Subject:
|
Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:02:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1900 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> Tim said:
> > It is my belief that the corporate execs we would target - Peter Eio, Kjeld
> > Kirk Kristiansen, and additional heads of large divisions of the executive
> > team - would be responsive. Maybe they wouldn't respond themselves, but I
> > believe that they would ensure that the approprate measures are taken within
> > the appropriate timeframe. And if a timeframe couldn't be met, I believe
> > they'd take steps to ensure us that we aren't being ignored.
>
>
> Maybe I can re-phrase my opinion on this point, FWIW. Going just to the
> specific people responsible for each area of your concerns, versus
> going "higher up"..., either one could bring good results. Whether that
> happens depends on the person in question in each case. But my experience has
> been that dealing with the people you have to work with most directly works
> far better in the long run. It fosters cooperation and trust. Going "around
> people" to those with "more power", no matter how well-meaning, can have a
> negative impact, and even really tick people off. I've done both approaches
> many times in the past. On average, "going up" doesn't work out as well. So
> it's an approach I've used less and less of late (even when things are in
> pretty bad shape), and I am very pleased with the results. Again, my opinion,
> based purely upon experience. And I feel this is really the only *major*
> thing on which we disagree.
I have to agree with Kyle on this one, Tim. And I think my sample set of
[Fortune 1000 sized company VP's and above] that I've personally had to deal
with is a bit larger than yours, Tim. Going up without involving the person
you're going up on is almost never ever a good idea, and the higher you go,
the worse of an idea it usually turns out to be. Which is why Kyle's next
paragraph makes a brilliant suggestion, I think.
> But hey, here's an idea <insiration!>. I've also seen cases where I don't
> seem to be getting anywhere with people, and think about "going over them".
> But instead, I ask them if *they* are having any struggles with anything. And
> you know what? Very often they are just as frustrated within their own
> heirarchy. So try this. You're thinking of writing a formal letter. And you
> have a general idea about what it would contain, etc., etc. Ask LD (Brad)
> what he thinks both about the letter and about your intended list of
> recipients. Who knows what he'll say, but I think it's worth finding out. At
> the very least, it's a courtesy to him to let him know that you're planning to
> contact these people. He may already be aware, but I won't presume to think
> that he's enough time on his hands to spend combing the newgroups as we! :]
>
>
> Hmmm, yes, I do think this is a really good idea. Thoughts?
Brilliant!
> > You may see the big picture as it comes to _a_ company, but I doubt
> > seriously you do see the big picture as it relates to TLC specifically, and
> > certainly don't as it regards LUGNET. I'd encourage you to read EXTENSIVELY
> > discussions which have come about because of LD's presence on Lugnet, and of
> > things that Lugnetters have taken issue with. Analyze it from the
> > perspective of Lugnet (as a group of people) with the desire for better
> > selection, more input, and more possibilities for cooperation, and then come
> > back and contradict this.
Tim, this comes off as a bit smug, I'm sure it's not how you really meant to
word it. And if this tone is going to come through in the letter, you may want
to delegate actually writing it to someone else. These sorts of letters take a
*very* skillful sort of wordsmith. Something that I probably am not, but which
I know when I see.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Fzp04z.I2I@lugnet.com... (...) don't (...) them". (...) And (...) Yep! I've already written Brad an email about this. I was told he's in Europe right now, so a reply might be delayed. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| (...) Ditto to that! A brilliant and unconventional philosophy sure to make friends rather than enemies. And in the case of the Theme Gallery, where Brad has said that LEGO is indeed aware of it, I'll bet he could use some moral support from the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| (...) <Whew!> That was huge. Okay, I'll be brief(er) this time..., just don't take it for terseness :] (After typing the post..., okay it I lied, it wasn't brief!) (...) [snip] (...) I take issue somewhat with the fact that you think I have not (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
