Conference 7.286::digital

    I think there are 1's but generally the 1 rating is there so
    that managers can tell people that they're not as good as they
    could be.
    
    				Alfred

         If one wants to realize their fullest potential, isn't the manager
    there to help....or to prevent this ? Somehow, I think a managers
    success is linked to those s\he is supposed to be partnering with. To
    the extent you are successful, so is your manager. And conversly, your
    failure is a stinging indictment of his\her inability. Or maybe not.
         Some are threatened by underlings who are risk-takers. Others are
    very threatened if you are not.

    Some days I'm a 1,some days I'm a 10 and for some fleeting moments,I
    rate 0 or -2.On average,I'm not a 1 for the same reason that most
    people are never a 1 consistantly-you need to be doing what you're best
    at in a motivating environment and this requires a degree of self
    motivation and management which is difficult to achieve on a consistant
    basis.
    I dislike the idea of a rating scale-it smacks of an objectivity which
    is unachievable in man management and is too easy to use as a means of
    telling someone they aren't good enough.In general it ensures the exact
    opposite of what it intends.The real scale should be based on the
    persons maximum performance whereas this is based on performance to
    'objectives'.As I was once told when I objected to subjectives 'this
    objective is a subjective objective'.
    Says it all really...

    When I first came to DEC, six months later I got my first review and I
    was rated a 1 and promoted.  I've been rated a 2 ever since.  My first
    7 years in this company were spent doing my "dream job", and guess
    what?  I never cared what I was rated.  After that, about 4 years ago,
    I changed jobs.  Work became "just a job".  I worked harder, enjoyed it
    less, and worried about my rating thanks to the threat of layoffs (with
    a wife and 3 kids to feed).  No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get
    a 1 even though I (probably erroneously ;-) believed I deserved one. 
    Recently, I changed jobs again.  The threat of layoffs is still
    potentially there, but I'm back to doing the kind of work I enjoy. 
    Work has become fun again, and "ratings" just aren't at the top of my
    list anymore.
    
    Rich  

    
    I was a 1 once.
    
    But then the best manager I've ever known burned out and left DEC, I
    was exposed to what lay above, and my morale went down the commode.
    
    Now my attitude is so low it has to look up to look down, and I feel
    personally responsible for the state of this company. It's a struggle
    to maintain a 2.
    

	When I was a manager I was often asked what someone had to do
	to be rated a 1. It was a very difficult question to answer. I
	finally started giving examples (without names) of performance
	that got a 1 out of me in the past. I have included two examples
	below:

	1) This person was in a support role and during one exceptional
	period got close to 30 kudos (unsolicited) from people he supported.
	Typical comments were "He went out of his way..", or "I could not
	believe he did that for me...".

	2) Another person was on a 2-person team with a very tight schedule.
	The ability of the 2nd person to complete his portion of the project
	was in question. The 1 performer supported his partner in every
	way he (or I) could think of but was concerned that the product would
	not be delivered in time. He worked on his own time (weekends, etc..)
	and duplicated the work his partner was supposed to do (without
	his partners knowledge). As it turned out his partner came thru
	and delivered his side. The "just in case" work was not needed.
	Probably one of the best examples of supporting a team member and
	being responsible for a product delivery that I have ever seen.

joe

    I have been a "1" in the past. My manager appreciated the
    long hours I put in to make him and our group succesful.
    However, once my management changed I became a "2". Now
    my hours are not so long. ;)
    
    			-Jim-

	Rating scales always remind me of my elementary school days - very
juvenile.  Demming had some interesting things to say about motivation
and performance as it pertains to human behavior.  A company would really
have to be 'gutsy' to try Demming's approach.
	Rating scales should be eliminated.  They are really inaccurate.
I do however, like the fact that we write our reviews and peers give
input to our reviews.  Writing my own review gives me pause to honestly
assess what I have done over the past year - which is more than I thought.
So I can at least give myself positive feedback.  I especially value what
my peers think of me as a team member and the work that I do.  I also enjoy
giving positive feedback to other people's review.  For me, this is what counts.
Life is too short to worry about ratings.

ems

    Reference note 1797.118
    
    Deming made a  good case against employee ratings.
    

    
    RE: .6
    
>	1) This person was in a support role and during one exceptional
>	period got close to 30 kudos (unsolicited) from people he supported.
>	Typical comments were "He went out of his way..", or "I could not
>	believe he did that for me...".
    
    How would you rate someone who did some extra work on his own time
    that was not related to the job he was hired to but who got 270 
    unsolicited kudos for it in a month? This actually happened to someone
    BTW. He was told never to do that again and rated a 3.
    
    			Alfred

    The "love of my life" has had a 1 rating several times.  Most 
    recently, she earned a 2 rating.  I'm glad that she's relaxed 
    a bit.  I think she would have fried her brains trying to 
    maintain that pace.

    I've never earned a 1 rating.  I've spent most of my career at
    Digital as a 2.

    Terry

    
    I've been a 1.  My most recent mgr says there is not such thing as a 1.
    He says he just doesn't give em out. 
    But, he's a great mgr in alot of other areas, so I'll live with his
    wierd sense of ratings....

    I think a "1" rating is the final step before a promotion.  If a person
    is always rated a "1" , say 2 or 3 review periods in a row, same job
    description, then its time that person got promoted.
    
    Just my opinion,
    Jt

My brother is a manager for ATT and he said that ATT did
away with number ratings system because of the de-motivation
factors involved in the policy.

The management teams reported that their reviews turn out
to have a more positive  effect on the employee without the
numbers. He said "can you imagine an employee worrying about 
a stupid number".

  My reply was "Yes I can."

	Dick

	In an environment where you are not rated numerically, how
	do you do salary increases? The only option I see would be
	for everyone to get the same raise (by percent or total $)
	unless you were getting promoted.

	joe

    In response to .8 -- what is the definition of a peer.

    
    My perception is that we are moving toward Demming's model by means of
    the "standard" rating being a 2.  I think I remember a rating scale
    being 1 thru 4 when I went through an ill-fated stint as a supervisor.
    I tried giving out a 3 to encourage some development, and I got my head
    chewed off.  In today's environment, I think that a 3 rating means that
    you better look for a job.  I'm not sure what a 1 might mean, but I
    expect it is reserved for those gung-ho types who really need positive
    feedback at that point.  For example, a critical point might be when
    you are just hired into the job, as a previous reply commented.
    
    I do believe Demming's point that ratings are often counter-productive.
    It would be interesting to see some corporate statistics as to the
    distribution of ratings.  My guess would be 70-80% are 2.  Does anyone
    have data to share ?

>    The 1's usually spend to much time around the boss, and doing little
>    else.
    
    Then perhaps it's time to find a better boss... ;-)
    
    Rich

    I am a manager and I have rated people '1'.  For me, a '1' rating does
    not necessarily mean that you are ready to be promoted; it means that
    for your level you did an exceptional job during the review period. 
    Exceptional means that you made a contribution to Digital far beyond
    what would have been expected for your level.
    
    It can be difficult to clearly define what constitutes '1' performance
    but I think it is possible as long as you have a good definition for
    the job and the level (and I don't mean the JIS ones!).
    
    Peter Dillard

A few random points:

In NOS (networks; LKG) at least you can find out what you have to do to be rated
a one performer.  There are written guidelines for all rating levels.
At least, that's the theory.   In practice, the process must be at least
a little subjective.

A "one" a few years ago is not necessarily the same thing as a "one" today.
The guidelines I referred to above are very much stricter than the
previously-prevailing practice, which seemed to have been affected 
by inflation over the years.  This can sometimes come as a shock
when  you're no longer getting the high marks that you're used to!

And lastly - "kudos" is an abstract singular noun.   It is not
plural.  There is no such word as "kudo". Saying "he got
42 kudos" is as meaningless as saying "he got 42 respect".

    
    Re: .18
    
    >I never met 1 that I liked. 
    >
    >The 1's usually spend to much time around the boss, and doing little
    >else.
    
    Are we sharing a few sour grapes here?
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    .16      client/server  :)

Numerical rating could work, if it was administered fairly and correctly.

What you would find today is that 70% of the total Digital population is
rated 1 or 2. In the organization which presently manages my salary, the
figure is more like 92% (this is a group of about 800 people).

This is much like the mess that's been made of school grading systems.
Average work is allegedly marked "C." Here, a 3 means that you meet all
the requirements of your job description. Unfortunately, receiving either
a C or a 3 is highly stigmatized. So, 2s and 1s, and Bs and As, gradually
come to mean nothing. So many 2s are handed out that they have become the
de facto norm - which is a contridiction.

In one of the TFSOs since August of '92 a 3 meant you were on your way to
the door. Imagine that. "Meets all the requirements" of your job, and out
you go. For years we were constrained from giving a 4 ("Needs
improvement"). No good reasons given, and no written direction given, we
were told that 4 was not to be used. (Possibly based on fear of being
sued; this seems to drive many decisions.)

It seems so simple. 

                         |"R2D2 created a new product, after determining
                         |a market need, and did it without impacting the
                         |assigned work schedule. Also, R2D2 teaches the
                         |other robots the new improved processes, which
                         |has increased our productivity 250% across the
                         |group." R2D2 is a 1.
                         |
                         |"R2D2 brings better-than-average quality work
                         |in ahead of schedule, consistently, contacts
                         |customers to learn how to improve the product,
                         |and finds ways to implement those
                         |improvements." R2D2 is a 2.
                         |
"How does R2D2 work out?"|"R2D2 does the job, on time, sometimes early." 
                         |R2D2 is a 3.  
                         |
                         |"R2D2 missed a couple of deadlines this year,
                         |and caused a flurry of SPRs by covering up the
                         |fubar bug so the SSB date could be met. R2D2
                         |has been missing many Mondays." R2D2 is a 4.
                         |Correction is needed.
                         |
                         |"R2D2 has been counseled about missing Mondays,
                         |still turns up absent most Mondays, missed the
                         |last two deadlines, and caused C3PO to transfer
                         |to another group to avoid a fight." R2D2 is a 5
                         |and should be terminated.
                          

re: .15, Joe

>	In an environment where you are not rated numerically, how
>	do you do salary increases?


Elimination of numerical ratings doesn't imply that you begin to ignore
comparitive value and contribution to the project. You still need to
"Ladder" people and make salary adjustments based on contribution and
equity. It's just that a numerical rating doesn't even need to enter
into the picture.

-Jack

    
.25> Elimination of numerical ratings doesn't imply that you begin to ignore
.25> comparitive value and contribution to the project. You still need to
.25> "Ladder" people and make salary adjustments based on contribution and
.25> equity. It's just that a numerical rating doesn't even need to enter
.25> into the picture.
    
    Exsqueeze me??
    
    The current situation is numerical ranking with large granularity.
    
    When people are "laddered", numerical ranking with fine granularity is
    applied, whether or not we choose to admit it. Laddering is comparative
    value and the 1-5 rating taken to the limit.
    
    The only advantage to laddering is that the applied ordinals are a
    deep, dark management secret, whereas review ratings are made available
    to individual contributors, and sometimes even freely discussed among
    same. Witness this note string. You know your review rating -- do you
    know your ladder position? Are they related in any manner? And which
    is more important to you when the ship is taking on water?
    

    At the risk of personal embarrassment .... My last performance
    review (6/93) I was rated a 1.  I am a sales rep and not around
    my boss much.
    
    I earned every bit of that rating.  I know others who are 1's also,
    but not too many folks in sales will openly admit it (I think).
    
    Jane

re: 26, Bill

>    Exsqueeze me??

Why? Did you belch? :^)

>    The current situation is numerical ranking with large granularity.

Well - semantics perhaps. The point is it's ranking. Period. In terms
of the "performance rating" reported to the individual.
    
