Conference 7.286::digital

    KO had it right in his speech on 'process'.
    
    The trouble with government is that legislators tend to
    legislate. The trouble with the classic corporation is
    that managers tend to manage. How ? With tried and true
    CYA methods - institute procedures and metrics and manage
    *those*. Of course, people work 'by the book' and 
    worry about making the metric instead of the customer.
                       
    Solution ? Get rid of the managers. Radical ? Yes. But
    consider the benefits. Less process, more responsiveness.
    What else do we need ?

    re .2 and getting rid of the managers
    
    Can you clarify a bit for me?  When you say, get rid of the manger's,
    my immediate mental picture is something like slow-motion chaos
    on a gradual build-up to anarchy.
    
    Thanks,
    
    ---kim

    My picture is one of personal responsibility and freedom
    from bureaucratic inertia. "Yes you made the customer happy
    but you violated the rules, spent $20, and didn't follow
    the chain of command. You're on warning."

    (Now that I'm not a unit manager...) There are far too many levels of
    management at DEC, breeding far too many organizations creating far too
    many nooks for consolidating fiefdoms far away from the light of day.

    Does anyone know, how many levels of management are there between the
    typical plain old single-contributor (who reports to a unit manager)
    and K.O.?

    Actually, how many people even KNOW the chain of command from them up to
    K.O.? If you don't, that probably means your chain of command could do
    with less management levels.

    /Peters

    P.S. It would be interesting to do a survey of:


    	Q: How many levels of management between you and Ken Olsen? 
    	   Mark the appropriate answer.

    	   Not sure   None   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   More

    	Q: Do you know the managers' names?
    	   Mark the appropriate answer.

    	   Yes   No

	People typically are only familiar with their own "org chart",
    so if Ken Olsen's name does not appear at the top of the their org
    chart (as it most typically does not), then chances are they do not
    know how many levels of management separate them from the top.

	There should be a rule that Ken Olsen's name should appear at the
    top of the org chart of every DEC employee, and that the chart should
    be able to fit on a single 8 1/2 X 11 inch piece of paper.  This would
    enforce a certain level of management compression in order to fit on
    that single page (although I imagine most people would need a magnifying
    glass to read the names ;^).

				   -davo

    upside down:
    
    me
    work coordinator
    supervisor
    dist. manager
    materials mgr.
    plant mgr.
    SIMG mgr
    ?
    KO

    re .6, nah, it would only encourage the use of printed output
    consisting of 16-or-smaller-pitch type.
    
    Jon

    re .5 - a survey would be great, but we'd have to create a whole
    organization to manage and process the surveys!

    re .10 And now that we have the organization, we can justify
    more Personnel reps, and a whole new level of management to
    make sure that benefits are administered, etc.....
    
    What was that, Mr Parkinson ?

    I'm an individual contributor, and have been since I started with 
    Digital 8+ years ago.
    
    When I first started there were 4 levels of management between me and
    KO.
    
    Today there are are 6 levels between us. (And before you ask, I've
    gotten several promotions [KO hasn't], have made career progress [so
    has KO] etc.)
    
    So what?
    
    Bruce

    re .7
    
    Dana, I'm not sure what/who you mean by 'SIMG mgr'. I would think that
    the plant mgr reports to the SIMG Mfg VP that reports to the SIMG
    Eng/Mfg VP that reports to the EM&PM Sr VP. To put names in the places,
    they are Plakias, Saviers & Smith. Does this sound right?
    
    Bob Mc

re Note 1027.5 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA:

>     	Q: How many levels of management between you and Ken Olsen? 
>     	   Mark the appropriate answer.
> 
>     	   Not sure   None   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   More

        Not sure.  But I believe that there are 4 or 5 people between
        me and Bill Strecker;  how many more to the top?

        Bob

re: .14

Strecker to Smith to Olsen.

    1990	1989
    Olsen	Olsen
    
    		Shields
    
    Zereski	Grainger
    
    Herbener	S. Davis
    
    Fox		Weinfuss
    
    Cochrane	Ellison
    
    me		me
    
    ICs		ICs
    (Note that I haven't changed jobs, nor cost center.)

    Marge, I also note that the only names that have stayed the same are
    you and Ken.  Thanks for adding some stability to the company. ;^).
    Curtis

    Well, good to see that after a slow start, this discussion has taken
    off.....
    
    It brought up an issue that I hadn't considered, too many (with changing
    personnel) levels of management.  But the focus of my original note was, 
    and still is, what avenue is available, to address concerns/issues......
    
    I have noted (no pun intended) several comments by fellow employees
    regarding being used/abused (in their opinion).  How can these
    individuals get satisfaction, by having their issue addressed to thier
    satisfaction.  My guess is that Corporate would say:
    
    	Use the open door (lets not reenter that rat-hole)
    	Use Personnel (lets assume, for the sake of arguement, that they are
    		of no help {8^)}
    
    I must belive the Corporation cares/wants to know, what we think.  Where 
    are they, and more importantly, can anyone tell everyone where they are!

    re .18
    
>   It brought up an issue that I hadn't considered, too many (with changing
>   personnel) levels of management.  But the focus of my original note was, 
>   and still is, what avenue is available, to address concerns/issues......
    
>   I have noted (no pun intended) several comments by fellow employees
>   regarding being used/abused (in their opinion).  How can these
>   individuals get satisfaction, by having their issue addressed to thier
>   satisfaction....

    The only way address issues to your satisfaction is to decide if you
    want to move groups, decide _if_ you can move groups (i.e., haven't
    turned into a leper because of a dispute with your management), then
    move or stay and fight.

    All the other support mechanisms merely suck more people into the vortex.
    There's an old Latvian saying (both my parents were from Latvia): "When
    you stomp on s__t it only spreads and stinks." Sometimes, of course, you
    don't have a choice if your back is against the wall.

    Personally, everything I did last year was rated a "1", yet in terms of
    how I was treated by management, it was the year of "Digital, straight
    from Hell." Things have improved this year, including a new direct
    manager, but Digital has a good deal more to do to set things straight.

    The folks in the puzzle palace need to pay more attention to how this
    place is being run. Otherwise, it'll be like the king -- basically a 
    good guy -- who gets beheaded because he had no idea how his underlings
    were running his kingdom.


    /Peters

    After being this Company for 11 1/2 years and seeing the thing I have
    seen in the New York/New Jersey area . 9 yrs. ago a large group of
    individuals use to party together at these party's anything went. If
    you were one of those who didn't go you were left out of any
    promotion/pay. I then left New YOrk to seek a better chance but it
    seems I didn't get far enough away; because 8 yrs later these same
    people may not be having their party's but they seem to have reached
    their Peter principle level(they have met their level of incompetence).
    and these should be the very same people that should be laidoff if
    there is ever going to be layoffs. I have other friends whom have been
    trying to get to other positions /areas of the company and can't
    because of management won't let them. The open door policy in this area
    was "There's the door it's open when you leave (quit)". I know some of
    you might think this is alittle harsh but believe me the empire walls
    that have been built around here to try an do the job are increasing
    everyday. You can't go over,under or around nor thru the bureaucracy
    (sh_t) which makes the job take longer which means your either working
    overtime or taking work home to catchup,and then the worst of possible
    scenarios your p.a. is rated average or lower. This is your NEW
    DIGITAL . The new open door policy still seems more bureaucratic then
    even 5 to 4 yrs. ago.
    

Well I only recently moved from NY after 7 years there and I couldn't 
imagine working for or with a better group of people.  I know about some of 
the parties that you speak of but never saw or found anything that even 
appeared to be favoritism for those that attended.  I know of many folks 
who have been cut down to size from those people (as they should have 
been).  It's too bad you harbor such animosity instead of putting your 
supposed slights behind you and going on.

Jilly

    Reg. 20 & 21
    
    These two replies bring to mind two thoughts.....
    
    first, one acusation does not equal one denial.  What I see as
    important in .20, is the issue itself, and the potential for possible
    abuse by the situation described.  One individual, on the outside or 
    the inside of the situation, affected by the situation, is not in a 
    possition to judge.  Which brings me to my second point...
    
    Regardless of the facts of the 'parties', if the author of .20
    suspected anything, they should have an avenue to address those
    concerns.
    
    
    Too many times, I have noticed that one denial of a problem, puts that
    problem to rest.
    
    example:
    
    	statement:	I have a problem with foo-bar!
    
    	reply:		I don't, next...
    
    This attitude seems quite prevalant, here.  To me, this attitude helps
    to keep issues from being addressed, and maybe even from being brought 
    up.  For every issue where someone benefits, someone else is paying the 
    price, and THAT is not right!  The system should be fair.