Conference 7.286::digital

    I brought this up in 942.88.

    Sorry for trunpeting "old news" but it was new news to me. I also think
    that the 88th reply to a note isn't going to be seen quite as often as
    a new note might be.
    
    GS

    RE: .2
    
         Now come on.  Most people DO know about NEXT UNSEEN.  That kind of 
    philosophy just leads to cluttered conferences.
    
                  

 Re: .3 (re: .2)

  <<  Now come on.  Most people DO know about NEXT UNSEEN.  That kind of 
  <<  philosophy just leads to cluttered conferences.
    
Well I for one frequently do NEXT UNSEEN, but when I see reply 67 of 99 on a
topic I've grown tired of, I do another NEXT UNSEEN and never read replies
68-99, since NEXT UNSEEN has a feature of marking them all seen.

I like that feature and use it often at the calculated risk of missing some
"vital" information. Yes, it's nice to keep the conference uncluttered, but I
think there are times to post a new note instead of reopening an old one by
posting a reply. [And notice I'm not making any judgement as to whether or not
this was an appropriate time.]

	/Marvin

    Re: .4
    
    Well, clearly you weren't tired of the topic if you chose to start
    a new note for it!
    
    			Steve

.0>    Appraisals. There are other things too, such as only 80% of you will
.0>    get a raise at all (mandated). This is supposed to ensure that only

    Thanks,for that info.Where did you get it? That's the first I've
    heard of that 80% stuff.

    I suppose it depends upon local interpretation, but I don't believe
    that the participation rate and spend number are supposed to be
    public knowledge.
    
    That being said, it could be that the participation rate is a derivative
    of the average salary action interval.  I mean, with the average
    for CY90 at 21 months, it's obvious to me that some people won't
    get planned for increases next year, making it equally obvious that
    the participation rate will not be 100%.
    
    I can't see how you manage a participation rate AND an average interval
    unless they equate to the same bottom line.  Otherwise, one takes
    preference over the other.
    
    As for the base note topic, the *average* review interval has been
    15 months for some while (your results may vary).  Add six months
    to that and you get a new average of 21 months for next year.  The
    nine month freeze BS is just hot air.
    
    Al
    

    re .0 &.7
    
    Well, .8 did a pretty good job of explaining the 80% participation.
    If you wonder why its 'mandatory', that's to ensure that the manager
    doesn't try something strange.
    
    What .8 might not be aware of (I wasn't until I mentioned it to my
    landlord who works under a different VP), is that all organizations
    haven't been implementing the 'corporate' salary planning guidelines.
    In SIMG, we started with a 13 month interval for '88. In '89 we went
    to 15 months and were very happy to hear that '90 didn't get any
    longer, then came the freeze. This is why yearly performance reviews
    became very important, effectively seperating salary and performance
    reviews. The 13 month interval was a pain! You do an annual performance
    review and have to update it a month later for the salary review (at
    least in our reporting structure).
    
    By the way, IMHO any manager/supervisor that doesn't communicate
    the changes in the salary planning rules to their people, is just
    looking for trouble by keeping them in the dark. Understanding that
    some managers try to keep these things a deep dark secret, you should
    not be surprised when a notesfile like this one comes under fire for
    'leaking' information to 'the workers'.
    
    Bob Mc

    
    	Variable intervals...
    
    	80% participation...
    
    	6-month freeze...
    
    	Keep it all under wraps...
    
    Throw in enough variables, and people won't quite know when, how and by
    whom they're being shafted.
    
    Is it just me, or is this starting to sound like the machinations of a
    belly-crawlwing, bottom-feeding, scum-sucking auto dealer?
    

>    Is it just me, or is this starting to sound like the machinations of a
>    belly-crawlwing, bottom-feeding, scum-sucking auto dealer?
    
    And, of course, you can always walk out the nearest exit.

    re: the 21-month cycle
    
    I view that whole issue as a marketing ploy:  Just like manufacturers
    who raise prices and then pitch "rebates" as a cost savings.  The net
    result is the same no matter what you call it;  it will be close to
    two years between salary increases.
    
    This in turn has another effect on many of us in the field - it totally
    disconnects salary increases from performance reviews.  In many cases
    (including my own) salary planning and promotion forecasting ends up
    being done by one manager, the employee gets assigned to another group/
    project/unit, and the manager who ends up doing the performance review
    has to live with the original forecasted percentages.  So you go in
    at review time and hear the story that they'll fix it "next time", but
    "next time" the process is repeated all over again.  At this point,
    the "pay for performance" slogan becomes bitingly sarcastic.
    
