Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 137 of 137

Thread: EAA cuts

  1. #131
    Turbomallard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Normal, Illinois, United States
    Posts
    20
    The video which was recently posted of Rod reading the statement he and Paul Poberezny prepared last week was shown at my chapter’s meeting last night without any judgmental preamble. Immediately after its conclusion, people in attendance looked slightly bewildered for several seconds, then someone said “gobbledygook.” Favorable comments were made that one of our chapter members, Chad Jensen, had been promoted and members were pleased that he is being recognized for his integrity and ability. The meeting then moved on to the next agenda item.

    Later at break members raised the subject of the video and reorganization actions again. When they learned that EAA terminated the employment of almost 30 people (with approximately 15 to be replaced later), and that two resigned they were aghast and dismayed that this information was not mentioned in the statement Rod read. They asked “Why did this happen? What prompted this event, and why was this not mentioned?” They felt deceived, and began theorizing about what EAA management is truly doing. One person indicated that they would wait and withhold judgment about EAA’s actions because they did not have enough information to form an opinion; the opinions of the others were unanimously negative about the entire state of affairs.

    Had details and information been available from EAA about the reasons for the dismissals, or about why it is necessary to “reshape the organization,” it may have been possible to put some of the speculation and feelings of distrust to rest (assuming the explanations were valid), but given the fact that EAA has only released two uninformative statements on the matter, both nearly identical, it was impossible to do that. Conversation then turned to the direction of the organization in general and Sport Aviation in particular. All present in the discussion unanimously stated their strong dislike over the change of direction of the magazine from a specialized publication into a near-copy of several other general aviation magazines. Members clearly indicated their disappointment (and more in some instances) that the publication today features fewer articles on traditional EAA subjects than it has previously. It was also noted, without dissent, that the articles on more traditional EAA subject matter which remain are shorter and shallower in depth than their predecessors, and lack desired levels of detail. Several people mentioned that they are obtaining much of their current homebuilding news and information from Kitplanes magazine, which features detailed articles in formats similar to what Sport Aviation used to have.

  2. #132

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Had details and information been available from EAA about the reasons for the dismissals, or about why it is necessary to “reshape the organization,” it may have been possible to put some of the speculation and feelings of distrust to rest (assuming the explanations were valid), but given the fact that EAA has only released two uninformative statements on the matter, both nearly identical, it was impossible to do that.
    Whoa, that's not ever going to happen, and for good reasons.

    Would you want your employer to put into the public domain why you, by name, was seperated from the company?

    Would you tolerate your boss having your future employment discussed and voted on by the public?

    Or would you sue the bejezus out of the company in general and your boss in particular with a very good chance of winning? I know I would.

    We want it both ways, naturally. We want leadership at the top - someone to make decisions, some of them bold, and stand by them. We also want a manager who seeks consensus and implements only those things the majority approve of beforehand.

    We want someone to provide direction to the organization that will ensure longevity and growth.

    We want someone to maintain the status quo and not change anything.

    We can't get both.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  3. #133
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Frank....I could not have said it better myself.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  4. #134
    Turbomallard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Normal, Illinois, United States
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    Whoa, that's not ever going to happen, and for good reasons.

    Would you want your employer to put into the public domain why you, by name, was seperated from the company?

    Would you tolerate your boss having your future employment discussed and voted on by the public?

    Or would you sue the bejezus out of the company in general and your boss in particular with a very good chance of winning? I know I would.
    As somebody who works with matters relating to personnel laws, I understand the limitations any employer faces in explaining personnel decisions based on matters such as performance. My concern lies with the adjustments in relation to functions of the organization.

    For example, if the XYZ department was eliminated, or reduced, and personnel were reduced accordingly simply for that reason and having nothing to do with their job performance, I would be interested in knowing why the XYZ department got the axe. If the move was one that the membership believes was justified, then fine. But it is impossible for the membership to make such evaluations without information.

