Deerhurst story

[byrdman]

Hello there!
I was reminded to finally post this message by reading Bob's observation that this Forum's title had been changed to Timmins Memories, by watching the beginning of Joni's tape 2 with Shania talking about her experiences at Deerhurst, and by seeing the new calendar for August (it's August already). Also, I remember that Chris wanted to hear a Deerhurst story! http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif
I think that the story is not private and is appropriate for the Messageboard.
Arlene and I heard this story while staying at Deerhurst from our waitress at one of their restaurants, the Pub. The waitress said that when she started to work there, about four years ago, she was the hostess at the Pub. One morning, a young man approached and asked her for a bottle of vanilla. She asked the kitchen staff about his request, and they said, sure, give him anything he wants, he is Shania Twain's brother! Her brother explained that he was making pancakes for his sister!
She hoped Shania would show up at the restaurant, but she did not during that tour of duty. So the waitress checked later, and Shania was dining there with her two brothers. Shania was dressed casually, wearing a ponytail through her baseball cap, and no makeup. She said Shania was beautiful and kind, and that her brothers were "very spirited." http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif

byrdman

[Tee]

Hey thank for sharing Al. When Greg and I stayed there, we actually went into town and ate everytime. I now wish we would have ate there instead or at least asked around abit. Oh well, to late now, maybe next time.

Have A Happy Heart,
Teresa

[Roger]

Originally posted by Tee:
Hey thank for sharing Al. When Greg and I stayed there, we actually went into town and ate everytime. I now wish we would have ate there instead or at least asked around abit. Oh well, to late now, maybe next time.

Have A Happy Heart,
Teresa

Tee, you didn't have to go into town to eat if you wanted to avoid those Deerhurst prices. I don't remember the name of the restaurant but if you turn right as you leave the Deerhurst parking lot (instead of left in the direction of highway 60) and go an half a mile, you come to a motel/hotel whose restaurant is cheaper than Deerhurst's.

Roger

[Bob]

Hi Byrdman,

Thanks for your enjoyable human interest story. Would be nice if it were well received and understood by a wider spectrum of population.

I was talking today at lunch with a psychologist, just back from his 5 wk trip to Yellowknife in Canada's NW Territory with his wife. He knew of my interest in the STUSOFC gang's first meeting in person in Timmins and was eager to hear the outcome, as some of the others in my office had been.

Well, as I was describing it in terms and concepts you would recognize, a couple management types were at our table and started questioning me. They're not computer literate enough to be on the internet themselves at home much (we can access only the limited organizational IntRAnet at work), and they're skeptical about ANYONE forming friendships on the Internet. They are especially skeptical about GROUPIES or FANATICS. Needless to say, they did not share the openness, insights nor enthusiasm of my friend the psychologist and I.

It's quite interesting how otherwise seemingly intelligent and personable people get so suspicious of something they know almost nothing about. That is true also for a small percentage of my coworkers and even some of my relatives.

But with these managers, I think there is an added influence here, akin to organizational discrimination. If the boss doesn't know about it, then it must not be important or legitimate. The creation of artificial hierachies in organizations with it's resulting superiors and inferiors, tends to quash, suppress or disempower the information, ability or potential of anyone toward the lower end of the food chain. Despite the fact that many people get promoted only because of personal connections, or a limited category of ability, the presumption develops within organizations, that position equates with intelligence, insight and ability.

Then again, maybe the lunch questioning happened partly because I am not a sales person. I hate it when people presume they're so smart they have to tell me what to do. So I avoid engaging in that myself. I prefer to share and exchange information and together make the best sense of it, grow and develop what good is feasible. But you all know what happens when you are trying to share, and the other party is trying to compete. Try to be nice to a tiger in the jungle and he may eat you for lunch.

My preference is an adult to adult, peer, and healthy kind of relationship. I've met some very bright people in my life. And I can count on the fingers of about 1/2 a hand, those I couldn't keep up with if they wanted me to. I suspect that the majority of superior/inferior relationships between adults are deficient in mental and emotional health.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that one of the great inspirations about Eilleen Twain's story is how dramatically she overcame suppression and disempowerment.

