Conference 7.286::digital

    
                            DECLARE THEM DEAD
    
    Just out for a long sickness?  We thought you were dead and that's why
    we stripped your workstation area and put it all in the basement plus
    gave your job to someone else.  You can go get it yourself, even if you
    are just back part-time this week, still recovering from two major
    operations in the last 4 months.
    
    Actual case.

    
                        DEMOTE THEM WITHOUT CAUSE
    
    Corporate does all the creating of ideas; the field just implements. 
    Digital doesn't need you creating ideas.  Your job is eliminated and
    since you're now redeployable, your new job is three levels lower.
    

    
                 QUESTION WHETHER YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW
    
    I think it's against copyright law for you to quote something from 
    published material, like any excerpt more than one sentence.  Do you
    have PERMISSION IN WRITING?  You could go to jail.
    

    
                          QUESTION THEIR SANITY
    
    You should use Digital's employee assistance to program to get
    professional counseling because there MUST be something wrong with you
    to want to write your ideas and opinions to the executives of this
    company.  Repeat "must be something wrong with YOU" at least six times
    in a 45 minute conversation, which was meant to discuss the idea being
    submitted upward.
    

               HIT THEIR POCKETBOOK, HIT 'EM WHERE IT HURTS
    
    Raises?  You're not "entitled" to a salary appraisal or any raise ever.
    Follow-up by never giving any raises (or at worst case, a token $1 a
    week raise).  Make it economically unpalatable to remain in Digital.
    

    
                         NO MERCY PERSONAL ATTACK
    
    YOU'RE STUPID!  What was the idea you mentioned again?  Never discuss
    the content and merits of a thought.  Always attack personally and
    strive to sever the jugular.
    

    
            DO NOT ALLOW THINKING UNLESS ENTITLED BY POSITION
    
    Who ARE YOU to think you can express an idea or opinion?  You want to
    change something, you get the power FIRST, then YOU can do what YOU
    WANT.  No power and authority, no right to speak.  Emphasize often.
    

    
                       THE FINE ART OF THE PUT DOWN
    
    Here's a Digital worry-ball.  Everytime you think you might "think and say
    something" in our meeting, just give the ball a squeeze.  
    

    
                   USE PROVEN TACTICS OF THREATENED VIOLENCE
    
    If you don't shut your F****** mouth, I'm going to smash it in.
    
    [P.S. all listed ways I'm posting are actual incidents in Digital]
    

    While I think it is deplorable and shocking that these things go on
    inside Digital they are not unique to Digital alone. I have seen these
    things go on at other companies. There will always be people who build 
    kingdoms or empires; anything that disturbs that kingdom must be
    neutralized. There will always be people wanting to be king some day;
    advancement has its necessary evils. There will always be cowards.
    That is the nature of the world.
    
    If anyone can figure out how to keep these people out of Digital, the rest
    of the world can truely benefit from the same technique.

    A more subtle technique that works if the person wants to continue to
    advance: make that person one of "you". There are few people that will
    knock out the platform from under their own feet.

    
                            BENEVOLENT REBUFF
    
    Your idea?  Oh yeah.  We discussed it.  Didn't fit.  Rufusing bluntly
    without reasons but doing so in a kindly mannner does wonders.
    

    
                         WE HAVE WAYS TO MAKE YOU
    
    Your opinions and ideas are disruptive to the group and thus your
    behavior is unacceptable.  If you do not stop [speaking your mind], you
    will be subject to disciplinary procedures.  Be a good child, seen but
    not heard; otherwise, the stick!
    

    
                         TRIAL BY KANGEROO COURT
    
    They don't like you, your ideas, your opinions, your suggestions for
    change.  Who is "they"?  Can't say but I'm just trying "to help" you by
    passing along some "good" advice.  Casting doubt via conviction by
    unseen parties who, if "they" exist, will not stand up ethically and
    prove by logical argument and ethical conduct "the why's."
    

    
    "WE AREN'T DOING THIS SIX-SIGMA, SO SHUT UP!!!!!!"
    
    Also important to not only shout, but turn red with eyes ablazing,
    chest puffed out.  This is a proven technique in nature where any
    critter threatened demonstrates anger and makes itself bigger than it
    really is.  Example: a cat whose fur stands on end, eyes hard, hissing
    and spitting.  Excellent intimidation technique.
    

    
    You're more valuable to the corporation then you are to MY group.  That
    has to change.  You may be making a lot of people in the company more
    productive but that doesn's benefit MY group so STOP doing it NOW! 
    Demand allegiance to the sovereign of the group and to nothing else.
    Or else.
    

    
    NEVER GIVE CREDIT TO ANYONE FOR ANY IDEA YOU CAN CLAIM AS YOUR OWN
    
    Your idea?  Don't be silly.  That was MY idea that got me the big
    promotion and big raise.  You say you sent me a memo with it a year
    ago?  No, you didn't.  If you're going to be so self-centered, don't
    bother talking and communicating with me again.  Good-bye.
    

    
                               OMNIPOTENCE
    
    YOU have an idea?!  I've got too many of MY own to even implement. How
    could yours possible contribute anything when I have so many!!!!
    

    
                           DICTATORIAL APPROACH
    
    I'm in charge and I say we ain't doin' no employee involvement stuff.
    End of discussion.  PERIOD.
    

    
    
    In case it is not self-evident, this topic is to assist Jack Smith in
    understanding the "how" that has led to many employees NOT contributing
    ANY ideas or opinions to cut expense and/or to build a more successful
    Digital, more customers, margin, revenue; to submit "annonymously"; and
    to indicate the reason of fear for not doing so, all of which was
    brought out in Jack Smith's most recent DVN telephone dialogue with
    several employees in Digital.  Jack said repeatedly that he did not
    understand the problem behind this.  While other topics in the DIGITAL
    conference touch on the "why", this topic addresses some of the
    "specific how's" that have led to fear and apathy.
    
                         DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE?
             Please do the right thing ethically and post it
    
    But, if you are afraid to do so, then send it to a moderator or me and
    one of us will do it for you, keeping you annonymous.  My e-mail
    addresses are David Carnell @ALF or SAHQ::CARNELLD
    

    If someone "tattles" to you about your subordinate, agree with them and
    apologize and then get on the subordinates back.  Never ask if that
    person has discussed this with the subordinate - just take the
    tattle-tales point of view and use it against the subordinate at
    his/her next review.  We want to keep subordinates grunting (even in
    unproductive directions) BUT we want them to do this without
    intelligent thought or concern.

    If a subordinate comes up with too many good ideas or there arnings
    about failure prove correct, resort to slander.  Use other people's
    names or whatever you need to make your slanderous case - because even
    if Personnel checks it out and finds out you've slandered a
    subordinate, they'll smooth it out and stick behind you, the manager.
    
    No matter how much compassion a Personnel person may have for a
    situation, they'll almost always come out on the manager's side.
    
    Actual Case

    When a subordinate comes to the attention of others for doing
    something good but he/she isn't part of your in-crowd, give him/her a
    pin or ashtray or some other trinket - BUT make sure you discount
    his/her contribution at review time.  After all, you already gave
    him/her a trinket!  And you wouldn't want that person to get ahead of
    you, would you!
    
    Eventually, he/she will get tired of trying to contribute - but there
    are always others to come along.  Just use them up and throw them away.

    Illogical RIDICULE ... that's a good one to use if someone tries to
    bring an idea from the "outside" into our thinking process.  After all,
    there is no world outside Digital, no other establishment ever had our 
    problems or could possibly have been smart enough to find solutions that 
    would work here.  WE'RE TOO UNIQUE, too complex, too special, etc.
    
    And anyone who thinks otherwise is STUPID or even worse, DISLOYAL.  So
    ridicule them whenever possible.  It helps to keep the group-think
    muddled and it's easier to hide our mistakes in a muddled environment.

