Post by hereticus on Jan 25, 2006 14:54:52 GMT 1
Nonails….I have to exercise my right to disagree with you completely. I did not find John Risman’s letter insulting, in fact I found it quite refreshing. (By the way, as if you didn’t know already – it is Risman, not Riseman – OK, it was funny first time !)
One of the things we stressed at the Reading meeting was that we wanted it to be told like it is, so cut out the spin and the b*ll***t and give us honest communications. I wouldn’t suggest that the Reading seminar can take credit for the tone of Mr Risman’s letter (culture change takes longer than a few days) but it was refreshingly free of superlatives, and was not in any way patronising. It is the first time that I can recall Hillarys openly admitting that they don’t get everything right (3 for £ 99 not appropriate everywhere, acknowledged problems with Wood Venetians) and I would agree that production achieved exceptional efficiency – best Christmas ever in terms of getting blinds delivered on time, it was product quality and unit values that suffered !
Also, for the Chief Executive of a large company to openly state on record that they are seeking input from Advisors and ‘aim to respond as fast and effectively as possible to the issues raised’ underlines that the company are serious about the current seminars in Leeds and Reading, as well as reacting to the input from this forum.
I hope that Mr Risman’s letter will set the trend for more open and honest communication between Hillarys and advisors – we are all fed up with the rallying calls and the self congratulatory tone – so if they have a problem we want to know about it, if they make mistakes then admit to them, because it is the advisors and customers who suffer the consequences.
For example, if Hillarys had admitted to the massive problem with wood venetians a few months earlier we could all have helped the situation by not pushing the product, giving production a breathing space to resolve the problems – instead of which we received patronising reassurances (even through this forum) that the problem didn’t exist so sales doubled in volume, DOR remakes accounted for nearly 20% of production, manufacturing didn’t get a chance to recover, and we have all been wasting our time on return visits to refit blinds for customers who have used the problem to get extra discount – a classic example of the damage caused by positive spin where honesty would have been better all round.
So, Mr Risman – thanks for your letter, thanks for starting the trend towards less spin and more honesty, and hoping that all departments take note and start being more truthful, even when it hurts them to do so.
One of the things we stressed at the Reading meeting was that we wanted it to be told like it is, so cut out the spin and the b*ll***t and give us honest communications. I wouldn’t suggest that the Reading seminar can take credit for the tone of Mr Risman’s letter (culture change takes longer than a few days) but it was refreshingly free of superlatives, and was not in any way patronising. It is the first time that I can recall Hillarys openly admitting that they don’t get everything right (3 for £ 99 not appropriate everywhere, acknowledged problems with Wood Venetians) and I would agree that production achieved exceptional efficiency – best Christmas ever in terms of getting blinds delivered on time, it was product quality and unit values that suffered !
Also, for the Chief Executive of a large company to openly state on record that they are seeking input from Advisors and ‘aim to respond as fast and effectively as possible to the issues raised’ underlines that the company are serious about the current seminars in Leeds and Reading, as well as reacting to the input from this forum.
I hope that Mr Risman’s letter will set the trend for more open and honest communication between Hillarys and advisors – we are all fed up with the rallying calls and the self congratulatory tone – so if they have a problem we want to know about it, if they make mistakes then admit to them, because it is the advisors and customers who suffer the consequences.
For example, if Hillarys had admitted to the massive problem with wood venetians a few months earlier we could all have helped the situation by not pushing the product, giving production a breathing space to resolve the problems – instead of which we received patronising reassurances (even through this forum) that the problem didn’t exist so sales doubled in volume, DOR remakes accounted for nearly 20% of production, manufacturing didn’t get a chance to recover, and we have all been wasting our time on return visits to refit blinds for customers who have used the problem to get extra discount – a classic example of the damage caused by positive spin where honesty would have been better all round.
So, Mr Risman – thanks for your letter, thanks for starting the trend towards less spin and more honesty, and hoping that all departments take note and start being more truthful, even when it hurts them to do so.
