Conference 7.286::digital

    
    The 115,000+ employees who are individual contributors WANT to build a
    more successful Digital, for their livilihoods and the welfare of their
    families are tied to Digital's continued prosperity.  These same
    115,000 employees know the changes needing to be made, both to cut
    waste and to increase effectiveness in getting and keeping customers,
    and in making money on satisfying customer needs and wants.
    
    Miliken, Kodak and Toyota are all proving that empowering "the people"
    of a company to change and build a company IS the better road to higher
    success than traditional top-down management by an elite management
    infrastructure.  If the 115,000, nay, all 125,000 are THE most
    important asset of the company, then should not GROUPS be making all
    decisions, driving change, with full authority, with each member of a
    given Digital group having an "equal vote" both on changes, as well as
    the "leadership" of that group?  Perhaps the head kahuna might consider
    decentralization of power and give us the right to vote; WE are not
    children needing told WHAT to do and HOW to do it and we do not need to
    be managed -- we want committed leadership in each group to help us
    excel, support us, and "enable" real change to take affect that will
    make Digital MORE successful.  Everyone should be franchised to build;
    not just the foremen.

    Dave, you just don't give up do you?  I don't want to be part of a
    Digital run by "groups", and with employees voting on issues.  We'll
    go down the chute even faster.
    
    I think our entrenched management, inflexible processes, and lack of
    real understanding of what our customers want remain unchanged.  Do
    you think Silber would be interested in a higher-paying job?

>    Dave, you just don't give up do you?  I don't want to be part of a
>    Digital run by "groups", and with employees voting on issues.  We'll
>    go down the chute even faster.
    
    (At first I thought you were talking to me, and I couldn't figure it
    out, seeing this is the first time I wrote a note in here - but then I
    found out that the .1 reply author was Dave too)
    
    Anyway, as the author of .0, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons
    for the above statement.  If you can convince me, it might make me feel
    better.  Because I don't believe it.  I _know_ that I could suggest a
    better reorg. than the one that is about to be implemented - but I'm
    about three levels below the level I'd need to be to influence the
    final decision - in the current, top-down, environment!
    
    I also don't understand what you mean by this:
    
 >   I think our entrenched management, inflexible processes, and lack of
 >   real understanding of what our customers want remain unchanged.
    
    Are you saying that you think that management would remain entrenched
    if we gave employees the vote on who stasy and who goes?  Not in my
    little corner of the world, I can guarantee that!   And how do you
    think inflexible processes get set up?  But bureacrats trying to
    justify their existence (no, not in all cases - but in a helluva lot of
    them!).  Finally, do you think top management has a better
    understanding of what the customer really wants than a salesman?
    
    I don't buy a word of it, but I am open-minded - so convince me!
    
    Dave
    

    re .3, DEC _is_ a democracy.  It is run by people appointed by
    directors who are elected by the owners, each with one vote per share.  
    What can be more democratic than that?  Is there _any_ democracy in the
    idea that the _employees_ should be allowed to vote the company's
    direction solely by virtue of their employment? If you want a vote in
    Digital, buy stock.  It's a bargain right now.
    
    And the thought that John Silber would see things any other way is
    absolutely absurd.  When I was a junior at BU, and I was involved in a
    tuition-hike protest, Silber told students that they deserved no voice
    in how the university operated because we were mere consumers.  "Buying
    a car doesn't give you the right to run GM" was his analogy.  He also
    told the faculty that they had no right to influence how the university
    ran because they were merely labor, and management was not going to
    surrender its perogatives.  Hence the faculty and staff strikes in my
    senior year.
    
    

    REF:             <<< Note 1191.2 by COOKIE::LENNARD >>>
                         -< DEC Ain't a Democracy!!! >-

    >><<Dave, you just don't give up do you?  I don't want to be part of a
    Digital run by "groups", and with employees voting on issues.  We'll
    go down the chute even faster.>>
    
    The bureaucracies and self-serving interests of dictatorship management
    of Eastern communistic countries shows that an unempowered people leads
    to econonomic disaster.  Ken Olsen has even stated that Digital's
    structure more resembles such countries and their economic states
    proves that it dooms any organization to failure.
    
    Pray prove your case indeed.  Show us the stellar U.S. companies where
    dictatorial and bureuacratic management where "thinking" and authority
    are limited to just the management structure is proving itself over
    companies such as Kodak, Milliken or Toyota where the troops are truly
    part of the family, all sharing responsibility to build and drive
    change, all sharing the authority, and in some cases, where employees
    are share in the rewards of greater success.
    
    DEC should be a democracy where we all employees have a stake in
    building a greater Digital, where each of us do more than just a job
    getting a paycheck with managers doing all the thinking and worrying
    and decision-making.
    
    Japan succeeds so well because everyone works together as one team and
    that truly means one team.  Even with unions, the workers and managers
    and executives still all work together, in harmony and cooperation.
    
    The stout cowboy individualism personal competitiveness of meism
    mentality is killing American companies and no amount of point
    solutions is working -- look at the lack of success of Deming's
    methodology in the U.S. and Europe despite 30 years of proven success
    in Japan.
    
    The entire Digital workforce needs to be galvanized and a democracy
    where all share the responsibility for success, with the authority to
    drive change, is the best solution.
    

    I can think of one right off the top of my head.....EDS, when Ross
    Perot was running it....and I mean running it.  Autocratic from the
    word go, with strict dress and behavorial standards, and highly
    profitable and successful.  They also beat the crap out of on virtually
    every government bid that we competed on.
    
    Also Chrysler during the turn-around years.  Also AeroJet where I
    worked ten years ago.  Managers called "sir", standing up in a
    conference room when a senior entered, dictatorial president that
    was highly respected...and BTW, a nice place to work.
    
    Don't kid yourself on the Japanese.  Senior management makes the
    decisions, and then everyone else goes through a process which to
    the uninitiated appears to be concensus forming.  What they are
    really doing is lining up behind management fiats.

    
    On a short-term basis, I will concede an organization can be successful
    under the autocratic, dictatorial rule of a CEO.  Fear is a great
    motiviator.  In the short run.  But I then argue that the company
    culture is built on a house of cards that fails the long-term
    prosperity of the organization when either the CEO bails out (like
    Perot selling out) or when the CEO ceases to be one of the team (like
    Iaccoca taking a $20 million dollar bonus, then closing plants
    alienating the workers).
    
    Chrylser is spiraling down again.  And EDS?
    
    The crux of the problem is power and whether "labor" (meaning all us
    individual contributors, white and blue collar, plus all managers,
    bottom moving up) should have a say in "how" we work as a company or
    not.  Taylorism says blind obedience to authority.  Yes, sir! and how
    high shall I jump, sir?
    
    Such a philosophy is a dianosaur and should be scrapped.  Or would you
    have Saddam types ruling the world, and all its organizations, forever?
    
    Every DEC employee should have the responsibility to do more than just
    the job called for by a manager.  Every employee should also hold the
    responsibility for using their intelligence "to think" creatively on
    what can be CHANGED to cut waste and increase productivity and enhance
    the effectiveness of all actions and functions to get and keep
    customers, and make money on assets accordingly.  And every employee
    should have also then a say in the decision-making of said changes, and
    a say to remove all impediments, like bureaucracy and self-serving
    interests incurred at the expense of the organization.
    
    Yes, Japanese corporations have not relinquished all power, although I
    seem to recollect that  someone posted that first line supervisors at
    Fujitsu are elected by the members of each given group.
    
    But there is no doubt in my mind that in most of the major Japanese
    corporations, and in Miliken, and in increasing segments of Kodak,
    employees are being listened to, and by subsequent default, customers,
    and change is occurring faster in building more successful companies
    because there is no longer blind obedience to authority where any given
    manager gets to determine "how" his or her fiefdom will be run, and
    balderdash on any open door policy, or employees thinking or being
    empowered.
    
    Iraq would argue it is successful as a country, with all falling into
    line, blind deference to authority without question, from the bottom
    right up the ranks to Hussein.  Yet will it last?  Is this autocratic,
    dictatorial really going to bring long-term prosperity to Iraq?
    
    Or more likely the insanity of war, with the people paying the price.
    