The fact that Eilleen still remains a friendly, informal, down to earth human being, as described in your story, is certainly endearing to a lot of people. Maybe in time, the Internet will develop it's fuller potential, and the abilities of the non-elite will have wider opportunity.

There is enough talent, work and reward to go around in this world. One big reason why it does not, is due to human greed and the dark side of competition. Cooperation has had it's dark side too. But I'll save that epistle for another day.

Bob

[byrdman]

As Teresa say, Roger, by eating elsewhere you miss out on the Shania stories! LOL http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif And also the experience of eating in the same dining room that Shania had been in! http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif

byrdman

[FV]

Bob,
sometimes I find that for other people it is a little bit difficult to understand the type of friendship we have developed among the fans at this site.. http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif it's quite beyond being fanatics..it's more like being Shania-friends.. http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif another Multiplatinum accomplishment for Shania's music.. http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif

------------------
Cheers,
FV

[cbspock]

Great story, thanks for sharing it. I agree with FV, a lot of people just don't understand what we find so 'fascinating' about Shania, and the friendships we have made over the internet, enough to meet eachother in Timmins.

-Chris

[Roger]

Bob, there is no doubt in my mind that friendships, real ones, can develop on the net. What brings people together on the net is a shared interest in something. To pursue an interest on the net you have to have a considerable interest, not just a superficial one. To share an interest in something that's important to you necessarily creates a bond among those sharing because, to share fully, you have to open up fully and expose yourself to the possibility of rejection. When we open up fully and not only do not meet with rejection but, on the contrary, find sympathy and support, is this not the essence of friendship? In many ways, this kind of friendship is more real than friendships based on the chance coming together of neighbours or co-workers. In our case on this board, we came together because we share an interest in all things Shania. This necessarily implies we share values, moral and aesthetic. Is this not the essence of friendship?

BTW I have to tell you, Bob, I am uncomfortable when you dump all over managers and institional hierarchies. I worked my way up from the working level to senior management. I didn't do this through personal connections. I did it by developing the right mix of know-how and skills to carry out the objectives of the organization. No thinking person supposes that people higher in the hierarchy are superior generally or more intelligent than those lower down. The supervisor/employee relationship you refer to exists only to get a specific job of work done within a specific organization. It implies nothing about the relative worth or intelligence of these people outside of that context. I sense you would prefer a collegial style of organization. Whereas this set-up is fine in certain limited contexts, it is generally not nearly as effective as a hierarchical structure.

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 08-02-2001).]

[Bob]

Originally posted by FV:
Bob,
sometimes I find that for other people it is a little bit difficult to understand the type of friendship we have developed among the fans at this site.. http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif it's quite beyond being fanatics..it's more like being Shania-friends.. http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif another Multiplatinum accomplishment for Shania's music.. http://www.shania-twain.org/messages/smile.gif



FV,

That's a nice turn of phrase. Your description/answer is actually what one of the fellows questioning me was actually trying to find out about our relationship, and what element(s), which if removed, would cause the relationship to not exist. Eventually we settled on Shania Twain as being the primary connection.

I tend to be a little more independent than average. So I see the potential for continued friendships with at least a few of my most compatible members here, through non Shania channels.

But I think you've coined a new term that fits probably most of the active members here.

Enjoyed your insight.

Bob

[Bob]

Originally posted by Roger:
Bob, there is no doubt in my mind that friendships, real ones, can develop on the net. What brings people together on the net is a shared interest in something. To pursue an interest on the net you have to have a considerable interest, not just a superficial one. To share an interest in something that's important to you necessarily creates a bond among those sharing because, to share fully, you have to open up fully and expose yourself to the possibility of rejection. When we open up fully and not only do not meet with rejection but, on the contrary, find sympathy and support, is this not the essence of friendship? In many ways, this kind of friendship is more real than friendships based on the chance coming together of neighbours or co-workers. In our case on this board, we came together because we share an interest in all things Shania. This necessarily implies we share values, moral and aesthetic. Is this not the essence of friendship?
Roger

(edited 08-02-2001).]