    Geoff
    

    Having written .0, and being attacked for not reading all previous
    replies to all previous notes, it's nice to see some others have
    something germane to add. It's amazing how conferences stray from the 
    point. Anyway..
    
    I got the 80% info from someone who outa know...but, hey, it could be
    wrong. I didn't think it was a secret since managers tend to justify
    their actions by quoting the directives from above that left them no
    choice. This means most of us will be told something. It's kinda
    idiotic to claim that this information is then to be kept under wraps.
    Thats like saying that noone at Digital Review should have known about
    the 9000 until we 'officially' announced it.
    
    Anyway, Digital will make a ton a money after the recession and we will
    all be arguing about whether 10 or 15% is the average raise!!!
    
    George

As with ANY policy, pieces taken out of context don't always make sense.

If the average time between raises is 15 months, then statistically it's true
that 80% of the organization will get raises in a given year. But if my group
has 5 employees whose salary review dates all were in the first half of the year
(and that's certainly possible with a small group size), then the time gap could
even be as large as 18 months and we'd all get raises this year. Now next year,
of course, is another story.

I haven't seen any rules, or even talked to someone who has, but I would 
certainly hope that 80% is not being taken as a firm directive!

	/Marvin

.13>    Anyway, Digital will make a ton a money after the recession and we will
.13>    all be arguing about whether 10 or 15% is the average raise!!!

    That was tongue-in-cheek,wasn't it? I,and numerous others,doubt
    that the average raise will ever be anywhere near 10% ever again.

    Re: .14
    
    The 80% rule is in effect for 1990....only 80% of the population
    will receive salary action.  If everyone in your group was scheduled
    for salary action in 1990, 20% will be pushed out till 1991 during
    this round of salary planning.
    
    
    Bob

    Having read several replies about increasing the average salary action
    interval to 15 months, I asked my supervisor about this, and he
    says thats its still 13 months for us ( I'm in a US engineering group ).
    
    Either he's misinformed, or the interval must vary depending on what
    group you're in. Can anyone comment any more on that ?
    
    Steve

    Here's what we were told in a recent meeting by our local
    personnel rep (I'm in East Central Area, EIS (formerly SWS)) -

    the "old" average salary plan cycle was 12-13 months.  Been that
    way for a few years now.  Add the 6 month freeze.  This takes it
    out to 18-19 months.  And  if you're not in the 80% group (this is
    a definite corporate guideline now), you'll be pushed out to about
    21 months.  We spent an hour going over all this.

    With only 80% of the population in the salary plan, each person in
    that group has the potential for a bigger piece of the pie for
    that cycle.  They also said they are re-instating the "4" rating
    for below-average performers, hopefully who will be councilled by
    mgmt and bring themselves up to at least 3 level.  4 is now a
    long-term rating.  You either improve or get a 5.

    Al

    re .18:
    
    I believe you meant to say, "4 is not a long-term rating."
    
    Marge

    Last night I watched a tape of the 12 Dec 89 DVN Quarterly Report.
    This was the life call-in show with KO etc. Someone from the field
    asked the basic questions that were asked here in .0. Ken and Jack
    Smith seemed quite surprised at the question. The claimed, and I
    believe them, that they didn't know anything about 21 month reviews
    rather than 18. They promised they'd look into it and more of a reply
    would be placed in LIVEWIRE (which it was about 10 days later). The
    reply in LIVEWIRE (reproduced at the end of this note) doesn't talk
    about 15 month averages or 80% coverage or anything like that.

    Something appears to be seriously wrong here. Somewhere (perhaps
    several somewheres) someone has made a decision about review timing
    on their own and are passing it off as Corporate Policy. As I watched
    Ken and Jack struggle to understand a question all I could think about
    was that if it'd been me in their chairs I'd be royally upset. I hope
    someone got straitened out. Are people still hearing 6+15 as the
    average review cycle? If so how is it being justified in light of KO's
    public statements?

    			Alfred
    
    
                       Response to salary planning question  
                     from 'Digital Quarterly Report' Telecast

    During the recent "Digital Quarterly Report" DVN telecast, an 
    employee asked if the company has abandoned its traditional 
    annual review cycles and is "pushing them out" to an average of 
    15-21 months.  