    If a subordinate really has a good idea (i.e., you're capable of seeing
    that right off the bat), pooh-pooh it and then later come up with it
    yourself!  Everyone else is so inferior that they'll never remember who
    actually thought it up, and you'll be hailed as a genius!
    
    Eventually that subordinate will burn out, of course.  But there are
    plenty of corners we can shove them into when that happens ... and
    along comes another thinker we can use up.
     
    P.S. Actually, I've learned to use this phenomenon to give some ideas
    that would really be good for Digital a chance.  I find an in-crowd,
    receptive male and plant the seed, do my best to nuture it from afar
    and hope it takes root.  Unfortunately, the idea often gets distorted
    on the way and goes awry.  But sometimes it works.  

            
                    QUESTION THEIR ACTUAL ON-THE-JOB PRODUCTIVITY
    
    Extract and size all the notes the offending employee has added to
    conferences over the course of his/her employment, regardless of merit.
    Only extract topics and replies posted during the employee's business 
    hours. Run the compiled text file through a word counting routine, and 
    then divide the word count by the assumed typing speed of the individual.
    Add up the nonproductive time spent by the employee haranguing others in 
    notesfiles.  Terminate the offending employee for taking daily
    unauthorized leave.

    Let them use the "Open door policy" then kick them out for
    insubordination!  I didn't get kicked out but I did get written up for
    taking my issue to my bosses boss a few years back.  He even told me, in
    no uncertain terms, to never go above his head again.  Lesson
    learned....Don't believe an open door policy exists unless you want to
    commit career suicide.

    
         CREATING IDEAS AND WRITING THEM DOWN IS NOT COMPANY BUSINESS
    
    Writing memos and/or writing notes that DO relate to ideas or opinions
    or suggestions to build a better and more successful company are NOT
    part of your "official" job.  Stay in your cube or else.  Mind your own
    business.  YOU are NOT paid to be creative OUTSIDE YOUR job
    description.  Period.  Encouragement from "corporate" is just "public
    relations" and isn't really meant to be acted on by employees like YOU.
    

    
    Or just send your ideas directly to Jack Smith and you won't have to
    deal with any of the previous replies.
    
    /prc

    
    This note gives us two very valuable pieces of information:
    
    	1) a long list of tactics to watch out for
    
    	2) proof positive that they don't always work (not sure whether
    	   this is good news or bad...)
    

    re.0
    
       Transferring said "trouble-maker" to another department the day 
    after said "trouble-maker" was asked to contibute opinion at group
    meeting. Once there, inform said "trouble-maker" to look for another
    job or face being put into transition.  
    
       Tis' a fact.
    
                                                 Ron B.
    

	re .10 (Brunner):

>>>    While I think it is deplorable and shocking that these things go on
>>>    inside Digital they are not unique to Digital alone...
>>>
>>>    If anyone can figure out how to keep these people out of Digital, the rest
>>>    of the world can truely benefit from the same technique.

	Conceded that the average company, or even most companies,
	suffer from these behaviours.

	But we believe, don't we, that Digital can and should be in the
	top 10% - or 1% - or 0.0001%? In fact, that it can  and should be
	absolutely the best.

	So let's keep looking for ways to transcend the normal, the
	everyday, the human. We're on the leading edge!

	re .26 (Moeller):

>>>    Add up the nonproductive time spent by the employee haranguing others in 
>>>    notesfiles.  Terminate the offending employee for taking daily
>>>    unauthorized leave.

	Are you sure you're approaching this topic in the right spirit??

	/Tom

	Tell the employee that he is generally disliked by his fellow
	employees. Suggest that his behaviour falls short of social
	acceptability in some ill-defined but decisive way. Make it
	clear that he isn't liked, trusted, or "one of the boys".

	After a couple of doses of this (preferably delivered at the
	end of a 12-hour night shift or similar), the employee should
	feel so guilty, uncomfortable and resentful that he really
	starts behaving like a friendless loner.

	The key to this strategy lies in never specifying what the
	problem is, exactly. Just say "you don't seem to get on with
	the others", or "I've been getting a lot of negative feedback
	about you". This effectively blocks any attempts at improvement,
	as any change can be depicted as a move in the wrong direction.

	I have seen this used several times by managers who were
	themselves generally disliked and distrusted. Some sort of
	transference? Nonetheless it is supremely effective - unless
	the employee recognises it. In that case, just laugh and say
	"Oh, the old "social leper" trick! You'll have to do better
	than that". Then walk out, invite all the other members
	of your group out for a beer, and tell them all about the
	conversation you just had.

	/Tom

	Stage 1: When the employee makes a suggestion, ignore it
	completely.

	Stage 2: When the suggestion is repeated, rather more firmly,
	continue to ignore it as long as possible. Then say you'll
	look into it.

	Stage 3: Do nothing about the matter. If the employee gives up,
	you win - climb two rungs up the golden ladder. If the employee
	persists, point out that you're "getting rather tired of this
	subject", and you "really don't want to hear any more about it".

	Stage 4: At some stage, the employee will crack. This may happen
	when you announce that someone in some other group has just won
	a cruise in the Caribbean for making the identical suggestion, or
	that another team has just pulled off some terrific success because
	they had been given what this employee was denied.

	         Typically, the employee will stand up in a meeting and
	scream "%^$#@%^$% you &^%s of *&^%$#%$s, if you'd listened to me
	this %^$#%$ %$@#*^&% would never have happened!" (or words to that
	effect".

	Stage 5. You have now won. Announce publicly that the employee
	HAS BEEN RUDE. No other statement need be made. Totally ignore
	the subject under discussion, the suggestion, etc. Quietly
	suggest to the employee that he had better move to another
	continent (or, preferably, galaxy) if he ever wants to get
	a review again. ("None of the managers in this facility will
	have any time for you - they know YOU WERE RUDE").

	/Tom

    If you are a senior manager, arrange to have employee's immediate
    manager walk out of your office just as the person who asked to see
    you show's up.  This used to work really well in a previous job...

    
                    TELL THEM TO GO AND WORK AT AMPEX
    
    When an employee makes the mistake of asking a question concerning
    pay raises at an open forum meeting, make sure you scream at the
    top of your lungs in front of 500 of their peers that if they don't
    like it they can go and damned well work someplace else......
    waving your finger in their face and sweating on them adds a little
    drama to it. 

    
                     SEND ANONYMOUS "SCARLET LETTERS"
    
    David,

    I've been thinking about adding one that happening to me awhile back,
    but taking you up on your offer, I'd like to ask you to post it for me
    anonymously, if you think it's worth repeating.

    An effective way to silence an employee who is trying to change some
    things that are wrong is to send him vaxmail anonymously.  You've all
    seen the vaxmail hack where the author field is simply something like
    "YOUR SEMI-FRIENDLY ADVISOR" (with no node name or anything), and in
    the text is a message something like:

    Your noises are being heard, but you are rocking the boat.  The
    situation cannot and should not be changed for various reasons that you
    do not need to understand.  If you persist in trying to make these
    changes, the top dogs are getting very upset with you, and heads may
    roll (yours) as a result.

    This actually happened.  Yea, I know, mail like this can be tracked
    down via NETSERVER.LOG and things, but on a large system, getting the
    systems people to do that task is like pulling teeth around here. 
    (Please, no ratholes about system managers).  I still don't know who
    sent that mail and probably never will.  If it was *really* a "friend",
    then that person could have at least had the common courtesy to send
    "regular" vaxmail.
    

    1. Tell the employee, even if he is a principal engineer, that the
    problem is being "worked" by others on the "team" (when you know
    damned well that the problem is not being "worked", except maybe
    for years off).
    