>    When people are "laddered", numerical ranking with fine granularity is
>    applied, whether or not we choose to admit it. Laddering is comparative
>    value and the 1-5 rating taken to the limit.

For a different purpose, though. Laddering is a process used in salary
planning and the recently ubiquitous lifeboat exercise. Not for the purposes
of rating and reporting on anyone's individual performance at a given
time. I thought that's what we were talking about. If someone says "I'm
a 1", or "I'm a 2", I believe the statement is made with respect to their
most recent PR, not their salary planning or their proximity to the
lifeboat.
    
>    The only advantage to laddering is that the applied ordinals are a
>    deep, dark management secret, whereas review ratings are made available
>    to individual contributors, and sometimes even freely discussed among
>    same. Witness this note string. 

So, are you ascribing that numerical ratings are directly proportional to
salary planning figures? I think not.

>				You know your review rating -- do you
>    know your ladder position?

Nope - not at the present time. I did (roughly) about 8 months ago when I
was one out of 10 remaining in a costcenter which had been 42. Generally
speaking, I don't _want_ to know my ladder position - just which side
of the water line I'm on.

>   			 Are they related in any manner?

Yes and no. While it's pretty characteristic that those with similar ratings
be "clustered" in certain regions of the ladder, in terms of overall value
and contribution to the group/project in a group which is relatively
heterogeneous in terms of job class and experience, it's not at all
unreasonable for a Software Engineer 1 who's rated a "1" to be much
further down on the ladder than a Principal Engineer who's rated a "2"
or "3".

> And which is more important to you when the ship is taking on water?

Like I said, only which side of the water line I'm on. Everything
else is immaterial.

-Jack

    I have a friend whose last four performance ratings were 1's --
    she was TFSOed last June.
    					andrew

For my last two reviews, prior to the one on Monday, I received 1's. The one I
got on Monday was a 2 rating. Each time I got a 1 before, I also got a
promotion. I was given the opportunity for a more challenging job, (the one I
got a 2 at), with the explanation the learning curve was steeper, and it didn't
matter whether I was a 1,2, or 3, the increase would be the same.

I signed the review, and lost sleep over the 2 rating. Afetr thinking about it,
I wrote a letter to my manager(s), and told them even I didn't think I was a 2,
because of the effort put forth, was even harder than when I got 1's. I haven't
gotten a reply yet.

There should be some re-organization of the process, and a catagory given where
I could have gotten an A (1) for effort. 8^)

Bob

I'm currently in a small Advanced Development group, laddering among the
7 of us is unimportant.  1/2/3/... rating gives me a reasonable feel for
what my boss thinks about my recent work vs. what (s)he thinks I am capable of.

When I've worked in large development groups the 1/2/3/... ratings have
been worthless.  As others have stated 1's are for those about to be 
promoted.  Conversly, 3's are for those who have just been promoted (or are
not likely to be promoted for a long time).  2's are for everyone else.

In a large group, my ladder position is what I want to know - and the thing
management is *least* likely to tell me.  It tells me who management
values most, who they value least and whose actions/styles I need to adopt
if I want to get a raise or promition.

	Joe

    A good friend of mine had three '1' review ratings in a row. He was
    TFSO'd Dec 7, 1992. :-(
    
    Harry
    

Perhaps I'm cynical.

I know somebody who, I've heard, got a whole string of 1's.  He was a 
mediocre performer, modestly knowledgeable and put in modest hours. 
 But he played poker every week with his supervisor, who was an old 
friend.  I wonder who usually won.

I had an indirect manager who believed in an old-fashioned bell curve 
centered on "3", and who wouldn't give more 1's than 5's.  My supervisor 
gave me a "walked on water" review with a "3", because Boss wanted 
that.  I was told that I was hired with the expectation that I'd become the 
group technical leader and accomplish a lot, so by doing that, I "met 
expectations" and that was a 3.  Fortunately another manager came 
along who allowed 2s to be given.

    I to wonder how ratings are decided. My former manager said that there
    was no such thing a a "1" performer. He was TFSO'ed 2 years ago. My
    next manager after reorganization (where I came under a new job code)
    rated me as a "3". 
    