    This is what LIVE WIRE learned from Corporate Compensation and 
    Benefits:

    Intervals for employees receiving salary increases in 1990 will average 
    slightly greater than 18 months during this salary planning period. But 
    that can be misleading since general explanations may not apply to all 
    employees. 

    Current salary planning is being affected by two major changes. 
    One, which should be clear to everyone, is the six-month salary 
    delay. In effect, the delay, which ends in January, extends 
    employees who normally would have been on a 12-month review cycle 
    to an 18-month cycle. 
   
    The other change is not directly related to the salary delay, but it
    is equally significant. Managers are placing increased emphasis on
    employees' performance and position in salary range in determining both 
    the frequency and the amount of a salary increase. This will result in 
    longer than 18-month frequencies for some employees.

- - -
(ed. note: this article was edited after it was originally posted.)

    
    Ref: 975.20
    
    Our group too heard the same thing from our personnel rep regarding 80%
    and 21 months, along with a great deal of "double think" about
    personnel policies and compensation planning, all seemingly to justify
    why everyone is already paid in line with the competition and that if
    you get any raise, you should be glad for it.  Having also seen the
    last two DVN broadcasts, I too agree that there was a difference of
    understanding by Jack Smith and Ken Olsen with what personnel is
    communicating.
    
    I would deduce there are two forces at work within Digital: bureaucracy
    and those that desire to build something greater than what is, and
    accordingly, share in the rewards of such accomplishment.
    
    If the goals and dreams of the company are "play it safe" and current
    growth rates and operating income percentages are fine, then the
    bureaucracy to keep the system as is, including compensation, makes a
    great deal of sense.
    
    Ken Olsen says, in the DVN Digital Quarterly, that he is committed to
    GROWTH, that we have products, services, solutions to offer and just
    need to get our messages across more effectively, doing more real
    marketing.  KO also went on to say that more pay usually goes in hand
    with more performance and greater achievement.
    
    The bureaucracy of the current compensation policies and procedures are
    not, in my opinion, conducive to nurturing and inspiring outstanding
    performance, both individually and in concert with all other Digital
    employees, and thus, do not encourage a great deal of stupendous
    business development efforts (meaning creativity and change) on the
    parts of virtually every employee.  Most people in the meeting where we
    learned of the latest pay policies did NOT leave that presentation with
    any "gung ho" spirit to go out and build something far greater than
    what currently is.
    
    Sure, we all do our jobs, and we get paid accordingly.  But shouldn't
    the compensation system actually nurture greater employee involvement
    in building something greater?
    
    The best solution I see is for LARGE and equal profit sharing bonuses
    for virtually every employee, contingent on building more operating
    income, far far greater than what is, which would mean from new greater
    business at larger margins.  If the current compensation program
    emphasis continues just doling out raises that "just keep us employees
    competitive" than where is the incentive to think beyond our jobs, to
    create, to incur change, to work together in true harmony and
    cooperation, and to build something stupendous, far greater
    than what is now?
    

    RE: the last several

    Are we not talking apples and oranges here?  My understanding is that you
    should have performance reviews on a 12 month schedule but that salary
    increases do not have the same schedule.  So what KO is saying and what you
    are hearing are two different topics.  LIVEWIRE article that is quoted also
    mixes the two items.  That is why KO is suprised when people ask if reviews
    are on an 21 month schedule because he (I assume) see the review as a
    different topic from any salary increase.

    Having said all of the above, have people been getting 12 month reviews?
    If the answer is no, then ask your manager why not (:-).

    Lee G.

    RE: .22 Ken was asked about Salary increases not performance reviews.
    I read the VTX article as being pretty directly addressing salary
    reviews and not performance reviews.

    			Alfred

    Quoting from the handout from Personnel to managers on the 1990 Pay
    Program:
    
    o	Participation 80% 
    
    o 	Average Frequency 21 Months
    
    Average	for those receiving increases	18 months
    + Plus	20% receiving no increase within 1990
    
    = Equals	average increase overall	21 months
    
    o	ALL EMPLOYEES MUST HAVE A SALARY PLAN WHETHER
    	OR NOT THEY ARE GETTING A 1990 INCREASE
    
    -------------------------------------------------------
    
    Based on this, the 20% not receiving an increase within CY90 would have
    been scheduled out to the next century to bring the overall average up
    to 21 months.  I seriously doubt that most managers in DEC would allow
    that, so you start to hear "18 to 21 months on average" or similar. 
    Most managers would prefer to spread the pain across the group rather
    than have one or a few people unduly burdened with the 21 month average
    (for the whole group) requirement.
    
    my .02,
    Marge

	RE: .24 I can't seem to fit that in with what Ken said or with
	what is in LIVEWIRE. The obvious question is. Was Ken lying (I
	doubt it) or is someone below him assuming some authority that
	Ken should but doesn't know about?

