Conference 7.286::digital

    Ref: base note
    
    Very well written.  I agree that we need leaders not managers.  I
    happen to know a number of managers who are not even managers, just
    supervisors.  There were a number of these types in my last group.
    
    Digital cannot "manage" it's way out of the trouble they're in.  
    Digital cannot "TFSO" it's way out of the trouble they're in.
    Digital cannot "reorganize it's way out of the trouble they're in.
    
    "Let's Get Rid of Management"

I disagree.  You need both good leaders and good managers.  The thing is,
managers should be downward-focused, thinking about "what do i need to do
to help my people succeed?"  Leaders set the direction.  Managers mediate
between the overall direction being set from above and the ideas bubbling
up from the people that work for them.  Ideally they elevate the issues
of the people on the firing line and ensure that the leaders take those
into account (versus letting them get too wrapped up in their "visions").

I don't have a broad exposure to American business, but this company in
particular (and i have the feeling others as well) fill managers' time up
with junk work from above--endless errands, meetings, fads and busywork
that take up all of a manager's time and prevent them from spending time
with their people.  Even worse, by doing so they encourage a certain
type of person who likes this junk work to persist in management while
discouraging those who really enjoy helping their people be successful.

- paul

    re .0
    
    It's easy, just substitute 'MANAGER' with 'LEADER'. 
    Unit Leader, Cost Center Leader, Service Leader .... and of course CEL 
    instead of CEO !
    
    Seva

    Let's get rid of plaques on walls with cute messages.

    Or employees who make negatively constructed critism to things that can
    help. Just kidding Andy, but some people might take that seriously.
    Save that stuff for the "box", as this is a business discussion
    notesfile, and as I've seen on some cute plaque somewhere, there is a
    place for everything...or is it a time for everything. (like a newe
    laptop so I don't have to backspaece to kill the extra e's thiseeeeeeee
    stupid thing makes all to often, no jokeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I jusete eam
    note baecksepaecinge rieght neow)
    
    This string is addressing a valuable point. Leaders are critical to the
    goal of this company. Managers, as good leaders, are critical to the
    success of this company. Good managers should stay, bad should go. .
    
    (second period there intentional)
    
    Bob

    .2  "what do i need to do to help my people succeed?"  Leaders 
    .2  set the direction. 
    
    Leaders have a clue about what it takes, managers ask that ? too much!
    In my prior jobs my managers were leaders.   They were people who
    paid their dues in what they managed.  They knew what it took
    to get the job done well.   I find with Digital that if I attempt
    to put forth a technical idea to management - I get blank looks
    back - like what is this guy talking about looks.    Maybe I am 
    talking to the wrong 'leaders'?  People who have never done 
    the job are not able to manage or lead as well as people who 
    have a clue about what is going on.  
    
    This combined with too many people with big egos are the reason 
    that nothing gets done around here.    People get sick of fighting the 
    fight to better Digital and end up not wanting to show inovation and 
    simply do the job.  The net result is that people run around flustrated
    all the time because they are working harder - not smarter!   
    
    Don't get me wrong - I have had some really good managers - good caring
    people.   They want to do the right thing but egos, stovepipes and the
    indecision - the inability to see a good thing and accomplish it is a 
    real problem with Digital.   
    
    

>          <<< Note 4828.5 by N2DEEP::SHALLOW "Subtract L, invert W" >>>
>                       -< A very good topic to discuss >-
>    Or employees who make negatively constructed critism to things that can
>    help. Just kidding Andy, but some people might take that seriously.
>    Save that stuff for the "box", as this is a business discussion
>    notesfile, 
....    
>    This string is addressing a valuable point. Leaders are critical to the
>    goal of this company. Managers, as good leaders, are critical to the
>    success of this company. Good managers should stay, bad should go. .
    
    
    My (serious!) point was that over the years I have seen many more
    messages on plaques than I have seen genuine initiatives for change.
    
    Managers should be good Leaders, Leaders MUST be good managers for
    their leadership to be effective. Now, instead of discussing the
    obvious, perhaps we can erect a
    
                              +-----------+
                              | T H I N K |
                              +-----------+
    
    sign. That *would be useful, especially in some high echelons where
    certain interesting decisions have been made of late.
    

    

    I believe our focus as a company on the bottom line is keeping us from
    making some of the changes we need to make in our management (or
    leadership) style. My own observation is that successful companies
    drive  decision-making down into the organization to the point where
    the people making the decisions are closest to the customer and the
    business transaction(s).
    
    In this model, the most senior managers lead the company in new
    directions or to be more competitive by dealing with issues of 
    INFRASTRUCTURE. 

	o Where should we be headed from a market standpoint? 
	o How can we best motivate our people to understand these 
    	  opportunities and move in that direction?
	o What metrics should we have in place to get the behavior we want?
	o How do we make sure we have the skill sets we need?
	o Can our IT systems track the right things to achieve goals?
	o How do we get the right information to the front lines on
	  a timely basis so they can do their jobs?

    Management deals with those issues, and NOT day-to-day operational
    problems. That is left to the operational decision-makers closest to
    the customer.

    Unfortunately, we can't push that decision-making down if the
    infrastructure isn't in place. Unless the troops understand their goals
    clearly and have the metrics and rewards in place to drive their
    behavior they may make decisions which don't meet corporate goals.
    
    It seems we are too preoccupied with operational issues (i.e., losing
    money) at the top to spend sufficient amounts of time on the
    infrastructure. This is compounded by the fact that much of our
    infrastructure as a company was in PEOPLE not in established processes.
    Laying off thousands of people served to break what infrastructure
    there was, making management's problem 10x more difficult to fix.
    
    All this forces management are into having to make decisions like the
    '411 Decision' written about in NOTE # 4819. This cayses frustration in
    the people at the customer interface  level because it isn't the
    decision would have made to get their job done. Unfortunately it's the
    only decision management can make because of the immediate need to get
    expenses in line with forecasted revenues ... and there's no way they
    can push the decision down to the people it impacts.

    I'd like to see us get through this profitabiliy knothole and fix the
    infrastructure so we can get beyond the point where we  are forced to
    make all the operational decisions in the Greater Maynard Area. Our
    inability to do something as basic as tell a manager what their budget
    is on something a bit longer than a month-to-month or
    quarter-to-quarter basis is killing us.

    I think this would go a long way to fix the perceived leadership
    problems.

	Just MHO.

	/se
    
    

    re .8; Your comment regarding people having been the infrastructure
    went to the heart of the matter. This company has traditionally had two
    infrastrucutres:
    
    1.  The formal process-driven one seen by management.
    2.	The informal people-driven one that actually got the work done.
    
    Eliminate the people and all you've got left is process. Not a pretty
    thought.
    
    \dave

    
    
    rep .0
    
    
    The artical was published in the Wall Street Journal by United
    Technologies Corporation, Hartford, Connecticut 06101.
    
    
    I've had this article for several years.  It makes a valid point.
    
    However I've resisted posting it!
    
    I have reservations about painting management into a corner in which 
    they can't get out of.  
    
    /art

>>    Or employees who make negatively constructed critism to things that can
>>    help. Just kidding Andy, but some people might take that seriously.

    Well let's take it seriosly.
    
    1. Is Mr. Palmer a manager or a leader ?
    2. Is YOUR direct manager a leader ?
    3. If not, would you say him, that he should became a leader ?
    4. If yes, would you advice him, to check whether HIS manager is a leader?
    
>> Good managers should stay, bad should go. .
    
    Just say it to them ... (not only the first half, of course)
    
    Seva
    

re: "Published in the Wall Street Journal several years..."

And when I saw it years ago I sent to UT and they sent me the whole
series. Very handy and worth looking at.

Pete

    re: .11
    
    Thanks Seva,
    
     It always helps me to see things from a different perspective.
    
     I am much humbled, and deservedly so. Perhaps it is not my place
    to answer your questions, or to have said some things in the notes I have 
    written. That is why I have profusely apologized to any and all concerned. 
    It is only from my view, which may be considered narrow minded to some, 
    but it is what I see from here. Should I close my eyes, and say
    absolutely nothing? I did that for far too long, and perhaps that is
    why I vented as much as I have in the notes.
    
     I have a long, long way to go, before I reach perfection. Please
    excuse me for my human-ness. I had no choice whatsoever in that. And
    perhaps the choice I made to step in the middle of something that
    looked to me as something I could contribute to the improvement of,
    was a mistake? I think it would have been more of a mistake if I kept
    the blinders on, and never spoke out.
    
     Now about your spelling of the word seriosly... 8-)
    
     Shalom,
    
     Bob

Draw three intersecting circles, label them administration, leadership,
technology.  In each, write the percentage of your work time that you spend
in each of these areas.  

Individual contributors spend most of their time in the technology bubble,
less time in the other two.

Administrative personnel spend most of their time in the administration
bubble.

Everyone spends some time in the leadership bubble, some more, some less. 

Decide for yourself where you want to spend your time, and where your 
organization needs you to spend your time.  Act accordingly.


MS

    Manager or Leader?  It's very simple to understand.  A "good" manager;
    one who has a vision, can motivate people, is results oriented and is
    fair in IMHO is what I'd call a leader.
    
    

This is from an article (can't remember where) about leadership.  I have a
cutesy print out of it on my wall:)  Every line is open to interpretation
but I think that the act of thinking about these attributes helps.  Number
6 is especially fun.  Number 2 is especially hard.  Number 5 is especially
fuzzy. 

1.   Trust the people you work with.
2.   Develop a vision.
3.   Keep cool.
4.   Encourage risk.
5.   Be an expert.
6.   Invite dissent.
7.   Simplify.


$0.2

MS

13.
>>    Should I close my eyes, and say  absolutely nothing? 
    
    Why ? I think that in 11. I listed what could you say, however not here ...
    
13.
>>    perhaps the choice I made to step in the middle of something that
>>    looked to me as something I could contribute to the improvement of,
>>    was a mistake? I think it would have been more of a mistake if I kept
    
	Sorry, WHAT is your contribution ? And HOW you intend to improve ?
    In 11. I listed some deeds, but it looks like, that people here prefer 
    words, even not their own words, quotations ...
    
    Btw. Besides discussion about the topic
    
    - It is bad, that some managers aren't leaders, they should be.
    
    I could offer you some others. As well important. Probably much more
    important. You could discuss them here with the same success
    
    - It is bad, that some people take drugs, they shouldn't.
    - It is bad, that goverment want too many taxes, they shouldn't waste
      money and cut taxes.
    - It is bad, that some people commit crimes, they should serve God instead.
    
>>     Now about your spelling of the word seriosly... 8-)
    
    OK, when you have no other arguments ... 
    
    Shana Tova,
    
    Seva
    

    hmmm.. sorry to sound so pessimistic.. but i believe it's over folks...
    this has all gone on way too long.. layoffs, layoffs, more layoffs
    etc...  the employee population is too poisoned at this point i fear to help
    pull the company out of the abyss that it is stuck in ... more to the
    point, management appears all too happy to help this trend continue and
    there isn't anything the employees can do about it it would appear...
    
    poor results= more layoffs/selling off business units/divisions and so
    on... i don't believe that we are locked in some sort of fateful dance
    with death here... it can be stopped... it's just that i don't think
    upper management wants it to stop... which leads me to believe that
    perhaps they are very slowly liquidating the company for reasons that
    escape me at the moment...
     

  I believe that replacing the senior management might work
  to salvage the employee population. But I don't know what
  ramifications that would have on Wall Street.

  Short of that, I also agree that attrition will soon destroy
  Digital.
                                   Atlant

    RE: .18 and .19
    
    I believe both of you have "hit the nail on the head".  I do not see
    Digital being a major computer player by the year 2000.  All management
    knows is the "react mode" (profits lower that expected then layoffs).
    
    Morale has been at an all time low, dedication and loyalty are all but gone.
    
    As .19 noted attrition is now taking its toll.
    
    I hear there is "life after Digital"!
    
    Digital's SLT just doesn't get it!
    
    

    re: .18
    
    Since 1990 Digital has been headed in one direction, the end results
    of which will be a corporation that makes money for it's
    stockholders...
    
    By the year 2000, Digital will be a computer company that bids on
    projects, is a company of managers who manage contractors to complete
    the projects that were won on bids....
    
    Boeing has been doing this successfully for years and makes money...
    
    that's the bottom line where major stockholders are concerned....MAKE
    MONEY...
    
    IMHO

>>    By the year 2000, Digital will be a computer company that bids on
>>    projects, is a company of managers who manage contractors to complete
>>    the projects that were won on bids....
    
    While I sadly agree with your prognosis, it seems to be totally the
    wrong way round. It implies that Digital's core competency is
    management. 
    
    What we should be doing is using our still large but depleting
    pool of technical talent to send out on other people's contracts,
    managed by the big well-known consulting firms. ie. we become the
    company that other people outsource their technical work to.
    
    just a thought...
    
    Tony I
           

    re: .23
    
    though I feel what I said I DON"T AGREE IT'S the right way...
    
    it seems to be the easy way to keep stockholders/wall street
     happy
    
    to me it is akin to giving up when your down instead of fighting
    back to become better...