Roger,

I agree that certainly is a large part of friendship. As to whether it is the essence or majority of it, I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to look up some reference concepts and think a bit further. I think you've addressed pretty well, much of the practical processes of it tho.

Bob

[Bob]

Originally posted by Roger:

BTW I have to tell you, Bob, I am uncomfortable when you dump all over managers and institional hierarchies. I worked my way up from the working level to senior management. I didn't do this through personal connections. I did it by developing the right mix of know-how and skills to carry out the objectives of the organization

Roger



Roger,

Yes, I have generalized more than is precise. My usual tendency to qualify things to the nth degree, usually only distracts from the main point, which then never gets received. So on this matter, I made the broad point and left out the modifiers. I certainly did not intend to include you nor any other capable official individually in my complaint. In fact I took care to cite and describe you as opposite of those deserving criticism. Since my effort on that failed, and resulted in your discomfort, I apologize. On the issue of groups and organizations, I'll reply separately.

Bob

[Bob]

Originally posted by Roger:
I sense you would prefer a collegial style of organization. Whereas this set-up is fine in certain limited contexts, it is generally not nearly as effective as a hierarchical structure.

Roger



Roger,

I am delighted that you took up the cause of effectiveness in organization structures and processes. This is one of the topics I studied and researched in graduate school of business management.

Applications of psychology in the management of business and organizations, generally shows that hierarchical structures are only one of multiple ways to approach organizational goals and successfully achieve them. Most organizations have SOME kind of hierarchy to them, but with great variation. My use of the term, refers to the traditional tall hierarchy where control is at the top. As for the "collegial style" of leadership, that is only one of many alternatives. And I don't recall that it had any special attraction for me.

Extensive case studies of organizational types and climates showed what worked, when, where and for whom.

With that information in mind, some classmates, professors and I, visited a number of organizations with progressive practices for sharing of power and profit. Their overall productivity was often no greater than conventional or traditional organizations. But the development of employee talent and satisfaction was greatly improved. This had many indirect benefits to both sides, unique to this method of organizing. One of those was much less employee burn out, turn over, retraining and work errors. On the other hand, this kind of organization posed more daunting leadership duties than in traditional hierarchical organizations, where rules and roles were pretty much predefined. But since both employees and leaders shouldered greater responsibility in these progressive work places, it lead to greater reward and fulfillment for workers. Both sides consistently agreed it was worth it.

This solves a serious social problem because it creates a more gradual and fair range of responsibility and reward that matches the distribution of native capability in human populations (the bell shaped curve).

After finding out about what does work, we looked for examples of what does not work. We'd heard the standard complaints about government bureaucracy in general, as well as personal complaints from recent graduates who worked there. With those leads, we set up a task force project to study the impact of motivation and compensation practices of the Civil Service department in a Great Lakes state.

What we found was stunningly appalling. Human talents were being suppressed and thrown away wholesale. Typically, the more talented individuals found it unacceptable and left. It was so bad we thought maybe we were influenced by a bias in our info gathering or by that of our population of contacts. So we created filters and blinds to ensure objectivity of the info gathered. When the results were tallied up and statistics began to emerge, some of us had trouble sleeping at night, knowing the career and human carnage that was going on mostly under the radar of public awareness. Even the director of the department of Civil Service was surprised at the data and conclusions. And he did not dispute them.

There were a few pockets of light here and there, under innovative managers within small agencies. But we found leaders in those areas discouraged and under attack from all sides by other managers, for giving perks to employees not consistent with other agencies. This created complaints of unfairness and led to grievances. So innovative leadership was eventually quashed.

This was not always true. For example, since the mid 1970's or so, there has been an occasional department in state government with brilliant, innovative and practical leadership that accomplished great things and was clearly admired by customers and employees alike, as well as emulated by other states.

