Institutionalized Larceny
If all we have is rules, then why do we need people?
I have written similar letters in the past, and when sharing with colleagues prior to submission, I have been admonished to not do so with the advice, “It doesn’t matter, nothing will change”, and one person stating, “You know Richard, the nail that sticks up is the one that gets hammered.” This writing deals (in general terms) with our current strategy for new business acquisition at the end of a campaign. This is when we scramble for new business with the “open market” model... a veritable free-for-all. This affected me directly. Here, I convey a specific negative personal experience.
It may be useful to provide a quick thumbnail of who I am. I have been with the company just over two years in the Senior Tel Channel in Warwick, RI. I do an excellent job with pacing, and for the customers that will take the time to get into a conversation, understand and strategize, I do great work. I have a Master’s degree in Organizational Behavior and Staff Development and have publicly “bumped heads” with the “system” on a few previous occasions which leads me to this writing. I view myself as more mercenary than pro-union. My primary allegiance is to my own paycheck, to fortitude and to right thinking.
My issue is not with the “open market” per se, but with playing under rules that no one knows about going in. In my case, new business was secured, and “the rules” took precedence over common sense, decency and any sense of fairness. Another salesperson benefited from business I secured I was lied to by a Manager who benefited from the business. For my efforts, I received nothing. The rhetoric I pose in regard to this, “If all we have is rules, then why do we need people?” As well, the following scenario describes what I term “Institutionalized Larceny”. It speaks to new business acquisition, but has specific implications regarding corporate values and how decisions are made within our organization.
At the end of the Providence campaign with the “open market” model, I was calling accounts off of a win-back list. When checking VAST I noted that Commercial Heating had money in the Taunton and Fall River books. I asked my supervisor if I could sell into the Providence cluster making it clear that there was money in other books. In error, he responded affirmatively. At that juncture, I called the account, secured an appointment who requested a premise visit and noted in VAST that I had set the appointment.
Subsequently, I visited with the account, secured the business and came back to the office and requested that the remaining accounts on the card be assigned to me. This of course, was not possible, due to “the rules”. The account was assigned to Adam Sagesse, whom I thought was a Junior Tel in Middleton. When I saw that the account had been assigned to Stephen Alongi on the following Tuesday, I called DSM Brain Donahue and asked why the account had been transferred. He stated that Adam had been promoted to Senior Tel on the previous Friday. I was absent on that Friday and was told that this was the last day Adam could have handled the account in the Jr. Tel channel, so the account was being handled by Stephen.
My question is that in the interim period, when Adam could no longer handle the account and re-assignment was imminent, why the account could have not been assigned to me – the only person who had any investment in the process of securing the business in the first place? I return to my rhetoric, “If all we have is rules, then why do we need people?” If there were any sense of fair play, I would have thought something along the lines, “Richard is the only one with any skin in the game. This business would not have been secured without his efforts. It is only fair that Richard secured the business and he should benefit from the business.” This, of course, is not what has happened.
In the transition to Idearc, there was significant emphasis on “values” and “shared values” driving decision-making. My situation is not an isolated incident and I could readily share colleagues’ stories where apparently the “values” of decency and fair play are nowhere on the radar screen. Salespeople are getting routinely short-changed because of the lack of managerial fortitude to step up and “do the right thing” on a case-by-case basis. Rules exist as a frame of reference. When they are used as absolute dogma, this is a true statement of values - and without consideration for the disincentive (punch in the stomach of morale) it creates. [Disincentive: something that prevents or discourages action; a deterrent; a negative motivational influence.]
When “rules” rule the day, and people do not intervene to interpret these rules with a moral compass, and the “system” does not accommodate individual discretion, we continue to slide into the abyss where morale suffers, individuals’ health suffers, and the schism between management and labor widens. A cloak of distrust characterizes our “organizational culture”. If the values dictate that all we can do is follow the rules, I circle back to my rhetoric, “if all we have is rules, then why do we need people?”
In my case, an initial informational error set in motion a whole sequence of events. This error results in a net gain for the company and a salesperson who had nothing to do with business and for the person who secured the business; I am left with nothing other than being told, “that’s the way it is, that’s the way it has always been done, that’s the way the game is played…”
There will be no convincing me that I have not been wronged. The system should be changed to accommodate individual managerial discretion to address many issues where policy and rules prevail, and the “values” of fairness, decency the fundamental notion of right and wrong are not lost, or swept under the rug by institutional inertia. I secured the business from Commercial Heating. I should be the one to benefit from it both in regard to compensation and production.
One last issue should be explained. I understand the implications of saying that a manager lied to me as per the corporate Code of Conduct and the values we purportedly subscribe to. In the process of transitioning the account to Adam Sagasse, Adam initially very sterilely stuck to company policy in stating the account was his and that it was a very matter-of-fact open and closed situation. In speaking with him over the course of a couple of days he said he would “take care of me” on a gentleman’s agreement basis. He mentioned everything up to and including providing the entire commission to me.
When reassigning the account and seeing that the account had been assigned to Steve Alongi, Brain Donahue repeatedly admonished me to not put anything in writing via e-mail. In retrospect, I see this now as not creating a paper trail. In a phone conversation Brian assured me that any arrangement I had with Adam would remain with Stephen. When communicating this to Stephen he continuously ran a smoke screen saying that he had not yet been paid on the business and he was looking for direction from Brian Donahue on how to deal with the situation.
Whether gentlemen’s agreements of this kind are outside of established protocol and therefore not under the purview of the corporation, is not really my concern. My concern is the moral issue between two men and a lie being told.
Steve Alongi quit his job, and I never saw a dime. Brian did a great job of obfuscating and did a masterful job of placating me to keep me at bay.
The bottom line is this: Brian Donahue is a liar. He epitomizes and is the poster child for what is wrong with the Idearc corporate culture. Sad to say, The Code of Conduct is meaningless.
