Conference 7.286::digital

   Sell the rights to one of the soap operas...
   
   q
   :-)
    Sorry...
   
   Try involving personnel?
   
   
   

    I'm uncertain if this note is intended to be serious or humorous - for
    I felt both when I read it.  Also other emotions came to mind -
    particularly concern about what seems to be our accepted, cultural
    managerial style.  
    
    Although our cultural managerial style may have many advantages, it
    also has numerous attributes that are detrimental to both subordinates
    and managers AND Digital's bottom-line productivity.
    
    I've frequently thought of refining some of these ideas and elevating
    them.  I'd like to know what some of you think:
    
        1. Managers should DEFER COMPLAINTS (or "concerns") ABOUT
        SUBORDINATES TO THAT SUBORDINTATE - no matter who (peer, superior,
        etc.) is registering that complaint with the manager.  
        
        Personally, I haven't seen so much back-stabbing since I left the 
        6th grade!  "Telling Daddy" is one of the most flabbergasting, accepted
        cultural behaviors I've encountered in 26 years of working - it's
        also both immature and cowardly.
        
        It might be more productive and adult if, when someone comes to a
        manager with a "concern" about an employee, that he/she asks if
        that person has discussed it with the person him/herself - BEFORE
        GETTING INTO THE DETAILS.  If the complainer says yes, then the
        manager should say he/she wants to discuss it with the subordinate
        first.  A MANAGER SHOULD NEVER SIDE WITH A COMPLAINER BEFORE GIVING
        THE TARGET AN EQUAL, UNBIASED CHANCE.  Heck, most of the time the
        target doesn't even know the complainer is sneaking around behind
        his back!
        
        As a manager elsewhere, I've found that if the complainer hasn't
        faced the target with the complaint, it usually means that the
        complainer is really a spineless griper and trouble-maker in the
        mask of a "concerned corporate citizen."
        
        Somehow, our culture has evolved to support the devious,
        back-stabbing complainer at the expense of one of the most
        important responsibilities of people management - supporting those for
        whom one has accepted responsibility.
        
        2. MANAGERS SHOULD NEVER PUBLICLY PASS THE BUCK OR BLAME
        SUBORDINATES.  Actually, there's way too much buck-passing all
        around inside Digital.  It's not amazing that people try to pass
        the buck.  What is amazing is that the culture accepts and rewards
        those who do!
        
        The first time I sat in a Digital meeting where someone openly 
        blamed his secretary for a typo on an overhead, I thought he was 
        probably just having a bad day or was just a buck-passer and
        everyone knew it.  Since that time, I've learned that in Digital
        that's the way we absolve ourselves of the responsibility we have
        for our own jobs.
        
        Each of us should be professionally and individually responsible
        for any and all information we pass on through the organization. 
        That means that if we have a problem about what comes to us, we
        must fix it at the source - not pass it along.  And this applies to
        all sizes of things - both big and small.
        
        Of course, this takes guts.  And in the light of a culture that
        supports and perpetuates the tattle-taling in #1, could expose us
        to trouble.  But, after all, if each of us hasn't guts inside the
        company, how can we have real courage and fortitude when it comes
        to really competing in the marketplace?
        
        3. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION COMES FROM *** BOTH ***
        THE BOTTOM UP *** AND *** THE TOP DOWN.
        
        It seems we collectively see this important organizational and
        managerial attribute as either black or white - either bottom up
        *** OR *** top down.  It must be BOTH.
        
        The trick we've yet to appreciate and learn as an organization is
        that ... CERTAIN LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION MUST COME FROM THE TOP
        DOWN and OTHERS MUST COME FROM THE BOTTOM UP.   That is, if we
        really want to make the most of what we have as an organization.
        
        For instance, top down leadership that stimulates innovation could
        take the form of upper management testing the information he
        receives.   All top and executive management must learn to ask the
        right kinds of questions of the rest of the company.  Like ...
        
        	- Where did this information come from?
        	- If this were your company alone, would you do this?
        	- Would you stake your job on this?
        
        All too often trash has been raised to and accepted by top
        management.  All levels of management must set the standards of
        quality and acceptability.  This is one example of top-down
        leadership and stimulation of innovation.
        
        And Bottoms-up leadership and innovation?  Well, we're certainly
        hearing enough about continuous improvement, improving our own
        jobs, making and working on good ideas, etc.  Now, for those of us
        on the "bottom,"  it's time for us to make these organizational
        protestations cough up!   Call those professing these platitudes to
        task!  If it's the right thing to do, keep at it.  If it's not
        getting anywhere with one approach - try another.
        
        I'm not talking revolt here.  I'm talking persistence, perseverance
        and giving a damn.
        
        And what about those of us in the middle - between "top" and
        "bottom"?  Well, we've got even more opportunity to develop courage
        and guts.  We're in the position to both translate, perpetuate,
        enhance and support the best of both "Top-down" *AND* "Bottom-up"! 
        I maintain that, if we in the middle aren't doing this ALL THE
        TIME, then we aren't earning our pay.
        
        Actually, if each of us aren't doing our part in leadership and
        innovation from our own positions within Digital, then we are not
        earning our pay.
        
        "Playing the game" is not earning one's pay - it's covering one's
        Maximus Gluteus!  But here I digress ...
        
        I've yet to see a free enterprise, private sector company survive a 
        truly competive marketplace without having the RIGHT KINDS OF
        LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION COMING FROM THE TOP DOWN AND THE RIGHT
        KINDS COMING FROM THE BOTTOM UP.  And it certainly doesn't work
        either if leadership and innovation from either "end" dies in the
        middle.
        
        4. THE PRIMARY COMPONENT OF HOW DIGITAL EVALUATES AND REWARDS IT'S
        MANAGERS OF PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON *** HOW WELL PEOPLE-MANAGERS MANAGE
        PEOPLE ***
        
        Here I mean "manage" - not "control" or "manipulate."
        
        I realize that this is in the Orange Book somewhere - but only as a
        guideline that is inconsistently applied throughout Digital. 
        Improvement doesn't really come from machines or books or grooming
        classes - it comes from people.  
        
        Those put in charge of people and given people as a resource must be 
        held accountable for the success of those people.  If
        people-managers are to be primarily measured on their individual
        contributions, then they should be individual contributors - not
        people-managers.  
        
        I suggest that it should be a Rule - not a guideline - that ALL
        PEOPLE-MANAGERS IN DIGITAL SHOULD HAVE 80% OF THEIR EVALUATION
        BASED ON HOW WELL THEIR SUBORDINATES DO AND IMPROVE.  I suppose
        that that is what the "stock option" stuff is supposed to be doing
        - but it has truly fallen far short of the real needs of the
        organization.
        
 Well, this note has gone on far too long.  But I fear that these
 fundamentals of effective organizational and managerial style fall too
 short for us to continue to be successful.
 
 What do you think?  How can we get us to be better at these things?
 
 					

    Carolyn Mcmahon, Wow!  Well said...if only it could be!

    Carolyn, I agree with you totally. I've been in an organization for 6
    years, working in 3 different groups within that organization. I
    seen and worked for a number of managers. Most of them had potential
    at being a people-manager, if only they would work with us. Instead
    they worked against us. Only my last manager was excellent. She 
    allowed me to kick back at her, she encouraged me to stretch myself
    and was there to help me work that process. She always backed me and
    checked up on facts before ever accepting negative comments/opinions
    about me. She encouraged me, praised me, made me feel good (great at
    times) about the work I did. The other managers all ended up making
    me feel worthless, used, and not valueable. Now having worked for
    a good manager I at least know (and will stand up for) what a good
    manager should (and can) do.
    
    We need more good people-managers. People who are willing to admit
    their not perfect, admit their weaknesses and failures. We are not
    all gods...just people.

	re .2:

	Absolutely right, Carolyn! These are harmful forms of behaviour
	that we all recognise, and many of us have suffered from. After
	a while, like maltreated dogs, we become a bit vicious ourselves.

	But the calm, fair, caring treatment of a real manager soon sets
	things to right again. You know one when you meet her/him.

	What I'd like to know is: why do we have this situation? Is it
	because

	1. Digital culture somehow encourages bad people management?

	2. Digital attracts people who are good at other things but bad
	   at managing people?

	3. Digital simply doesn't make the effort to hire good managers,
	   or train them, so simply gets "normal" (i.e. bad) behaviour?

	I really don't know.

	/Tom

    re .5
    
    Think hard.  Have you ever known a "good manager" who wasn't also
    a remarkably "good person"?  Contrariwise, did you ever know an
    exploitative, or uncaring manager who didn't demonstrate these same
    qualities in his/her personal life?  Managers are human beings,
    as such they are just as susceptible to human failings as you and
    I.  The reason Digital has so many (IMHO) is that it is not enough
    to preach to people, you have to show them.  (I can't hear what
    you're saying 'cause your actions drwon our your words).  We often
    seem to think that preaching will change the way people behave.
    I doubt it.
    
    When Martin Luther King was organizing marches, in order to assure
    that they would be non-violent, there was a lot of preparation.
    Specifically, the prospective marchers would be put through a dry-run
    with others playing the roles of the police and hecklers.  Anyone
    who couldn't hold his/her temper under abuse was not allowed to
    march.
    
    We need to use some high pressure rehearsals of stressful managerial
    situations and prune out those managers who can't keep their cool.
    Clearly, a lot of disliked behavior is based on failure to act as
    well as on actual behavior.  That may be more difficult to simulate,
    but certainly the technique of selecting only the tested for critical
    positions should be considered.
    
    Without the rehearsal, we are left with a selection process based
    on (costly) failures in prior positions.  But the evaluating manager
    	a) may not know about the behavior problem or 
    	b) may not perceive it as a problem.

    I don't think we have worse managers than elsewhere, I think our
    expectations are not in tune with reality.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick

    I think we'll all agree that this company has TOO MANY managers...
    (from an IC who has seen the number of managers go UP every year, many
    managers without ANY direct reports!)

    Could be that there are too many people designated managers in
    Digital's society.   Wouldn't weeding out the bad ones, e.g. poor
    people-managers, be a great way of killing 2 birds with 1 stone?????
    
    That is, we could reduce the number of those in an over-stuffed
    societal slot (managers) AND end up with only good people-managers
    (which is really what Digital needs)!!!
    
    I say that Digital needs only good people-managers, and no other kind,
    because I believe that our people are, indeed, our greatest asset AND
    our greatest hope for both survival and success.

    Digital neither rewards nor recognizes good people managers.  In
    fact, if you spend too much time managing people, you'll hear about
    it.  But, with the stock at 56....who cares?

    While I agree that people management skills are a crucial asset we need
    to develop ( along with personal management skills for ICs ), I hope we
    don't end up going the route of "professional management"...

    We need people who can manage both people AND technical projects.  I've
    had freinds who were placed under "professional managers" who were pulled
    from outside, who were good at "delegating" and handling (and generating)
    "conflict."  They breathed sighs of relief when those managers left and
    were replaced by "tecchies" who hated the red tape, but who knew when a
    project needed to slip to preserve quality.

    People skills are half the equation.  The other half is an understanding of
    the business we are in.  If we want to develop software, we need people who
    understand how to manage a software project.  If we want to sell services,
    we need people who understand how to work with a customer and pass their
    requirements on to the technical team.

    And once again, I say that we ALL need those skills, even if we're only
    responsible for one person.

	Carolyn's suggestion is one that would find favour with many of
    	us. The question is, how would Digital set about identifying the
    	poor managers who ought to go? This sort of thing is ALWAYS done
    	top-down, and this guarantees that the poor managers will be able
    	to prepare a defence. The only way to identify them is by asking
    	those who report to them (and lower levels as well). Are we at
    	the stage where this would be acceptable? ("Popularity contests",
    	"running for office", beauty competitions", I can hear all the
    	sneers now). If we had a real open door policy that worked, poor
    	managers would be routinely shown up to their bosses, but from
    	all I've seen bosses usually back up their direct reports, so
    	that the "open door" leads directly into the street.
    
    	re .12: Peter, I believe the good managers are precisely those
    	with two major concerns: people management, and Digital's
    	technological capability. The poor ones often appear overly
    	concerned with 'looking good", and cultivating the approval
    	of those senior to them. They often bluff heavily, and will
    	disdainfully profess an ignorance of technology in a way which
    	makes it sounds dirty and common. But they can readily be
    	identified by one simple test: most of those who have worked
    	for them for a year or more personally dislike and distrust
    	them.
    
    	/Tom

    My experience with dual-management (two persons operating as a
    management team) suggests that this is a technique that can be very
    useful.  One of the two is the "official" manager, while the other
    is an equally senior person who shares the responsibility.  Both
    can learn from each other, the technically oriented manager and
    the people oriented manager can use each other as sounding boards,
    incorporate an internal "open door", and each focus on that which
    he/she does best.  It sounds like double cost, but I can assure
    that it is more effective and conservative of both human relations
    and time than either the technical specialist or the "professional
    mangager".
    
    Dick
    

    I often wondered why there were no "performance reviews" of managers
    done by their subordinates.  At a university that I attended, courses
    and professors were evaluated by those who took the course.  The
    evaluations were available for all to see.  It was not difficult to
    figure out which professors were effective, respected, and worth the
    salary.  In one case, repeated dissatisfaction with a professor's
    abrasive personality led to non-approval of tenure.
    
    I hear a lot of employees grumbling about their managers.  Perhaps
    their voices need to be heard in a "chorus" rather than a "solo"
    (open door?)
    
    If it were policy for employees to rate their managers and action
    was taken on the results over time, the company might be able to
    deal with some of the management problems that it now has.

Managers dont grow on trees. There are two ways we obtain them. Typically, 
they are promoted from amongst the staff after some miraculous decision that 
he/she is a comptent individual and should be given a chance - no vetting 
process whatsoever. Untypically, but often, they are recruited from outside 
because of - supposedly - an internal lack of some skill/talent/knowledge.

Let's consider the former first: If we had established a proper interviewing
process it is entirely possible that we would have a base culture of individuals
who are talented, ambitious but honest with good inter-personal skills. Those
who wish to be managers would then be cultivated from a group pre-disposed
to succeed as managers. It would also work wonders by increasing total
productivity for the individual contributors, wouldnt it?

Considering the latter: Such recruitment implies great risk, as the individual's
behaviour cannot a priori be assessed. It should not be permitted, I think,
and promotion should be made from within, for the very reason exposed above.
This is not unheard of in the computer industry, or elsewhere.

The flaw in both arguments above is that we have today a managerial class
which has a vested interest in its self-perpetuation. Since a fundamental 
change in the selection proceses must be mandated  by/from this class, 
it is unlikely that such will come about any time soon.

re .13;

You've got the facts right, but haven't made the necessary deductions.  Yes, if
the evaluation were top-down, we'ds get the same rotten managers again!  WE've
got a top management and organizational structure that REWARDS bad managers.
To change the quality of management, you've got to change the organization 
and/or the top management.

Get real (I hear you say). That won't change.  If that's the case, this whole 
crusade is IMHO totally hopeless.  Even good managers learn, after being 
bashed about a few times, what kind of behavior is desired by those upstairs.
Having figured this out, they either pursue their careers elsewhere or start
to produce the desired behavior.  Over time you end up right back where you
started.

Depressing, ain't it? 

-dave

    Actually many companies that are way ahead of us in cutting headcount
    AND are now recovering from it's negative effects, DO HAVE SUBORDINATES
    REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF MANAGERS.  Eastman Kodak is one such company.
    
    My brother-in-law who is the Technical Director of Eastman Kodak's AI
    group and in the AI Who's Who is evaluated by his subordinates every
    year.  If, in group, his subordinates trash him, he's out and the group
    has to find a new manager.  However, so far it hasn't happened that
    way.  And anyone who knows him, knows he's no marshmallow.  Actually,
    he's know has very demanding by subordinates, peers and superiors -
    he's no darned yes-man either.
    
    But his people know that if they do well, he'll support them and get
    them more that the goof-offs get.  He's smart and works harder than
    anyone else in the group.  He doesn't walk on water but so far the
    majority of his subordinates want to keep him AND his superiors listen
    to him.  He has a real cracker-jack group doing things we can't even
    dream of in DEC.
    
    So management evaluation by subordinates does exist, is successful
    and may be our only hope to get our competitive act together.  Too bad
    we beleive we can't learn from anyone else!

    REF:    <<< Note 1187.18 by GBMMKT::MCMAHON "Carolyn McMahon" >>>
                  -< Re: .15 Smart Cos. do evaluate managers >-

    >><<Actually many companies that are way ahead of us in cutting
    headcount AND are now recovering from it's negative effects, DO HAVE
    SUBORDINATES REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF MANAGERS.  Eastman Kodak is one
    such company.>>
    
    I sent that idea to Employee Involvement one year ago.  About two
    months ago the Employee Involvement Steering Committee for reviewing
    corporate-wide ideas finally got around to discussing it.  I was told
    they couldn't agree on WHO would make such a decision in policy.  They
    decided not to decide, instead deferring the idea to the Personnel
    Steering Committee, which didn't exist, so I was lead to believe,
    because Corporate Personnel was being reorganized.
    
    Can you spell U.S. C O N G R E S S ?
    
    LEADERSHIP on culture and policy changes must flow down from Ken Olsen;
    creating and driving change with full authority must flow up via
    decentralization of power.  
    

    There's a management tactic that I've seen in both Software (when it
    existed) and Sales that never fails to infuriate me.  A manager has a
    problem with one individual in his/her organization.  Rather than
    direct it behind closed doors to the person in question, the entire
    GROUP gets flamed, as if the problem is widespread, at the next meeting.
    People look around uneasily, wondering what's going on, knowing that
    they're not the offender.
    
    Is this something taught in DEC management classes ?  The only
    rationale for it beyond personal cowardice that I can see is the idea
    that, like children, you blame all equally and then depend on peer
    pressure to fix the problem.
    
    Sorry, this isn't a playground, and I'm not going to beat up a person
    who flies to a nearby location instead of driving.  Or who isn't making
    their numbers.  Or who isn't selling enough services.  Or chronically
    misses meetings.
    
    karl
    
    

    {The following is a suggestion submitted to SOCIAL::INVOLVEMENT}
    
Problems with managers: Too many, discontent, and some not very effective

   For the nearly fifteen years I have been with Digital, I have been hearing
   about the numbers and quality of our management and the quality of life of
   managers.  I was a manager for several short terms (9 months to 3 years) and
   I know the frustrations on both sides of the "wall".  (And more and more it
   really looks like a wall to some of our employees).

   Managers of managers of managers...

      We have gone through several "layer reduction" exercises, yet we still
      find that the layers return.  We have all seen "reorganizations" which
      result in one or two new layers of management.  Many employees have the
      opinion that this may be wasteful or tacit recognition of limits of
      management capability.

   Competent individuals as unwilling managers

      I know, and I am sure most people in Digital know, someone in a managerial
      position who is or appears dissatisfied with his/her role but can't seem
      to make the step of asking to be moved to a position which promises more
      effective and satisfying work.

   Managers of activities with little or no "Value added"

      In addition, there are managers who are responsible for activities they
      know are redundant, unnecessary or counterproductive, but who need support
      to take the drastic measure of putting themselves out of business.  They
      and their organization have talents that are needed elsewhere, but fear
      makes them hesitate to propose the change.

   No measurement of subordinates' satisfaction with their manager

      Although we pay lip service to participative management and "theory Z"
      management styles, very few managers of managers will evaluate a manager
      who gets results negatively based on his care for "our most important
      assets".  There is too much subjectivity involved in evaluating people
      management effectiveness.  Management style is like freedom of speech, we
      don't like obscenity in art, but we don't want to throttle self-
      expression with censorship either.


Solution: Voluntary Self-Assignment

   I believe there is an opportunity for a "simple" solution that will provide
   benefits for Digital as a whole, many of our most talented employees, and
   will assist us in refocusing on the work that is to be done.  As part of the
   restructuring effort, and to make a visible statement, we should provide a
   bonus to those managers who make difficult choices which go against the "path
   of least resistance".

   Part One: Bonus for managers changing to individual contributor positions

      Although leaving management for "contributorship" is supported within
      Digital, there are many who are unaware of the support or afraid to trust
      it.  We should provide them with stimulation to make their contribution
      individually.

      Keep Task/Project responsibilities

         These persons should not be relieved of their Task or Project
         responsibilities.  They should be freed of the "formal" responsibility
         for the people who currently work for them.  These current subordinates
         also will continue to perform their current jobs, now reporting to a
         new manager.

      Transfer of Responsibility

         The new manager for a group will also inherit accountability for the
         activity or project the group is engaged in, shared with the former
         manager as "technical contributor".

   Part Two: Bonus for managers who cancel activities or projects

      Any manager who can cancel the activities or projects of his/her group
      without affecting Digital revenue adversely should be rewarded with a
      bonus and the opportunity to join another group involved in more
      cost-effective work.  This provides the opportunity to eliminate
      unnecessary activity and should be well-rewarded.

      Preservation of service levels

         In order to avoid destructive dismantling of our infrastructure, such
         cancellations should be negotiated with internal customers.  The
         positive feedback from one's customer may not be the same as the bonus,
         but it does indeed clarify our mutual dependence relations and
         encourage expression of customer satisfaction.

   Choose a new organizational home for self and subordinates

      Managers who have the maturity to make such career choices are certainly
      trustworthy enough to allow them to choose (in consultation with their
      current employees) a new organizational home under another manager in the
      same or a different organization.


    
Forecasted Impact on Digital

   I cannot quantify the impact of this proposal, but it is clear that if it is
   successful we should see

   Reduction in Number of Managers

      Those who become Individual Contributors make a definite reduction in the
      number of managers within Digital.  Their subordinates change bosses, thus
      increasing the new manager's operating span.

   Reduction of Management Levels

      Those who cancel current activities or projects and remain managers do not
      reduce the number of managers, but if they do reduce the number of levels
      of management, that in itself is a benefit.

   Better Employee Job Placement

      With the prospect of a bonus for making the organizational change and the
      empowerment to select a new home, we should see fewer instances of
      "square-pegs-in-round-holes".  A better fit for Digital and the employees.

   Reduction in Non-essential Activities

      Identifying and eliminating redundancy or unnecessary activity is
      valuable, especially in the times we live in.  Digital should reap
      significant benefits by reducing the pressures against such changes.

   Process for Employee Evaluation of Management

      This "middle and bottom" reorganization will provide useful information
      about those who remain in the management chain.  They either received this
      kind of expression of trust or they did not.  Definitely useful (but
      possibly disagreeable) information.

    To .19: Great example of our cultural buck-passing!  What infuriates me
    is not that it's attempted BUT THAT IT'S ACCEPTED! Well, if committees
    don't work, then let's try another way.  I don't consider this
    revolution ... one can only revolt against something in power that
    works - & this obviously has no power and surely ain't workin'.
    
    To .20: What you mentioned is typical of a one-directional power
    structure.  Until we have mutual respect and power, it will remain this
    way - no matter how bad things get for Digital.  What we're short of is
    mutual respect and the way things are now, it will not happen.  it's
    obvious we are and have been short of this in the Marketplace.  Funny
    thing, mutual respect for an organization is like real beauty for an
    individual - it comes from the inside out.
    
    I don't know what goes on in Digital's managerial grooming school but I
    wager that whatever it is never makes it into practice anyway.  One
    really good rule-of-thumb that I learned elsewhere is, when in a hiring
    situation, ask yourself 2 questions:
    
    	1. Do Iwant this person working for me?
    	2. Would I want to work for this person?
    
    If the answer to either question is "no," don't hire the person.  This
    helps inherently poor people-managers from getting into the managerial
    queue.  Honest answers to these 2 simple questions could greatly
    improve the overall quality of our management.

    Re: all previous
    
    Can any parallels be drawn from yesterday's Massachusetts Primary
    Results?  It seems status quo was not accepted and those in power
    got the (justified?) blame.
    
    Re: 22
    
    Very good two-question rule.  But, another perspective always helps
    compass the issue.
    
       If the "ruling class" which looks for yes-men, people who
       don't rock the boat, those that do what they are told, ...  
    
       The second-question is valid only if the individual has alternative
       positions from which to select.  That choice does not exist as often
       today as it once did.  (Digital's growth has slowed, external
       job market in Massachusetts is dead -- remember Wang, Data General,
       Prime, ... reductions in force, ...).
    
   Regards,
    Joe
    
    So the spiral gets tighter, and tighter.

Once up on a time, there used to be King in India and he was from the family
who built TAJMAHAL. This king was known for his eccentric decisions on the 
kingdom.

Those days the king discovered that the paper currency was useless due to 
short life and constant reprinting. More over he realized that those who owned
Printing equipment  were making counterfeit currencies. Hence he ordered that 
all currencies will be in leather due to durability. However the king found 
out in the hard way that instead of printers, the cobblers are now making 
counterfeit currency and he decided to go back to the paper currency.

The same king also felt that the capital of his kingdom is almost at the top of
Northern corner of India and was constantly being attacked. Those days, once 
the capital is captured, the whole country falls. In order to have more time 
to prepare and  avoid surprise enemy attacks, the king decided to move the 
capital of his kingdom from the Northern tip of his kingdom to a place at the 
center of his kingdom. After making the decision, the king realized that 
there are no people at the new location. He had no one to rule. Hence he 
ordered his subjects to move from the old capital to new capital.
No exceptions and protesters were punishable by death penalty. Hence all 
subjects started moving from the old capital to new capital with their 
belongings in bullock carts and horses. Those days there were no cars !!. 
Half way in to the journey more than half the people died of starvation and 
heat. The king realized that he made the mistake in moving the capital and 
ordered all his people to move back to the old capital, thus reversing the 
decision and in the journey back , the almost the other half died.

These stories are NOT fiction and were real incidents and the name of the
king was MOHAMMED BIN TUGLAK ( TUGLAK ). 

Unfortunately in any organizations there are few TUGLAK managers. These  
TUGLAKs move around like a jello, making poor decisions thus screwing up the 
whole organization.

    Seems to me that TUGLAK managers think too narrowly when the situation
    calls for broad thinking and vice versa.  Guess that the thing that
    makes it so good managers think the right way for the situation is
    called WISDOM or maybe even just plain COMMON SENSE.

Cultural attributes of an organization, like a society, are formed over a great
period of time. For instance, the notion of the US as a democratic nation
was an innovative idea in 1776. It is now enshrined as an American
cultural attribute. This process takes a good many years. (Witness how difficult
it is for the Eastern block nations to make the switch.)

At Digital, the foremost cultural attribute is that we are an "engineering"
company. This attribute was instilled by its founders and is nurtured to this
day. It works. This company makes good products, because for more than thirty
years our customers have been buying them in ever increasing amounts. It is
not necessarily an engrained cultural attribute of this company to develop,
with long-term vision, a work-force which is "autonomous", ie. self managing,
within which managers are a reflection of the colleagues they manage. This
is due to the fact that our management precepts are largely parametric and 
relate mostly to the non-human aspects of making Digital successful, 
ie. bringing to market winning products. Development of the human resource 
requires other precepts, not always parametric (we cant necessarily measure 
them) and mostly behavioural. It would be time that such precepts began to
evolve, since the "time to market" is ever-so-long....

    RE: .26
    
    Unfortunatly when the bad times hit, the non-engineering segments of
    the comany are the first hit.  Marketing get especially hit because
    everyone thinks it's just sales.
    
    When I was in college, I was required to take marketing and the
    theory was presented that it was a three legged stool.  One leg
    sales, one leg advertising, one leg distribution.
    
    The point where DEC has problems is probably the last.
    
    I've spent the last 4 months in Anchorage Ak.  Last week I was
    listening to the radio and the commentator was talking bout IBM
    building the parts and fast distribution wharehouse in Memphis
    Tenn.  When a Field Engineer called IBM for a part, the call was
    handled by Federal Express who managed the wharehouse for them.
    By gosh did the part get there the next day by 10 am.
    
    Federal Express has just built a large distribution center in Anchorage
    for their international business.  Twenty dollars on who builds the
    next wharehouse here.
    
    A good marketing company cuts costs by cutting the cost of delivering
    and manufacturing product for customers by increasing yeild and
    decreasing delivery costs (Costs to market).  What are we doing?
    

    
    As it happens, we have a PC parts warehouse co-located with Federal
    as well.

    Another part of the equation is: 
    
    Is management a good place to be?
    
    In my case I was a manager for 3+ years and considered good by some. I
    saw that to be  a dangerous job though (given the state of the
    company/industry). So I'm now an individual contributor, just as happy
    and less at risk of losing my job eventually.
    
    What we need to do is reduce the numbers of managers so that the good
    ones aren't at risk of a potential wide-sweeping "layoff". 
    
    
    Not sure if that made sense to everyone/hope it wasn't redundant,
    Phil