was off if he didn't. Since his whole company already
suspected "something was up" it was in his best interests that they knew
that he was only selling one piece of it, and which piece, and who was
going - but he is as cut off from the workers as any other owner of a large
company, so it took some education and force to get him to do it without
understanding why. (That's why we had Jeff do it - he's a salesman and a PR
whiz, so he could sell the idea)

To my way of thinking, this is a much better groundwork that we would have
had going in blindly. I plan to also tell Fran, the first chance I get, that
we're puchasing another company, and if she and her staff will tell me how
to make it easier for them, it'll help the staff of conveymaster to feel
part of the new company sooner (as well as giving them a legitimate arena to
air their grievances)

I thank you, and even though they have no idea you exist, Regent Group
thanks you, and the staff of Conveymaster thank you. It's especially Fran's
staff that I was concerned about. They're hardworking women, just trying to
support themselves and some have families, doing an honest day's work.
Putting them in a happier position was my greatest concern.

Laurie feeling much better about it Phoenix

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha