BeantownDisneyFan
Earning My Ears
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2000
- Messages
- 18
As a career executive with one of the most highly regarded hotel company's in the world, and a long-time DVC/Old Key West Member, I can not resist the temptation of adding my perspective on this subject.
This subject is one that is common to all major hotel company's and (vacation ownership resort) management company's, at all levels, from the "economy to luxury" tier.
While I have been disappointed - - offended - - by Disney Vacation Club's response to repeated communication between me and them on this very subject, this, to me, is a symptom of a disease, not a disease of a symptom, and has much more to do with Disney Vacation Club's autocratic manner of doing business, than it does anything else. This also has something to do with the challenges inherent in "shared (home) ownership (e.g. condominium living)," vs. private (home) ownership.
We have encountered the very situation reported by Doc and others at OKW over the past three years. Despite advising Member Services of our preferences, specific to (1) the area of DVC that we wish to stay in, (2) any one of several floors that we prefer, (3) and our request for a non-smoking vacation home, our "requests" over the past three years have been met by the well-scripted Cast Member(s) who have advised us upon check-in that DVC no longer pre-blocks vacation homes, based on preferences, and instead, assigns vacation homes at check-in. We have consistently been advised that DVC has "surveyed and polled its Members," and that the "Members" prefer the "assignment at check-in" approach, to one of pre-blocking. Funny, I don't remember being surveyed (in the recent or distant past) on this subject, and I sure don't remember the findings of this survey being communicated with DVC Members in any DVC publication (that, I suspect, would be too forthright). Further, if this is the case, I wonder why Member Services accepts "requests?"
To me, this subject has much more to do with the iron-handed fist that DVC manages their resorts, and the lack of Member representation in the decision making process, than it does to whether or not an east-facing or west-facing vacation home has been pre-blocked for us. The solution is not self-limiting to a change in policy on vacation home assignments, but instead, is specific to the governance of DVC resorts, and the extent to which DVC in inclusive or exclusive in building "policy" with Member participation.
Perhaps most disappointing to me, has been the "black hole" that repeated feedback to Member Services, and personal letters directed to the General Manager(s) of Old Key West has been captured by. Apparently, this Management Company does not consider itself accountable to its Members, but its Members accountable to the Management Company. Either that, or the CEO/VP overseeing DVC has a very weak management infrastructure, with senior leadership capable of not responding to Member concerns. Hence, my reference, early on, to DVC's autocratic manner of doing business, and iron-handed fist, and the potential need to call to question the manner by which this Management Company conducts its business.
I believe the only solution to the "symptom" of the disease that has been eluded to herein, is (1) to hold management accountable, (2) to revisit the governance of DVC, and (3) to "demand" a shift in DVC's autocratic manner of doing business, to a more "inclusive" approach of managing and making policy with the input and participation of its Members. I am not suggesting that the Members rule the roost, as allowing the inmates to run the asylum has liabilities, but I am suggesting that the Membership shift the current governing principles at DVC, from one in which the Members are accountable to the Management Company, to the Management Company being accountable to the Members.
These are very basic principles in making public policy......
This subject is one that is common to all major hotel company's and (vacation ownership resort) management company's, at all levels, from the "economy to luxury" tier.
While I have been disappointed - - offended - - by Disney Vacation Club's response to repeated communication between me and them on this very subject, this, to me, is a symptom of a disease, not a disease of a symptom, and has much more to do with Disney Vacation Club's autocratic manner of doing business, than it does anything else. This also has something to do with the challenges inherent in "shared (home) ownership (e.g. condominium living)," vs. private (home) ownership.
We have encountered the very situation reported by Doc and others at OKW over the past three years. Despite advising Member Services of our preferences, specific to (1) the area of DVC that we wish to stay in, (2) any one of several floors that we prefer, (3) and our request for a non-smoking vacation home, our "requests" over the past three years have been met by the well-scripted Cast Member(s) who have advised us upon check-in that DVC no longer pre-blocks vacation homes, based on preferences, and instead, assigns vacation homes at check-in. We have consistently been advised that DVC has "surveyed and polled its Members," and that the "Members" prefer the "assignment at check-in" approach, to one of pre-blocking. Funny, I don't remember being surveyed (in the recent or distant past) on this subject, and I sure don't remember the findings of this survey being communicated with DVC Members in any DVC publication (that, I suspect, would be too forthright). Further, if this is the case, I wonder why Member Services accepts "requests?"
To me, this subject has much more to do with the iron-handed fist that DVC manages their resorts, and the lack of Member representation in the decision making process, than it does to whether or not an east-facing or west-facing vacation home has been pre-blocked for us. The solution is not self-limiting to a change in policy on vacation home assignments, but instead, is specific to the governance of DVC resorts, and the extent to which DVC in inclusive or exclusive in building "policy" with Member participation.
Perhaps most disappointing to me, has been the "black hole" that repeated feedback to Member Services, and personal letters directed to the General Manager(s) of Old Key West has been captured by. Apparently, this Management Company does not consider itself accountable to its Members, but its Members accountable to the Management Company. Either that, or the CEO/VP overseeing DVC has a very weak management infrastructure, with senior leadership capable of not responding to Member concerns. Hence, my reference, early on, to DVC's autocratic manner of doing business, and iron-handed fist, and the potential need to call to question the manner by which this Management Company conducts its business.
I believe the only solution to the "symptom" of the disease that has been eluded to herein, is (1) to hold management accountable, (2) to revisit the governance of DVC, and (3) to "demand" a shift in DVC's autocratic manner of doing business, to a more "inclusive" approach of managing and making policy with the input and participation of its Members. I am not suggesting that the Members rule the roost, as allowing the inmates to run the asylum has liabilities, but I am suggesting that the Membership shift the current governing principles at DVC, from one in which the Members are accountable to the Management Company, to the Management Company being accountable to the Members.
These are very basic principles in making public policy......