    However, in the larger sense, what people were concerned about at my chapter meeting was the “reshape the organization" statement. There has been only very superficial information about what is being reshaped and why. I'm sure that if the FAA had put out a statement similar to the one we have received from EAA and nothing more, EAA would be asking for details and an explanation. The FAA reports to the public and people expect to be informed. Similarly EAA has a responsibility, I would argue, to provide its membership, for whom they are supposed to be working, to explain what reshaping the organization means and why it was done.
    Last edited by Turbomallard; 01-21-2012 at 08:08 AM.

  5. #135
    CarlOrton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    DFW Area
    Posts
    729
    Unless someone does something stupid (meaning exposing the organization to litigation), I don't think we'll ever know every little gory detail of what transpired. And, from me coming from a Fortune 100 company background, that's probably the way it *should* be.

    I've had the honor of receiving personal letters from Paul P (unrelated to this issue). I steadfastly believe that he remains an active and vital part of EAA, and does not hesitate to fight for what he believes is right.

    I've also had the pleasure to have personal conversations with Rod Hightower right after his introduction to the organization. From those first impressions, I saw a man who was passionate about all things EAA. I also saw a take-no-prisoners corporate guy who wanted answers. Unfiltered-by-layers-of-buracracy answers. And I mean both of those things in the most favorable light possible.

    I don't personally know any of the folks who were released. Anything I say is purely speculation. But, as a relative newby (only a member for 7 years), I heard enough about organizational hurdles and/or personalities getting in the way of swift actions.

    What we heard from the Hightower video was that he was cutting layers of the organization. From my corporate days, I view that as good. I had too many incidents where things I reported were "simplified" to no more than 4 bullets on a powerpoint slide, each bullet having no more than 8 syllables (and I'm not kidding). Sorry, there will be collateral damage from that. I also heard that all donor dollars would be directed toward the efforts they were intended - also a good thing. If I were a major donor, and I knew that only "X" percent of my donation made it to the cause I *thought* I was donating to because of too many spoons in the pot, I'd be pissed-off.

    Things change. I'm no expert, but I've read enough demographic studies that show the younger generations have thoughts completely orthogonal to the "expected" norms. And that's not bad! Yeah, I hate having to participate in 37 social websites, but look at the flow of information that's been the result. We've had the same degree of change as every other generation - it's just happening at a faster pace, thanks to technology.

    I've had so many of the more senior folks in my chapter (and I'm 57) tell me how they'll never go to another AirVenture because of corporate sponsorships. OK; I never participated in the good old days, but when I first set foot in Oshkosh in 2005, my mouth was agape when I realized that I was in utopia. As others have said, if I don't want to view the John Deere exhibit, I won't. But I do sincerely Thank them for helping pull off the event. And, yes, I bought a JD lawn tractor when the need arose.

    Time will tell if it's all good or not, but I'm giving Rod and Paul the benefit of the doubt on this one.

    Carl Orton
    Sonex #1170 / Zenith 750 Cruzer
    http://mykitlog.com/corton

  6. #136
    Sonex1517's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    50
    Great post Carl!
    Robbie Culver
    Sonex #1517
    Taildragger
    AeroVee
    Currently working on the wings
    Chicagoland

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Carl,

    I think your post is excellent, but there are three issues in play, and regardless of whether Hightower is a stand up guy or not, they haven't been properly addressed.

    - Communication. If the organization needs to change, it is the responsibility of the organization's leadership to explain that on the front end and sell it to the membership. The communication on all of this (directional changes, cut backs, etc) has been akin to the snippets a privately held organization might dribble out. That doesn't play in an enthusiast organization.

    - New direction. The new direction is evident, but still has not been adequately explained. The most recent releases by EAA have been full of corporate mumble and have not addressed the issue in a forthright manner. This needs to change immediately.

    - Reorganization at HQ. This one would arguably be the easiest to explain, and probably wouldn't have resulted in anything more than a minor hiccup, if the first two issues had been managed properly. They haven't, so many members question the reorganization.

    Again, the EAA is a member based organization. You can't run it like a corporation. You have to communicate. To date, EAA has done a horrible job of that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •