Conference 7.286::digital

    What purpose do you feel an ombudsman would serve that the `open door
    policy' and `escalation procedures' don't already give you? (Not
    mentioning personnel).

    I'd be interested which of these occasions that maintaining anonymity
    would be the best thing for the individual _and_ the best for the
    Corporation. 
    
Nige.    

    The escalation procedures all involve some higher level of management
    being forced to decide whether they are going to support their
    subordinates or not. Have you ever heard, "I have to support my
    people"? (The extreme case is the military where the integrity of the
    chain-of-command all too often takes precedence over minor issues like
    fairness and truth.) This DOES happen at Digital but perhaps less often
    than at other places. 
    
    Personnel works for management and has to decide whether or not to
    support the people they work with (or for).
    
    An ombudsman is supposed to have an independence that removes him from
    the chain-of-command issues and concerns. I have seen enough things go
    wrong at Digital to believe that an ombudsman could be be very
    constructive in some cases. 

    Each branch of the military has an ombudsman.  For example the Master
    Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, or the Senior Master Seargent of
    the Army.  Further, each medium sized unit and up also have one,
    who is the senior enlisted of the command.
    
    It's true, in the military there is a much more strict
    chain-of-command, with no open-door policy, and therefore such people
    are needed.
    
    However, I think it would be a good idea to have one here because
    it is obvious by reading some of the replies in topic 565.* that
    people are literally afraid to use the open-door policy because
    of the possible impact on their jobs.  Totally counter-productive!
    
    Doug

    There is a lot of misinformation in the previous reply.  First,
    the Army doesn't have a "Senior Master Seargent (sic)".  It does
    have a Sergeant Major of the Army who acts as an advisor to the
    Chief of Staff on enlisted affairs and, thus, could be considered
    and ombudsman for the enlisted ranks but hardly for the Army or
    even for a command as the note seems to imply.
    
    The more glaring misconception, however, is that the military has
    no open-door policy.  It does, even though it has a more strict
    chain-of-command.  All that is needed to use it is to inform your
    commander that you are going up the chain.  He cannot refuse.
    In fact, the military probably had an open-door policy long before
    most public sector organization.  The military is much more
    innovative in leading people than most people think.  They have
    to be...lives are often at stake.

    Regarding the military, my understanding is that Chaplains also
    perform this function.

    At DEC, in theory, ones manager acts in that role. If one has
    a problem, in theory, the managers manager or personnel act in that
    role. In practice, it doesn't always work out that way.
    
    I have thought for some time that a ombudsman was needed at DEC.
    The car deal for the field brought it to a head but I've thought
    about it before. There are times when people are afraid to go
    to direct management. There are also issues that affect large
    numbers of people who could use a central advocate with upper
    management.

    In a union shop, the shop steward or other union reps handle this
    role. The other costs of a union (to employees) are too high for
    me to ever seriously consider joining one but I do believe that
    we could benefit from someone who acts and the peons rep to
    upper management.
    
    		Alfred    

    Re: 613.1, Nige Harris -< Why? >-

>    What purpose do you feel an ombudsman would serve that the `open door
>    policy' and `escalation procedures' don't already give you? (Not
>    mentioning personnel).

    Well, I remember an official white paper (I think from personnel)
    mailed to every employee in an old district.  In effect it said: "DEC
    is a wonderful company to have such a policy; by all means, use it to
    the fullest.  But be careful, it may backfire and you could get your
    fingers burned." 

    That statement was nothing more than common sense.  However, when
    anyone officially in power feels they need to remind me about such
    things, I wonder why.  I have never used the system.  I think there
    have been occasions when I would have liked to.  See the examples in
    this conference of folks who wished they hadn't - sometimes. 

>    I'd be interested which of these occasions that maintaining anonymity
>    would be the best thing for the individual _and_ the best for the
>    Corporation. 

    Maybe so would everyone else in the world - isn't that implied? 

    Fred 
    

    $0.01 contributed each week by 120K employees could put $1200 per week
    into an account.  Ten times that, $0.10 per week, automatically
    deducted, would be $12K per week or $624K per year!  I could afford a
    couple of times that amount and so could many others. 

    What for?  An obmudsman's expenses (maybe two or three, mixed M and F):
    Rent of office next to KO, salary for self and help, purchase of
    MicroVAX and connection to notes, etc.  He then could be an
    "independent" employee, sort of tenured.  The office, not the officer,
    could serve at the pleasure of DEC's Board of Directors as long as he
    is paid by the employees.  No single DEC employee, including KO, could
    fire him.  It should be mandatory that everyone employed in that office
    buy the maximum stock percentage, fully vested from the beginning but
    held in an absolutely tight escrow during their tenure plus two years,
    to ensure a personal interest in DEC itself. 

