Shape up or Ship out!

RM has announced a general leaders' meeting slated on December 10, 2007 at the Lynwood office. This is an end-year meeting where we normally discuss about how to be more efficient, more productive, and more committed for the year ahead.
But prior to the meeting, all leaders have received a letter from RM and the contents of the letter are basically about undivided commitment to the job, and an offer of resignation for everyone.
The latter has caused disappointments since RM made an option to everybody that "if after reading this letter and you opted to resign, I will find a replacement for you."
This single line has caused a lot of mixed reactions from everybody. Why do you offer resignations if those leaders do not intend to or do not have any reason to resign in the first place? What does RM mean "100%" commitment? Does he mean,

1. Finish your stores you are running (or counting if you were assigned to count a store) from the start to end?
2. Run all stores you are assigned to without ifs, buts, and whens, despite valid personal, medical, or emergency reasons on the part of supervisors?
3. Total commitment as if RGIS is the only job the supervisors have despite the fact that this job is both a part-time and a seasonal job?
4. RM demands unquestionable commitments from supervisors despite questionable motives behind the call.

If he meant #1:
It is a common knowledge that supervisors are EXPECTED to run stores assigned from the start to the end. But it is also true that it all depends on the committed time availability of supervisors. I know some supervisors could only work in a certain period say, 0600AM until 1300PM (6AM to 1PM). But what happen if the district has assigned a supervisor to run a store that goes beyond the time limit he or she has committed to work? Are we suppose to blame that supervisor if he needed to leave at the middle of his inventory since his time frame has ran out? Well, why would the district assigned the supervisor in the first place since the office and the scheduler know that this supervisor can only work on a limited time?
Supervisors honor commitments to run stores within the committed time availability. On the other hand, the office should also be committed to honor such availabilities so that there will be mutual respect and better working collaboration.
If he meant #2:
The office sends schedule mostly ahead of time. This will give leaders to make necessary changes against their respective schedules. We confirm our schedules on or before confirmation date. Once it is confirmed, each supervisor is assumed 100% responsibility of the stores being assigned. However, there will be instances where schedules couldn't be performed due to sick leave, short-noticed doctor's appointments, emergency situation, etc. Such changes will be acceptable as long as the cause is valid and reasonable as well. That's why schedulers should be quick to respond such immediate changes. And supervisors should notify such changes as early as possible.
If he meant #3:
All managers know that supervisors and auditors work is a part as well as seasonal job. Many supervisors and auditors as well have other commitments, jobs, and things to do other than counting. Our world does not revolve around RGIS like the earth revolves around the sun. If RM wants supervisors to work 100% of their time, then he should hire all supervisors in full time, with full benefits, permanently. Then RM has all the right to expect from leaders with 100% commitment, 100% effort and 100% above expectations. But while this job is a part-time job and a seasonal job as well, RM has no right to enforce and expect 100% commitment in time and energy among supervisors and auditors.
If he meant #4:
Before he expects others to commit to a job, RM should first commit himself to a genuine "open door policy", genuine commitment to real change, being a people person, being sensitive to the needs of his subordinates. I'd say that the call to "resign" was a miscalculated and a risky proposal. And should not have been proposed in the first place. That challenge has backfired:

• Since the start of RM's tenure on January 2007, there have been a dozen of resignations, terminations, and step downs. Just last month (January) alone, a total of 3 resignations and 3 step downs have transpired. Surprisingly, no replacements have been reported.
• Out of 6, only 1 has filled an AM position. Surprisingly, the AM position filled was not coming from within the rank and file of D411 but an importation from Tacoma district. It appears that nobody is willing to be an AM or TL although I know that a lot of candidates from within are qualified to be one.
• A call to commitment is intrinsic to the growth of a district but to question the commitment level of the leaders who have been committed to the district even prior to the arrival of RM and offering an alternative to resign is totally absurd and absolutely improper.

There have been no response by RM on the issues I have mentioned and there has been no action taken to stop the exodus of resignations among his leaders. RM should shape up now before its too late. Or he will be shipped out.