    There is not, nor ever will be, any competition to an organization, a
    company, or a country where literally ALL MEMBERS WORK TOGETHER IN
    HARMONY AND COOPERATION, building a dream, all sharing the work, the
    responsibility to build, the authority to change and progress, and,
    ultimately, an equal share of reward in accomplishing that dream.
    
    The philosophy of management vs labor being separate gets the same
    results as the government of Massachusetts vs the people of Mass.
    being separate.  Bureaucracy, stagnation, self-aggrandizement at the
    expense of all, fiefdoms, lack of leadership and decision-making.
    
    And ultimately, economic failure.
    
    If DEC cannot be a democracy, why should Massachusetts be a democracy?
    
    Why is one more effective, and not the other?
    
    Stockholders, citizens, Ken Olsen, Digital employees,
    all want the same thing.  Prosperity and long-term success.
    
    Democracy works better because its more fun.
    Working hard under fear in a dictatorship may work in the short run but
    must fail sooner or later.
    
    The people in Massachusetts get a say.  And exercised it.
    
    When will Digital's people get a real say in affecting change.
    
    When will management and employees become a single group, a single
    galvanized team, with no longer a them vs us.
    

    Dave, you're assuming (incorrectly) that "employee
    involvement/empowerment" equals "democracy".   It doesn't.
    
    Toyota is not a democracy;  Kodak is not a democracy.
    I doubt that one could find a single successful company run internally
    as a democracy.   Electing the board is as democratic as it gets.
    
    I've responded to your "Make Digital a democracy" notes with this
    before, and I'll do it here again:
    
    True democracy cannot and will not run a for-profit corporation
    successfully.   The ideal business structure, in my opinion, is a sort
    of benevolent autocracy.   The president is the leader.  He/she sets
    direction and corporate goals.  He/she sets corporate strategy.  Top
    executives execute that strategy;  managers manage the completion of
    the tactics which fulfill the strategies; workers do the tasks.  Take
    away that structure by having workers set corporate strategy, for
    instance, and your business is doomed to fail.   Want checks and
    balances like a democracy?  You already have them.  They're called
    directors, and they represent the shareholders who own the company.
    They oversee the actions of the top officer.  One problem with U.S.
    industry these days is that too many boards are just hollow
    organizations.  Boards of directors do need to be more involved in
    "managing" top officers.  But it is the implementation, not the
    structure, which must improve.
    
    Employee involvement is good.   But giving equal votes for running a
    company is not.   We're not in business for our employees.  We're in
    business to maximize return on equity to our shareholders.
    
    -DM-

    REF:            <<< Note 1191.8 by HYEND::DMONTGOMERY >>>
            -< Employee Empowerment is NOT the same as democracy! >-

    >><< The president is the leader.  He/she sets direction and corporate
    goals.  He/she sets corporate strategy.  Top executives execute that
    strategy;>>
    
    Agreed to this point.  But under those senior executives reporting to
    the president, I believe the future holds where the corporation's power
    structure will be turned upside down.  It is happening in Miliken,
    Kodak and Toyota.
    
    >><<managers manage the completion of the tactics which fulfill the
    strategies; workers do the tasks>>
    
    I believe absolutely that this is no longer an effective philosophy to
    build a successful company in the world today.  Common sense says that
    no manager can possibly ever "know" the work as well as the person doing
    the work.  Who better then to make decisions on changes in that work:
    manager or the worker?
    
    I believe in Miliken, Kodak and Toyota, the workers now as "groups"
    determine the work, determine the tactics, determine the changes to
    improve efficiency and effectiveness, make all decisions as a group,
    and have some say in the leadership of the group -- and there must be
    leadership.  Evidence in these pioneering major corporations suggests
    this IS more affective than the traditional business school philosophy
    that the "thinking" and ownership of responsibility with full authority
    is a no-no for those who do not have "manager" in their title.
    
    Who is the most important asset of this company?  ALL employees or just
    managers?  Under your scenario, all employees being the most important
    asset of Digital is then an empty piece of dialogue.  To have meaning,
    empowerment must include authority to create and drive the building of
    a company, and that must mean groups where all members have  ownership
    over the work and all changes affecting it, and its interdependent
    relationship to the work of all other groups in Digital.
    
    Again, why should Massachussetts be run differently than Digital?  Why
    can't the citizens just use an "open door" policy to affect change in
    how the government and agencies work in the state as all that work
    affects the people of the State.  After all, government officials
    "must" be more knowledgeable than the citizens who are doing all the
    work to produce the revenue that produces the State tax income. 
    Shouldn't government managers set the tactics and citizens just work;
    why should citizens have any say, and how could they possibly have any
    capability to contribute anything intelligent that would lead to a more
    prosperous state?
    
    Digital has 6,000,000 customers and 115,000 individual contributors,
    all of whom have the capability of "thinking" and applying their
    collective intelligence to creative change in a million subtle ways
    that would reduce costs and increase customers, margin and revenue.
    
    When will Digital franchise that brainpower and enthusiasm into a
    single team, working in harmony, where their is no longer any
    distinction between managers and "other" employees.
    

    re:.8 and other replies

    I am glad to finally see someone set it straight.  I was getting a
    little tired of this one person one vote non-sense.  A
    business, Japanese or otherwise can not function as a democracy.  Sure
    good managers should be hiring good people with new an innovative
    idears to stimulate products and growth (when have you seen this
    lately ?) but the manager still has to be the final decision maker.  He
    and he alone should take all responsibilities for the action of the
    group. The people in the group have responsibility for executing and 
    delivering the managers goals (or decisions). A good manager will listen 
    to his people and be able to make a good decision based on the input of 
    his group.  The problem I see here at DEC no one has to take responsibility
    for any actions, we have managers reporting to several different uppper
    level managers that have different goals and agendas.  The matrix
    management that this company grew so fast with is IMHO is what is
    starting to destroy us now.  

    The large profit margins of yesterday are gone, customers want partnerships
    with there computer company, and customers want standards so if we mess up
    they can go some place else with little interruption of business and at a
    minumum cost.  Until DEC realizes and restructures with a flatter
    organization (less management more workers) and a clear corporate message
    for all organizations this company IMHO is going to see very hard times. 
    We have some great people and some really good products but we need tighter
    control over the messages we are telling customers, clear lines of
    communication and cooperation within our own organizations. 

    We need people who "Do the right thing" even if it means 
    dissolving thier group because of redundancy. Today, managers are scared
    of saying thier group is redundant for fear of being transitioned out of 
    the company, we need tough decision makers and leaders in these hard times.

    Power to the people works for technical projects but IMHO not in 
    business.  

    
    re .9:
    
    David, you're starting to burn my butt again...
    
    1. If you think the entire company works in a dictatorial manner, you
       don't know what you're talking about. You may have lousy management
       in your neck of the woods, but where I work the individual             
       contributors can and do have a direct impact on the direction we
       take. Documentation people make suggestions to engineering,
       engineers make suggestions to marketing, etc, etc... AND THE
       SUGGESTIONS ARE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. So concentrate on making your piece
       of the world work better, and leave my piece alone!
    
    2. Take your comparison of Digital to state government to its full
       extent. We decide who will lead us, and then they make lots of
       decisions on our behalf -- WE DO NOT INDIVIDUALLY MAKE DAY-TO-DAY
       DECISIONS ON HOW THE STATE RUNS. What is missing in Digital is NOT
       the ability of individual contributors to make day-to-day
       corporate-wide decisions, but the ability to have even a small say
       in who makes those decisions for us. Review of managers by the
       managed would go a long way toward making the comparison complete.
       Individual empowerment to make corporate-wide decisions, as you
       espouse, can only lead to absolute chaos (for example, I decide that
       based on your rhetoric to date, I will ignore any decisions you make
       because I am convinced they will be bad for the company).
    
    
    I make my corporate influence the old-fashioned way -- I EARN IT!!
    
    

     REF:      <<< Note 1191.11 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >>>
    
    >><< Review of managers by the managed would go a long way toward
    making the comparison complete.>>
    
    Since we agree on this, I must not upset you all the time ;-]
    
    >><<Individual empowerment to make corporate-wide decisions, as you
    espouse>>
    
    Not true.  I espouse individual empowerment to have an equal say on
    GROUP-WIDE decisions in which the individual is a member.
    
    Corporate-wide decisions are made at the top, and as now exists, can be
    influenced since Ken Olsen has explicitly stated, Oct 1989 DECWORLD,
    "We encourage people to express their opinions and to therefore help in
    the formulation of policy."  That would not change.
    

    re: 
    
>>    Again, why should Massachussetts be run differently than Digital?  
    
    There's an easy answer:
    
    Digital is a publicly held corporation with a fiduciary responsibility
    to the shareholders to maximize return on equity through maximizing
    profit.  That's it.  Everything else, including social responsibility,
    is secondary to the primary reason for the existence of the
    corporation.
    
    Massachusetts (at least the part you're talking about) is a government.
     It has judicial, executive, and legislative branches to represent and
    protect the rights, and the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of
    the residents of the Commonwealth.
    
    The corporation must operate to turn a profit.  This, by nature,
    requires a corporate leader, corporate strategy, executives,
    management, and workers.
    
    The government must operate to protect the people it represents.
    
    Here's another fundamental difference.   The corporation serves its
    owners, not its employees; while the government serves the people it
    represents.   Democracy is appropriate for a government of the people,
    for the people, and by the people.   It is not appropriate for a
    corporation of the employees, for the shareholders, by the management.
    
    -Monty-

    REF:           <<< Note 1191.13 by HYEND::DMONTGOMERY >>>
                            -< Since you asked... >-

    Fair enough.
    
    >><<Here's another fundamental difference.   The corporation serves its
    owners, not its employees; while the government serves the people it
    represents.   Democracy is appropriate for a government of the people,
    for the people, and by the people.   It is not appropriate for a
    corporation of the employees, for the shareholders, by the
    management.>>
    
    Here we disagree.  And indeed, as a fundamental difference, the major
    Japanese corporations, now among THE largest in the world, "owning" so
    to speak several industries "invented" in the U.S., hold that while
    investors are entitled to return on investments, the corporation does
    first serve the interests of all its employees for it is recognized in
    Japan that indeed the most important asset is its employees, all
    employees, for it is the workforce, and the creative intelligence
    within each member, that uses the tangible assets of the corporation TO
    MAKE MONEY and it is only through incorporating the entire workforce
    into all decision-making and creative change that that workforce is
    franchised into driving change, focusing daily on fine-tuning the
    money-making engine that is the company.  A Win/Win situation for all.
    
    In the West, we still have a Win/Lose situation where employees are
    held as "resources" to be dispensed with at will, of no consequence to
    the ability of a company to make money, and to ensure long-term profit
    and prosperity.  Major Japanese corporations routinely have 10 and 20
    year plans and discussions out 50 to 100 years.  The West thinks only
    in terms of quarterly profits, discarding workers to "show" profit to
    impress "Wall Street investors" and short-term thinking professional
    bureaucratic managers whose only drive is to fulfill "personal"
    ambition and success, routinely at the expense of those below and
    around.
    
    It is the people within Digital that made Digital successful.  All of
    us, together, collectively are THE asset that generates revenue and
    profit for this corporation.  And only when ALL of us are empowered
    with authority and franchisement to drive change and build something
    greater can significant growth in revenue and margin take place. 
    Without it, Digital's prosperity rides solely on some brilliant,
    committed engineers once again hitting the market just right, and the
    employees who are still committed to working hard, even if they have no
    voice, and are frustrated when change is thwarted and impeded by those
    managers who refuse to incur risk by driving change that is upward
    driven from employees and customers rather than downward dictated by
    higher ups where it has been officially santioned, allowing now no risk
    if any failure down the line.
    
    It just seems a shame when so much more could be realized by a
    different approach, already being tried and proven in the United
    States, as in Kodak.

    Since Kodak is a large customer, perhaps KO should meet with the CEO of
    Kodak who is 100% in favor of flipping the company upside down,
    empowering employees with authority, and hear it directly from a peer.
    
    And then perhaps meet with the CEOs of Toyota and Miliken.
    

    Dear Mr. Carnell,
    
    While you seem to be suddenly enamored with the 'democracy' and
    wonderful example of Milliken & Co., I suggest that you look beyond the
    recent publicity of it's employee 'empowerment' and understand what
    that really means in context.
    
    Read your history, talk to anyone in the offices in the Carolinas who
    dealt with Milliken (a customer in the 70's) -especially those who
    spent any time on-site - and, more importantly, get out old newspapers
    and read about Roger Milliken.
    
    Roger Milliken ran that company in one of the most autocratic manners
    of any American business leader.  The labor history was even bloodier
    than when Henry Ford let his strong arm man 'take care' of the union
    problems.
    
    Based on my experiences, albeit in the late 70's, empowerment at
    Milliken may mean the end of bullpens, timeclocks and scheduled coffee
    breaks for professionals.
    
    If you are going to hold up Milliken, Kodak or anyone else as an
    example, cite what they have done - SPECIFIC examples that would apply
    to the business that Digital is in.
    
    Yes, they may have 'empowered' workers and work groups at low levels,
    similar to what we HAVE DONE in many of our manufacturing sites, BUT
    there was and still is STRONG leadership and direction FROM THE TOP and
    that is passed as clear and powerful messages (hate to use that term)
    thru middle management.
    
    THAT is what my definition of empowerment is - tell me or my group
    what our goal and target is and let us decide how to achieve it, NOT
    let us decide what our goal and our job is.
    
    IMHO (based on 15 years here) one of our biggest problems is the
    committee and consensus structure - leading to special interest groups
    and stovepipes.  Today, more than ever, there is a need for clear
    direction and leadership and, more importantly, a single, company and
    organization wide focus and target to enable all of the 1xx,000
    employees to go forward.
    
    As an example, you are dismayed at the hue and cry against (or worse,
    lack of any response to) your proposals.  One of the reasons for that
    IMHO, is that those proposals do not communicate clear direction and
    leadership.  Rather, they are verbose and filled with generalities and
    phrases open to a considerable variation in interpretation.  That is
    what the majority of comments in this file are complaining about from
    senior management, except for the recent comments about too detailed a
    level of direction.
    
    Please, if you are going to keep pushing employee empowerment, then
    clearly define what you mean.  That will let us either agree with you
    or disagree and then, maybe a consensus definition can be reached.
    
    I personally, as both an employee and a stockholder, do not want
    Digital to be a democracy.
    
    Yes, I do want to be involved in setting MY (and my groups) goals and I
    do want to be able to go after those goals in the manner I feel is most
    effective - THAT is my definition of 'empowerment'.  In 15 years here,
    there has only been case where I was not allowed to do that and I took
    the appropriate action to resolve that situation.  Digital has
    certainly 'empowered' me more than any of my previous (3) employers.
    
    Please David, be part of the solution!
    
    	-Barry-
    

    re:  .15
    
    Sorry!
    
    I broke one of my own 'commandments' and wrote a 69 line response that
    was emotional and not clear and concise.
    
    	-Barry-
    

    
    Ref: .0 basenote
    
    Speaking of the political arena, I see on the national news this
    morning that there is indeed a groundswell movement in the U.S. where
    fed up voters are voting out of office long-term professional
    bureaucrats in favor of non-politicians who promise real leadership,
    solving problems and making decisions.  Oklahoma apparently just passed
    a state law limiting time in public office to 12 years.  Another
    grassroots coalition is THRO - Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out.
    
    Ref: .15 Barry Milberg
    
    Miliken in the 70's indeed had a bad reputation.  But we are talking
    about the Miliken of the PRESENT, a much different Miliken since Roger
    became enlightened and took a chance on a radical new philosophy of how
    a company culture should work in determining how the corporation works.
    
    If you don't like Miliken, there is Kodak and Toyota.
    
    Regarding examples, I have provided these, posted elsewhere.  Regarding
    greater detail and MORE examples within these companies, that is the
    responsibility of Digital executive management to go visit them and
    meet with their CEO's to determine if said radical approaches are
    indeed better approaches to building and maintaining the prosperity of
    a corporation.
    
    Regarding being verbose, that's my privilege.  If you don't want to
    read, hit next unseen, as is the privilege of all of us noters and
    readers of electronic memos.
    
    Regarding specific action steps, I have within my verbage outlined at
    least 50 specific changes, all of which are interlinked with the theme
    I espouse.  Most are listed in the memos posted in the DELTA_IDEAS
    conference.  The changes are explicit and are not vague at all.
    
    Regarding whose ideas are or are not part of the solution that gets
    implemented, that's what Ken Olsen and his Executive Committee get to
    decide.
    
    Regarding democracy in business, if you don't want it, that's your
    decision.  Some of us, however, would rather have a greater say in
    self-determination.  We do not want to be co-dependents anymore either
    to dysfunctional bureaucratic practices or to "dad" (read manager)
    doing all the thinking for us, making all decisions with us "just"
    doing the work, just meekly following along, taking no ownership for
    creative change when things are no longer peachy keen.  Under your
    scenario of dictatorship management structure with managers making all
    decisions, having all authority, us 115,000 individual contributors are
    not responsible for the current state of affairs since managers made
    and still make all decisions since they own all authority.  If we have
    another quarterly loss of a couple hundred million, do you espouse
    replacement of 10,000 managers?  After all, they own all the
    responsibility since they own all the authority to affect change.
    
    And pray, what is your solution to our dilemna as an alternative to
    mine?  Please detail the action steps supported by logical argument and
    examples that will lead us to prosperity once again.  Perhaps you do
    indeed have the better plan for KO.  Please post your plan that you
    sent to Ken Olsen.
    

    A friend of mine works for a hi-tech company owned by Toyota.
    We spent long time discussing various aspects, and yes, all employees
    make suggestions, but not to a box or a notes files.

    A member of a group has to convince his group then the groups proposal
    gets higher, next level has to be convinced etc. The big boss ( MR
    Toyota ?) makes hardly any decisions at all. Amazing but all
    these task forces and committees work. BUT, from time to time , THE
    BOSS, makes a decision and then.... it's a thunder. It may be expensive
    and "crazy" but no questions are asked, execution is immediate.

    My friend gave me an example but, I don't recollect it in detail.

    How does that differ from our world ? If you have an idea, you have to
    convince people around you that it is a good one. If your group can
    convince other groups in your organization, idea will get further.

    We are already there in some respect, but now, it's too slow for some
    people. It is very slow at Toyota also.

    BTW, my friend quit last month and all Japanese gather around him very
    cross, they never faced this situation before.

    								
    Does Toyota have marketing ? No. When a marketing study is needed,
    all employees talk to neighbors etc.. 

    Can't wait to hear my neighbors opinions on token rings .

    				sincerely,

    					Y. Ours

    ML, 

    You just don't give up do you?  

    You get an "A" in my book for persistence !

    I just happen to get into these Notes. I initially added this entry
    because of a memo off of a distribution list authored by 
    Dave Carnell.

    I like the Celtics Notesfile much better. To begin with when
    someone takes the time to propose a solution it gets critical review
    but everyone is supportive. Except sometimes from those rowdy Lakers
    fans. Not so in this File.

    Next point is that in the Celtics Notes everyone makes fun of
    "Bottom-Line" Cohen because we all know the "bottom-line" is not
    first, last and always money. Not so in this File.

    Also as Celtics fans no matter which player is our own personal
    favorite, when the team loses no one ever says, " but my favorite
    player had a great game !"  Not so in this File.

    In the Celtics Notefile, I find a deep love for the team. I also
    don't find the rancor and the divisiveness there that I do in other
    Notesfile. It reminds me that when teams are going through tough
    or losing times, the teams with pride like our Celtics gain
    strength by coming together rather than tearing each other to
    shreds.

    I have been at Digital for nearly 17 years. In that time it seems
    to me that our philosophy has embraced three distinct constituencies:
    Customers, Stockholders, and Employees many of whom are also 
    stockholders. I don't remember Ken ever saying the bottom-line is
    money and to the stockholders only. I also don't remember Ken saying
    that once a solution is proposed we don't have responsibility to 
    each other or to not help to make the solution better. I also don't
    remember ever reading about Ken saying to any of us to "stay in
    your own neighbohood." 

    Not like I heard in this Notesfile.

    So cheer up ML, and come back to where the Noters care and give
    support to each other.

    Regards,

    Edwin