My good fortune was to have a part time mentor for 20 yrs, who had been a key planner under such a department chief. Unfortunately, the chief died young, in his late 40's I think, of a heart attack. The department was unexpectedly plunged into political appointment & intrigue, and declined for the next quarter century into much the same predicament as most state departments.

Roger, I suspect you had a much better fortune than me, to have actually worked under such good leadership, rather than just know a single friend like I did, in a different department.

Now maybe things are different in Canada, or generally where you worked. But when you say:

"...No thinking person supposes that people higher in the hierarchy are superior generally or more intelligent than those lower down. The supervisor/employee relationship you refer to exists only to get a specific job of work done within a specific organization. It implies nothing about the relative worth or intelligence of these people outside of that context."

I'm thinking, why bless your heart, Roger, for you have found and aspire to that which so many of the rest of us clearly have not.

The psychological 'halo' effect is a well established phenomenon. Initial impressions, packaging and position have a huge impact on people's perceptions. Furthermore, organizational structure is often designed to control or eliminate independent thinking, by those who need or want to control. Structure and repetitive tasks replace thinking. You speak deferrentially to your upline 100 times a day and do you suddenly stop doing it the second you walk out the door? Absolutely not, it's become a part of your habit and psyche.

This is the unavoidable reality that the great bulk of front line workers face, including Shania Twain when she penned the lyric "This job don't stimulate my brain."

Having said all that, I acknowledge that as you get farther up the managerial chain, greater independent thought can exist under good leadership. But you sure haven't worked in the Social Security Administration, one of the largest departments of the U.S. Government lately.

Despite the window dressing purporting otherwise in Washington D.C. and occasional P.R. elsewhere, the bottom 8-10 levels of managers I've heard speak in the past 20+ years, sing the same song of "sorry, my hands are tied (from above)" as we front line workers must tell to customers, as we deal with each other's disatisfaction.

I have worked in farm, field, factory and office; in public sector as well as private; as employee and as manager; and in legal, medical, technical and non technical fields. In most of the places I've worked, it is not just the specific task where leadership is deferred to, it becomes the worldview, even though we don't like it and resist it.

My point is that organizational structure creates a certain climate that serves the purposes of capital or labor to varying degrees. Some are very effective, but not fair. Some are very fair, but not effective. Knowing which do what and for whom, can help identify how to balance the needs of different elements of society.

Good leaders tend to know how to do that. Lousy ones don't. Good leaders can do it even within an organizational structure designed for a different purpose, but it's more difficult than in one designed for a compatible purpose. Good leaders know about the alternatives and impacts of organizational structure. This is well acquired only in formal, persistent training in the subject. 90% of managers and administrators do not have such training. Most of the managers I know, were good in some technical area or at relationships and got promoted on that basis. Virtually all of us who have degrees or graduate degrees in management were told flat out, those degrees and that training will not qualify you for advancement, but training and degrees in a technical field of the organization, will.

I used the model of private capital and private labor above for simplification. The issues of organizational structure and leadership also apply in large measure to gov't appropriated capital (budgets) and gov't labor.

Some government structures that are most effective for budget purposes, sacrifice front line workers on the twin altars of customer service and promotability or electibility of leaders. This "seems" effective to those few who get elected or promoted. But the disenchantment of the larger numbers of workers gets transmitted, I assure you, one way or the other, to customers. And to the extent that the community is made up of many more front line workers than leaders, the community suffers from it's diminished quality of life. What goes around, comes around. Nobody can get away indefinitely, with making too many people miserable.

If you've succeeded in making things operate smoothly where you worked, my hat's off to you. Maybe you could write a book and explain it to the rest of the world. I sure have seen very limited evidence of such successful organization in these environs.

Bob

[Roger]

Bob, it's late and your post is long. I'm going to be out of town for 3 days. I'll study your post next week when we get back. Maybe private email would be more appropriate from this point on since our discussion of the theory and practice of organizational structure is getting ever more arcane and, perhaps, a little too far removed from the concerns of most Shania fans. For sure, your personal experience has been somewhat unfortunate.

Roger