    When questioned about this rating I was told that I was in a "new job 
    and on a learning curve". After much discussion I signed the review. 
    
    My next review showed improvement but was still rated a "3" (taking the 
    points for each area it averaged 2.6 but still a "3"). During this time 
    I felt that I was contributing as much as the others in my group but when 
    the time came for the cuts I came to find that OTHERS were receiving "2" 
    or higher reviews but were on the same "learning curve" as was I. 
    
    I spoke to many of my peers that have given input to my reviews after 
    finding this out and was told "I can't believe that you were rated as a "3"
    I would definitly rate you as a high "2". Didn't you see the input that I 
    gave for your review?" 
    
    After hearing this I was in disbelief with no recourse. As luck would have
    it I did find another job three days before I was to be TFSO'ed. I was also
    told that I was a fool to have accepted a "3" that if you are doing your 
    job you are definitly a "2" performer.(This was from a senior manager)
    
    So for the future I will not be a "3" for I know that I am no less than
    a "2".
    
    It is also very sad in my opinion to allow one person the power that
    governs your future. I believe that the rating system can be very
    biased for those that are the "Good Old Boys" and play the game of
    "Brown Nose" all to well. 
    
    
    				Jim

 
After working as a SE for 7 years, and having many of the same opinions about
the review system as those expressed in this note string, I was given an 
opportunity to supervise for 2 years. I have since developed a new perspective
on this subject.

With all due respect to Demming ...

The rating system is a tool put in place for the benefit of all parties. 
It is important to management because it is a key component to the salary 
planning guidelines and processes. It is important to the employee
because it gives him an indication, relative to his managements expectations
and the performance of his peers, as to how he is performing. 

Reviews can be very difficult to write, and not all managers are good 
at writing them.

A review should be an honest representation of an employees performance,
based on concrete achivements, meassured against previously documented
expectations, and agreed to by both the employee and management and the 
rating should match the content of the review, and be consistant with 
corporate guidelines. Ratings are kept in confidence (although many 
employees talk openly about their rating).

Laddering positions are also kept in confidence, not because of some secret
managerial conspiracy, but out of respect for individual privacy.

Any tool can be misused (whether intentional or not), but that doesn't make the
tool a bad thing. The key is to apply that tool consistently, be it a rating
system or some other tool, and this is where Digital Management has a lot of 
room for improvement.


>    My next review showed improvement but was still rated a "3" (taking the 
>    points for each area it averaged 2.6 but still a "3"). During this time 
>    I felt that I was contributing as much as the others in my group but when 
>    the time came for the cuts I came to find that OTHERS were receiving "2" 
>    or higher reviews but were on the same "learning curve" as was I. 

This is a common suituation. Management has one opinion of how an individual
is performing in comparison with his peers, and the individual has another.
Management has the data on the performance of all employees while
the employee has only his own. The content of peer reviews cannot be shared.
It can be tough for both sides to come to an agreement when they are playing
by different rules. 
    
>    It is also very sad in my opinion to allow one person the power that
>    governs your future. 

It's not. You also have a voice.
Disagreements can be arbitrated by personnel. They also have the reviews of 
your peers and, in cases where individuals have been treated unequally, can
have significant influence in correcting that inequality.

>  I believe that the rating system can be very
>  biased for those that are the "Good Old Boys" and play the game of
>  "Brown Nose" all to well. 

Although there may be instances where this may be true ...
 
Having been rated as 1, 2 and 3  performer over the last 10 years I have 
to disagree. I know this is how others have felt, and it may be true in 
some cases, but closer to reality is that management comes to rely heavily 
on those that deliver. This is not the "Good Old Boys" "Brown Nose" game. 
It might be the 'My success depends on your success' game. 

When I was a supervisor, I knew who I could depend on and who I could not, 
who would make the extra effort, and who would not, irrespective of what their 
previous ratings were. It's not brown nosing, it's rewarding success. 