			Alfred

It seems that Ken is either being dishonest (which I choose
not to believe), or someone below him is making fairly major
policy without his knowledge.  Assuming the latter is the case,
perhaps someone who has gotten the material from personnel directly
(preferrably someone who saw/was at Ken's talk) could forward
those materials to Ken's attention?

Kevin

    
    re .24;
    
    Are copies of this handout available? I'd like to get one.
    

    re: .22
    
    >Having said all of the above, have people been getting 12 month reviews?
    >If the answer is no, then ask your manager why not (:-).
    
    I haven't had a performance review for about 19 months.  Why should I
    ask for one?  If I'm not doing my job, I'm sure my manager will let me
    know.
    
    Bob
    

    re .27:
    
    Not likely.  They are from a workshop for people who were to submit
    salary plans.  I quoted the pertinent sections here.
    
    Marge

    re: .25 -.26
    
    I think you are right ... Ken's not the culprit. I think the next
    couple of levels below the top may be suspect, however.
    
    An example which drives this home:  
    
    (Note: I wasn't there ... this is 2nd hand information from a reliable
    source. All comments are paraphrased as best I recall from the person
    who WAS there.)
    
    At DU:IT training for software people Dave Grainger spoke. At the end
    of his opening address at one of the sessions he asked for questions
    from the floor. The silence was broken by a lonely voice from the back
    of the room:
    
    Voice:	Yeah ... When are we going to get our workstations!?
    
    Audience:	Nervous chuckles
    
    Dave:	Excuse me? What was that?
    
    Voice:	(Allegedly standing up now) I said, when're we gonna get
    		our workstations?
    
    Dave:	You've already got them.
    
    Voice:	BALONEY! We've got nothing! We're being asked to support
    		all these new products and we don't have the tools we need
    		to do our jobs, and WE'RE GETTING SICK OF IT!
    
    Audience:	Cheers and applause
    
    Dave:	I'll look into that immediately.
    
    I really think Dave thought this was a "done deal". My source said he
    looked genuinely surprised by the comments of the field person and
    reaction of the audience. Sometimes when you're in a high position,
    people feed you only good news. One of the biggest curses of being a
    big shot is that your people frequently stop telling you the truth.
    They shield you from all the "bad news" that they don't want you to
    hear. 
    
    Ken has to be the ultimate recipient of "the good news, all
    the good news, and nothin' but the good news". If you think this isn't
    what happens, picture yourself reporting directly to "the man" and
    walking into his office to tell him some bad news. How does it feel ???
    
    /se
    
    
    

    
    Regarding the 21 month cycle...
    
    Everytime I talk to people and this subject comes up it gets more and
    more confused. I still believe it's because we never add "for the year
    1990" so people assume it's now the standard. The 21 month cycle only
    applies to 1990 and then it goes back to a 15 month cycle. I've been
    under the understanding that the 15 month average has been in place for
    several years now so the math adds up for me. The math also adds up
    in that if you're gonna go on a 21 month cycle (for the 1990 pay 
    year :) ) then it goes without saying that you can't average that and
    still give 100% of your people raisies in a 12 month window, right? So
    that's where the 80% number comes from...
    
    Not having seen the DVN broadcast I can't say for sure but I know from
    my own experience when discussing this issue that I'd give people the
    benefit of the doubt before calling someone a flat out liar since 90%
    of the time it turns out to be simply a matter of terminlogy and
    misunderstood timeframes rather then lying.
    
    -Ray

    re .30
    
    I think I know which DU:IT session you mean. If it isn't, Dave G's got
    to be a damn good actor.
    
    I also remember Dave having said that "Yes, there was a problem in that
    area and it's being fixed right now. And the field will soon see the
    change. People who need the equipment will be getting them." (or
    something to that effect).
    
    HW