    Remember, he has no real power, other than the power of persuasion and
    some real means of communication throughout DEC.  It would be worth a
    few cents a week to me.  I think it could be worth a lot to DEC itself. 

    Gee, sounds something like an employee's "Decus". 

    Fred 
    

    Re: .4
    
    Ya, I never could keep track of the land service designations very
    well.  I would like to know which military you are talking about
    with regard to the open door policy though.
    
    It is true that you can tell your direct superior that you are going
    to talk to his boss, and so on up the chain.  But unless the
    circumstances are just right, you should be prepared for heavy swells
    for the rest of your career!  And if your an officer, it's real
    easy to have your career squashed for doing this...even though it
    is an "accepted" way to circumnavigate the chain.
    
    Doug

    Re:  .-1
    
    I was speaking of the US Army and, yes, it's true that you can tell
    your direct superior that you are going up the chain.  I've seen
    it done many times and usually without repercussions, so long as
    it was done properly and was justified.  The chain-of-command is
    expected to solve problems.  When your commander cannot solve the
    problem, not only should s/he allow you to go up the chain, but
    should encourage it.  As far as the open-door policy, every Army
    commander is REQUIRED to establish and post hours when they are
    available to hear problems/complaints.  Your are right, however,
    that it's a little trickier for officers, but I've seen them use
    the open-door policy with success, also.

    There is also a bypass in the military (at least US Army) called
    the Inspector General.  This is the sort of office that is being
    suggested by the base note.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

	The IG's are not passive organizations, however, as an ombudsman 
typically is.  That is the IG's make regular trips to the "field" to find 
problems (or make them, sometimes :>) ), not necessarily wait for them to come.

	My impression of an ombudsman is that of one who doesn't rock a boat,
but will take the oars when asked, and help guide it.   Maybe my impression is 
wrong.

    
    I vote yes for an "ombudsman" for two reasons: objectively reviewing
    ideas created by the little "guy " and objectively representing the
    viewpoint of the little "guy" who may be having a problem within
    Digital.  I have had a need in both cases for such a Digital ombudsman.
    
    I created a couple of what I believe are good ideas for growing Digital
    customers, margin and revenue.  I submitted them to local management
    who ignored them because they were ideas not applicable to the field;
    local management, who in fact, didn't even aknowledge receipt of them
    or discuss them with me.  I sent copies over the next year to
    succeeding levels of Corporate management.  Not one submission was ever
    acknowledged receipt of, not even a little All-In-1 to me simply saying
    "thanks for the idea submission, we'll consider it" virtually no
    acknowledgement, except once where a high level secretary telephoned a
    manager two levels above me questioning my knowledge of "protocols" in
    submitting ideas. Someone is definitely needed in this company who can
    receive, acknowledge and champion to the right decision-makers ideas
    created by the little people within Digital who are not managers. 
    
    In another case, I had a problem with a certain manager who just
    didn't like me, having nothing whatsoever to do with my qualifications
    or job performance.  When I questioned certain of his actions as
    to whether or not they were ethical, following policy and values
    of the company toward employees, a local personnel representative
    simply informed me that management could do whatever they wanted,
    without justifying it, just so long as they didn't touch your salary.
    I, and others experiencing the same treatment, cowered in fear for
    over a year, intimidated with reprisals and being set up to be fired,
    before we saw that our only recourse was to file a grievance that
    could be heard much further up the line.  Someone is definitely
    needed where there are situations where personnel does not look
    out for the rights of employees.
    
    I submit that there are tens of thousands of individual employee
    contributors who do work hard, who do work effectively and efficiently,
    and who are concerned about growing our company, our customers, our
    revenue and our margins but where in some "some" cases, because of
    creeping bureaucracy, or managers untrained in leading people, or in
    treating people to be part of a contributing team, instead suppress
    creativity and participation, and play office politics and empire
    building. 
    
    A person or a team that stands objectively outside the chain, who
    could facilitate the solution of "local" problems or the flow of
    new ideas, representing the "little guy" would, in my opinion, be
    a good thing that could enhance the success of Digital.
    
    We need a Digital Ombudsman.  It is a good idea whose time has come.
    
     

    Re: .12 by ODIXIE::CARNELL:
    
    Ouch! Your busting my bubble of high regard for Digital as something
    different from the run-of-the-mill. Your description sounds just like
    the [environmental consulting] company that told me to look for a new
    job [so I got this one here].
    
    Twelve years of work experience convinces me that any company where
    a strong case can be made for needing an ombudsman is exactly the
    kind of low-self-esteem place that would fight tooth and nail to
    reject such a concept.  Catch 33 says the more one is needed, the
    less likely upper management is to agree to the idea.
    
    Only enlighted management would be free from the fear of an ombudsman
    looking over their shoulders.

    A propos to this topic is an article which appeared in today's _Boston
    Globe_.  At Blue Cross of Massachusetts, there are three hours per
    week known as "Dial Dave".  Dave is the VP of Personnel at BC; he
    will listen to anyone and everyone who calls, and take appropriate
    action on their behalf.  The examples cited in the article included
    several employees whose reviews had been delayed, problems with
    the cafeteria selection and staff, vacation policies, etc.  Apparently,
    this program is a big success there.

    Re:  .11

         I spent five (5) years in the U.S. Army and as much as I HATED
    IG Inspections, I knew I could trust the IG when I needed a problem solved.
    I went to the IG on two separate occasions when the Unit Commander failed
    to handle a particular problem accordingly.  You should see the {fear}
    that engulfs a person when he/she is told that they may be subjected to
    the questions of the good-ole' Inspector General.

    -- Rob ;^)

    Re .15:
    
    What repercussions, if any, were there from the Unit Commander after
    your talking to the IG? 

    Re:  -1

    None, he didn't dare.  The Commander, although pride hurt, tended to
    be a little more respectful after such an occurrence.  An officer
    can't afford too many blemishes on his/her record before being shown
    the door and an IG blemish is quite a blemish.

    -- Rob

    So far it sounds like about 10/1 for an ombudsman.  If y'all were
    voting with your pocketbook that's $52 in the yearly budget at 10
    cents/week (could the proportion could be applied to the company as a
    whole?). 
    
    I like ODIXIE::CARNELL's .12 reply the best because it speaks to added
    value to both DEC and DECies (synonyms?).  For the negative votes,
    remember that part of what an obmbudsman is supposed to do is good for
    the whole organization.  As a stockholder with nine years of ESPP
    participation, I think they would like it too.  Maybe an independent
    "paid for by employees" ombudsman's honest statement to Wall Street
    would be a help right now.
    
    Fred
    

    

    I have a check just a pen-stroke away.  How do we go about putting
    something like this into action?
    
    Doug

    Ahhh, I think 10 cents/week comes to $5.20/year, not $52/year.
    Perhaps .18 was using an IBM machine.

        Re: .20
        
>    Ahhh, I think 10 cents/week comes to $5.20/year, not $52/year.
>    Perhaps .18 was using an IBM machine.
        
        I assumed that .18 was referring to the total money that would
        be collected in a year from the 10 employees that said that they
        were in favor of an ombudsman.  That total would be $52 per year. 
        
        
        Making deductions from employee paychecks to pay for someone to
        watch out for employee interests sounds a bit like one of the
        features provided by a union. 
        
        					B.J.

A few years ago (1982, to be exact), I sent a memo to Shel Davis in which I
suggested that Digital institute an ombudsman.  Anne H. Kreidler of Employee
Communication sent me the following memo dated June 3:

SUBJECT:   YOUR OMBUDSMAN SUGGESTION

Shel Davis asked me to respond to your question about instituting an
"ombudsman" at Digital.  Since you were a recipient of the communication
survey, you are aware that we are trying to learn some of the strengths and
weaknesses in the current employee communication system in the company.  Your
suggestion for an "ombudsman" is a very logical way to improve the two-way
communication process;  with an obvious emphasis on the upward channels. 
However, there are other ways; some of them much less expensive; to approach
the same problem.

At this point, it is too soon for us to have a clear picture of the survey
results.  From the information we learn, I will make recommendations for
various programs which will have the potential to mend problem situations.  I
expect one of the problems we will discover is that of upward communication. 
If this is the case, the ombudsman solution will be considered along with other
alternatives.

[I typed this in;  back in 1982 engineering and non-engineering folks couldn't
correspond electronically.  But the memo does have a real live signature!
--RJF]

        Gee, I wonder what the final outcome of the study was, and what
        the recommendations were?  Perhaps we should ask Anne Kreidler to
        share the results with us, in light of the evolution of the
        company over the last 5 or 6 years.  I suspect she still works in
        Employee Communication, which is in CFO, since her DTN in ELF is
        only a few digits off from the general DTN for that department. 
        
        Tom

>    Perhaps we should ask Anne Kreidler to
>        share the results with us, in light of the evolution of the
>        company over the last 5 or 6 years. 

    He who proposes disposes. This is DEC after all. :-)
    
    			Alfred

   Maybe an ombudsman wouldn't be such a bad idea. The poor chap in note
   565.446 wouldn't have had to crawl out on a limb to make known the
   feelings of MANY fellow employees (via a letter to Bill Ferry) only to
   get a response that would indicate that his original letter had been
   perceived as a personal one and not a collective one that represented
   the views of many employees.

   Lee

A memo I wrote to Bob Fleischer in 1982 appears in Note 613.22, 
and it provides a wonderful opportunity for me to write my very 
first "notes file" reply.

There have been two communication audits done in the company; one 
in 1982 and another in 1986.  Information from these surveys as 
well as other sensing devices have alerted us corporate folks to 
the fact that things such as the Open Door Policy need to be 
reviewed for their effectiveness.

As a result, the Open Door Policy is being rewritten to include 
such concepts as Open Door managers.  The role of these people 
would, in some ways, address some of the needs mentioned in this 
notes file discussion.  The revisions to the policy have not been 
finalized, so your input is certainly welcome.  We are looking at 
a Q3 implementation date.  You can either contact John Murphy 
directly, or channel your thoughts through one of the people 
mentioned in the following article that will appear in the Oct. 
issue of MGMT MEMO:

REVITALIZING THE OPEN DOOR POLICY
By John Murphy, Corporate Employee Relations consultant

Corporate Employee Relations has been working hard over the past 
few months to refine the company's Open Door policy.  There are 
several important reasons why refinements are needed. One is our 
rapid growth. Digital's commitment to maintaining an environment 
in which all employees can engage in open, two-way constructive 
communication, even when conflicts arise, has not changed. 
However, our work force has changed.  It is much larger and much 
more diverse than it was just a few years ago. The changing 
demographics, alone, make the job of managing and resolving 
conflicts more complex.

Intensified competition is another key factor, and the pressure 
to "get the work done" is much greater than it used to be. Nearly 
half of our employees have been with Digital less than five 
years, so there inevitably will be disagreements over the "right 
way" to get the work done.

We have found through a variety of formal and informal sensing 
activities that many employees -- at all levels -- have become 
hesitant to use our Open Door policy.  Some feared reprisal. Some 
others -- the number is not alarming but growing -- have sought 
resolution outside the company through private attorneys or 
public agencies. Still others feel that, given the company's 
size, the Open Door policy has to have more structure to be 
effective.

We are confident that most issues that arise between an employee 
and his or her supervisor can be resolved at that level. When 
that is not the case, however, there needs to be a clearly 
defined escalation process.  With the revised Open Door policy 
both parties will have a more useful tool to help resolve  
conflicts that cannot be worked out through the normal give and 
take between supervisor and employee. 

The specific aims of revising the policy are to:
o safeguard employees, who raise issues, from reprisal;
o establish core standards;
o develop a written practice with a clear escalation process;
o define the responsibilities of the employee, manager or 
supervisor, higher level manager, and Personnel;
o set expectations for amount of time resolution should require;
o provide closure process; 
o separate the advice and counsel role, of both Personnel and the 
  manager, from the appeal and review role;
o identify a responsible individual in each organization who will
  safeguard the process; and
o encourage line organizations to recognize multiple   
opportunities to resolve issues locally.

Our objective is to create a framework and an environment that 
enable all employees to raise issues without fear of retaliation. 
That framework must also help managers to address employee issues 
and resolve conflicts without creating a host of new and 
unnecessary bureaucratic tangles. We can achieve that balance 
with some minor adjustments to the Open Door policy.

An Open Door Task Force is completing revisions of an Open Door 
draft policy that will be presented to organizations in Q2 for 
comment. The Task Force members are: Ted Campbell, Corporate 
EEO/Affirmative Action Operations manager; Laurie Margolies, 
Employee Relations Program manager; Maurice Vanderpot, MEM 
Personnel Business and Information Systems manager; John Doherty, 
Personnel Policy manager; Cyndi Bloom, U.S. Field Employee 
Relations manager; Ron Glover, senior attorney, Specialist 
Resource Law Group; Erline Belton, Corporate Employee Relations 
manager, and myself.

An article on the Open Door revisions recently appeared in 
"PERSONNEL perspectives," seeking input from the Personnel 
community.  Line managers conversations with their Personnel 
counterparts will help insure that the feedback we receive from 
Personnel reflects the entire company.   If you have comments you 
would like to share directly, we invite you to do so.  Your views 
are important to us as we make adjustments to policy that 
supports our employees and the company.

    re:  < Note 613.27 by BARTLE::KREIDLER >

    This looks like a very positive step, one of the first I've seen
    around ODP in a long time.  Especially cogent were the comments
    made about the relative newness of many of our employees.  We have
    hired many people into line and middle management, and into other
    senior positions in the last couple of years.  Needless to say,
    some of them have had difficulties dealing with the ODP, since
    they lacked both experience with the Digital culture, and adequate
    guidance from experienced DEC managers who took it for granted.