There are more than two sides to every story. The view from the perspective of
an individual, a supervisor, a peer, and from personnel can all be different.
A good review, and a rating relative to that review, should reflect as many
sides as possible.

I'm now an SE again with a bit more respect for what management is responsible
for. But I also know that Digital management is far from perfect. 


Doug.

 > You can actually *refuse* to sign your PA when you don't like your rating?
 > Boy,have *I* been mislead or what!
 

  Every review I ever wrote had a line that the individual checked off whether
  he agreed with the review or not. Most checked 'agreed' (but not all).
  You can also add any adendum to the review that you wish to reflect
  your views. 

Here at ASO a couple of years ago they told us that "you're all 3's now, with
a few exceptions". And then they began to implement it. I've managed to maintain
a 2 despite this "policy" that was attributed to Corporate.

performance ratings are a joke for the most part, as are our rather inadequate
awards programs.

dave

RE: .31

>For my last two reviews, prior to the one on Monday, I received 1's. The one I
>got on Monday was a 2 rating. Each time I got a 1 before, I also got a 
>promotion. 

This is the way I thought it was supposed to work.  A '1' means that you are
*greatly exceeding* expectations for your job code, and should be doing the
next job up the line (or possibly the one above that, iterate as necessary).

>             I was given the opportunity for a more challenging job, (the one I
>got a 2 at), 

This is also the way I thought it was supposed to work.  A previous manager
explained it like this:

If you are a Software Engineer I and do 'x' units of work, you will be rated 1, 
and you should be promoted to a Software Engineer II.

If you are now a Software Engineer II and do the *same* 'x' units of work, you 
may be rated 2, because the expectations for SE II are higher than for SE I.

If you are then promoted to a Senior Software Engineer and do the *same* 'x'
units of work, you may be rated a 3, because the expectations for a Senior SE
are higher still.

You have to do more at the next level to earn an equivalent rating.


>I wrote a letter to my manager(s), and told them even I didn't think I was a 2,
>because of the effort put forth, was even harder than when I got 1's. I haven't
>gotten a reply yet.
>
>There should be some re-organization of the process, and a catagory given where
>I could have gotten an A (1) for effort. 8^)

You say that you put forth more effort in your new job than you did in your
old job.  But that is part of the requirements for the new job!  You got a
promotion, indicating that the expectations for the quality and volume of work
that you do are now higher.  It is now tougher for you to earn a '1' because
of your promotion!  That is the way it is supposed to work.


Full disclosure:  When I first joined Digital I was consistently rated a '1'.
I received promotions and such, and eventually made it to Senior Software
Engineer.  I then transferred to another (tougher) group, got a promotion to
Principal Software Engineer, and began receiving '2's.  My manager explained
to me that I would have to dramatically increase my workload in order to
continue receiving '1's in my new job code.  But she was very clear that the
same level of work that earns a Senior SE a '1' will earn a Principal SE a '2',
and will probably earn a Consulting SE a '3' or '4'.  And I think she is quite 
correct in this approach.

-- Ken Moreau

As I see it, I've always been rated a "1" by the only person that's ever
mattered, my customers.  I've never worked for one that didn't want to
hire me.  I've even had ex-customers call me about going to work for
them.

As for Digital's entire PA system, IMHO its the worst I've ever seen.
It is inefficient, complex, inconclusive, and always tardy.  And what
does a "2" mean?  It means you're average, because most of us are "2s".

So I look to my customer for my "rating".  Isn't the customer always right?

Ws

    managers that have to get the employee to tell them what they have
    been doing for the last year so they can write the employees review
    shouldn't even call themselves managers.....
    
    every GOOD manager I've ever worked for KNEW what their employees
    were working on and how they measured up vs their peers....
    
    if a manager is too busy doing other things they aren't doing their
    job...
    
    IMHO

>    managers that have to get the employee to tell them what they have
>    been doing for the last year so they can write the employees review
>    shouldn't even call themselves managers.....

	I disagree, for a couple of reasons.

	First, we have a 15:1 engineer:manager ratio here, and I don't
	expect my supervisor to know everything that I've done throught he
	course of the year. Heck, even I have to go back through my monthly
	reports and logs to remember everything that has happened. I like to
	have a pretty detailed record in my review, since it's a permanent
	record that goes in my file.

	(there are also times when I forget about something I did, andmy
	manager adds it to my review -- it works both ways)

	Second, there are areas in which I take personal initiative that my
	manager may NOT know about. Managing does not consist of looking
	over each employee's shoulder and noting every action taken -- some
	things don't even come up in monthly reports (i.e., reviewing the
	functional specs written by another group) and others are on-going
	activities that are relevant in a more generally contextual way
	(i.e., participation in professional societies).

	So no, I don't expect my manager to know everything I've done. In
	fact, if my manager were to note everything I'd done in detail for
	my review, I'd wonder why he doesn't have other things to do.

	Roy

    I was reminded of our PA system while watching Figure Skating
    during the recent Winter Olympics.  What struck me was the 
    capricious subjectivity of some of the scoring.  Everyone knows
    Torvill and Dean were the best ice dancers, yet in a sense they
    were given a "2"(Silver) rating.  In many of the ice skating
    competitions all of the skaters did the "required elements".
    The differences were "artistic".  "Beautiful", "smooth", "flowing",
    "enchanting", these were the qualities that made the difference.
    Our system is NO different.  I have often seen a superior performer
    given a lower rating simply because the manager they had did
    not appreciate his/or her particular style.  
    
    The system has many flaws.  Unfortunately, salary increases
    are affected by this flawed sytem.  This is the sorry reality
    that is not going to change for the foreseeable future.

re Note 2926.45 by GRANPA::DMITCHELL:

>     The system has many flaws.  Unfortunately, salary increases
>     are affected by this flawed sytem.  This is the sorry reality
>     that is not going to change for the foreseeable future.
  
        Over time, management preferences in employee "style" will
        reinforce themselves in that those who don't fit will tend to
        go elsewhere and those who do will stay and some will move up
        in management.

        A company should get more homogeneous as to style over time. 
        It's probably a kind of inbreeding.

        Isn't this at least part of what weakened Digital?

        Bob

Re .45

Funny, I have recently referenced to the same event (olympics artistic
skating) by saying that we in Digital tend to believe, that it's enough
to do perfect jumps i.e. master individual technologies, while what is
important is, how skillfully you put it all together to please the audience,
in our case to have solutions to customer's needs, selling competence
included.

--Ritva

PS. What comes to skating, I liked more the winning skaters, but then,
the same solutions don't fit to everybody :-).

    re:46    You may be right.  The only thing that may prevent
             the homogenization from taking place are the frequent
             reorginizations.  I have worked in 2 very distinct
             functions(admin.,sales) and 5 different managers in
             5 years.  Each was very different from the other.
    
    re:47    You also may be right.  However, we still have the problem
             of fairness since there are many ways to "get from one place
             to the other".  It may take the same amount of time.  It
             may cost the same amount of money.  The distance traveled
             might even be the same.  The only difference is the scenery.
             Is that fair criteria in determining which way was better?
    
    re:48    I stand corrected.  The travesty of that "PA" turns out
             to be worse than I thought.  

    In the manufacturing areas I have seen a '1' is rare. A '2' is
    treated like a '1'....most are 3's > does job plus a little more.
    I know of one '1' who works an 80 hour week. Personally I'd be 
    asking why the job can't get done in a normal week but that's probably
    why I'm not a '1'.  We have had three '1' rated people come to our
    group. NONE lasted past 6 weeks. 
    I have seen 1,2 & 3's all be TFSO's. I've seen a '4' stay mainly
    because they worked third shift.
    I believe it's different site to site and from everything I've 
    seen to date > manufacturing seems to be the toughest in handing
    out 2 and 1's.
    