    Some cheerful news in a generally uncheerful time ...
    
    Geoff

        RE: .24 -- Alfred, I did take the action item, and I'd like
        to thank Anne for responding.  Let me encourage everyone who
        has concerns in this area to think them through, write them
        in a constructive and thoughtful tone, and send them to the
        committee that's working on the enhanced Open Door policy.
        
        Tom

    The changes being considered for the ODP sound like a giant leap
    forward in the area of problem resolution.
    
    Related, but unaddressed (as far as I can see) are the issues
    surrounding employee ideas that take the form of a suggestion (positive
    connotation) rather than a complaint (negative connotation). Most,
    if not all, "BIG" companies have a formal, company-wide employee
    suggestion program. I would suggest that something much different
    from the ODP (which enhances communication up-and-down) is required
    to assist in communication of ideas across the company.
    
    Fred, you already know you can have my $.10 anytime.
    
    Anne, Welcome to noting.
    
    - Andy -

    The suggestion box idea is a big part of an OMBUDSMAN.  Suggestion
    boxes offer ways for a company to make more (save some) money. 
    
    I would be happy to know that a portion of my ten cents per week
    helped make DEC more profit (and maybe make all our jobs ...).
    
    Fred

    Let's not get too paranoid, but ...
    
    Some time ago I posted several pretty strong notes here regarding
    what I considered to be injustices at DEC. I am not breaking any
    confidences by telling you that I must have received 30 different
    notes from people warning me that Management has people go through
    these notes files regularly, print everything, and then serach for
    'disloyal employees.' The implications are chilling indeed.
    
    An Omsbudsman would have to be truly independent of middle management
    for he/she to be of any value.
    
    kbs
    
    

    Re: .32
    
    "Management" has "people" go through these notes files. What
    "management", what "people"? Names please. I'm willing to bet
    twenty-five dollars that no names will be forthcoming and confirmed. 

    Re: .32
    
    Unless it's some kind of very special specific "HIT TEAM" that's
    looking for commy-pinko-antidisestablishmentarianists, I doubt that
    they could sort through all the hundreds-of-thousands of notes in
    the thousands of conferences that exist on the EASYnet.  Even if
    they only looked in the 100 or 200 that dealt specifically with
    controversial topics, we are talking about a considerable effort.
    
    Personally, I would like to see such a team...but one that attempts
    to take the "GENERAL" pulse of the company and report back to the
    proper corporate officers on basic opinions, feeling, etc. of the
    employees.
    
    I would really like to think, for example, that one of the reasons
    for the re-instatement of Car Plan A was that someone high enough
    had a good general gist of note #565.*, either from reading most
    of the notes him/herself, or from being given a compressed version
    by someone who had.
    
    Doug      

    
Re .34:

Doug,

>    Personally, I would like to see such a team...but one that attempts
>    to take the "GENERAL" pulse of the company and report back to the
>    proper corporate officers on basic opinions, feeling, etc. of the
>    employees.
    
That is the OMBUDSMAN.  The original and subsequent notes of mine were proposed
in a positive manner and will continue to be so.

Re .32:

Sherman,

"They" may or may not be looking.  Without over-reacting (and I hope "they"
would not) I know what I do and say I have to be responsible for.  In that
vein, I personally do not care if my boss or anyone else reads my notes.  The
more the better.  I'd like to think that an ombudsman-like occurrance occurred
on Plan A.
    
>    An Omsbudsman would have to be truly independent of middle management
>    for he/she to be of any value.

That is the essence of the way I see it in the early notes.  Now someone has to
stand up and do it.

I sit better than I stand - easier to think that way for many of us! 
Semi-bad-joke:  I tend to think that there are more of the "they" in the above
amoungst the "standers" than the "sitters."  But, then, I have recently expanded
my old observation that the most constant thing in the world is change itself
to include the fact that not only are all constants subject to change but also
contain contradictions within themselves.  How's that for a changing
contradiction changing?

Yeh, and I like the noter who calls himself "grump, grump, grump" too.  Seems
like I remember he is pretty positive about DEC also!

Fred
    

    When I first came to DEC, someone told me never to write anything
    in notes that I would feel embarrassed finding stapled to my resume.
    
    It's been a good rule of thumb.  I've written a lot of things, some
    controversial, but there hasn't been one yet that I'd be embarrassed
    to have handed to me by management.