    

The system impossible to judge.  I've been mostly 1's and 2's in 10 years,
a 3 once, which I should have fought and didn't.   I've had managers who
said a 3 was doing your job, I've had managers that said a 3 was the
kiss of death, and I've had managers who basically told me you don't get a 
1 unless you're working lots of unpaid overtime and your family has forgotten
who you are.  How can you get people to feel they are graded fairly among their 
peers when you can't even get management to agree on how to execute the system? 
How can you accurately measure what it takes to get promoted?  You can 
theoretically go from a 1 to a 2 in the same job in the same year, just by 
changing mangers to one who "doesn't believe in 1's".  That can be 
demoralizing.  Many people place a lot of emphasis on how they are graded.

Mary-Michael

Your rating and your position in the salary range are two key components
in determining your increase percentage from the guidlines.

In general, The guidelines are 'the higher your rating and the lower your
position in your salary range, the higher the percentage and the fewer
the months between increases.

The inverse is also true (in the guidelines).

If management is following the guidelines properly.

Doug.

    Does anyone know the salary guidelines for this year? At HLO,
    management would present them to employees every year(matrix of rating
    vs. quartile position in range ---> percent increase and interval
    between increases).

    Over the years as a manager I can immediately think of quite a few "1" 
    reviews that I gave out.  In all cases they were for performance that was
    truly "exceptional" for the level of the individual at the time.  What
    bothered me was that in the past I had written more "1" reviews for my
    subordinates than I had approved by my management at the time.  That
    particular manager (who is no longer with Digital) did not believe that
    giving a "1" was fundamentally appropriate, as he felt that giving a
    "2" sent a message that would motivate the individual to attempt to
    achieve a "1" in the future.  I argued that to give a "1" to an
    individual who had earned it, sent a clear message that their
    exceptional performance was valued, should be rewarded, and that we
    would love to see it continue, and that to NOT give a "1" to an
    individual who had demonstrated exceptional performance might
    negatively impact their future performance.
    
    On several occasions, while the salary plans that I had proposed for
    what I believed to be "1" performances were approved, I was directed by
    this manager to change the rating to a "2", and sometimes even a "3".  
    Fortunately, several of those "1" performers (alas, not all) are still 
    here (and you know who you are!), but the individual who did not believe 
    in giving out "1"s is not.
    
    Cheers,
    Ken
    

      >>>             ... but the individual who did not believe 
      >>> in giving out "1"s is not.
    

    
    
    I would like to be a 1, or maybe a 1000, or maybe a 1,000,000.
    To me this numbering system is nonsense.
    What counts to me is my personal satisfaction in how I do my job.
    Someone elses cut on it be they manager or not is not very 
    important to me.  Now I know I'll get reamed from many noters
    regarding their opinions on this, but I gave my opinion.
    
    
    Thanks
    Jeff

      Thank you for reminding all of us that there's much more to our 
      lives and our work than advancing our careers and collecting our 
      salaries.  If we're trying to contribute to ourselves, each 
      other, our cultures, and our world, the rest follows.

      Terry

     There aint no such thing as a "1" and if there is there is no way it
    can be sustained. NOBODY walks on water. Not at DEC anyway. Just look at
    the past few quarters and the results. We be losing money folks!
    
    

    I worked on the group in LA that did the then new rating system, and
    Standardized it.  I got all 1 except for the one 2.  I moved to
    Michigan and I was rated using the same system, I got one 2 and the
    Rest were 3's.  I compained to my Manager, and I got the old Sh*t,
    there are no 1 performers, and there are no 5 performers, and then
    they threw away the 4 rating.  So everyone is supposed to be a 2 or
    a 3.  I say Bullship, that is not the intention of the rating scale, if
    it were then just use a one and a two.  
    
    By the way, my Michigan manager was rated a 5 performer and she got the
    very first TFSO package, what a reward.
    
    Dave

    RE: .59
    
    I don't know about *you*, but our unit has been *immensely* profitable
    the last 5 years.  I live in the field and live or die in delivery. 
    I've given up on the rating system, what a joke.  I just do my job in
    the most excellent manner possible.  If Digital doesn't want to pay the
    market, they can expect the market to come calling....
    
    chg
    
    Mike, you reading this?  ;-)