    2. When the employee attempts to analyze the problem nonetheless,
    ask him to include the people who don't want to work on the problem.
    
    3. When he finds a method that might work, but involves significant
    management time for coordination, tell him that "we cannot have a
    technology shift in a maintenance release". Pay no attention to the
    memos coming in telling you how bad the problem is.
    
    4. When the employee has the gall to talk about his proposed solution
    in a public status review meeting, just look very uncomfortable, and
    then call him into a private conference room, in which you:
    
    a. Ask him how he is doing, and listen attentively for his response.
    
    b. Tell him that, in fact, he is doing terribly, that everyone in
    the group has been by your office to complain about him or something
    he is doing,
    
    c. Tell him that your feedback system and his feedback system seem
    to yield different results for some reason. (This is the one that
    is most effective: it says "if you ask them, they'll lie to you!").
    
    d. Tell him that you are going to get personnel to bring in a
    consultant to verify which feedback system is correct.
    
    5. If the employee, out of loyalty to the Corporation, still persists,
    claim that the Consulting Engineer of the group came up with the
    solution, along with the person who was working on the next major
    version, when in fact the former had done what his title implies - given
    pointers, advised, and reviewed - and the latter had done nothing.
    
    6. When the employee finally realizes that he will get no recognition
    for essentially saving the product and allowing the sales of probably
    $5 million VAXstations as a result of the innovation (to customers
    which required it for the sale to proceed), the employee will probably
    show some sort of anger or hostility. When that happens, you can show
    him to the door. He will WANT to go.
    
    Actual case. NAC, 1988-1989

    
    
    I fail to see what this litany of woe achieves, other than lowering
    morale.

    .0 - .39
    
    Read note 1230.0 before you reply to this base note.

    re .40 maybe it explains why morale *is* low ?

    Supply fixes, not problems.

    
    Ref: .40 - 43 LESLIE, CHARBONND, MAGID
    
    I support your belief that ALL employees should take pride in their
    work, and positively contribute to change and building a better and
    more successful Digital.  What makes you think most employees don't
    take pride?  And on the other hand, what makes you think most really
    think they have any responsibility to turn things around through
    utilizing their intellect and intuition to create and drive change, and
    in spite of havng to fight against an entrenched bureaucracy into on
    control above all else?  I think most are just "waiting" for ol' Ken
    and Jack to make things better; thus, the very low level of employee
    involvement in creating and affecting change.
    
    You would have us all deny what dysfunctional practices that exist just
    for the sake of thinking positive and that alone will secure our
    future!  Without the revealing of ALL problems and discussing them
    openly, there can never be change.  NEVER.
    
    Thus, you are guilty of preaching that all Digital employees should be
    pollyanna's.
    
    WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY
    
    pollyanna - noun.  One having a disposition or nature characterized by
    irrepressible optimism and a tendency to find good in everything; an
    overly and often BLINDLY optimistic person.
    
    We have too many blind people now and too many willing to be and STAY
    blind, giving up all responsibility for turning Digital around PLUS
    creating and incurring methodical change to increase efficiency and
    effectiveness to build a better and GREATER Digital than ever was to
    date.
    
    Your advocating we all remain blind contributes little to solving REAL
    shortcomings of the system and operating culture of this company.  For
    too long the culture of Digital has effectively SQUELCHED all attempts
    to reveal problems and your attempt to blame low morale on those now
    willing to stand up and reveal some ugly truths is another blatant
    attack and attempt at silencing intelligent discussion, albeit even if
    around a global electronic water cooler, to discern facts from fiction
    and perhaps set a course of change that will make for a better Digital
    in which to work where all employees can have a true sense of being a
    "partner" in building a great enterprise.
    
    Your words bespeak co-dependency: deny, deny, deny.
    

    I didn't hear Andy *deny* that any problems exist. I didn't hear
    Andy suggest anybody *else* deny that any problems exist. Strikes
    me that it's an equally Pollyanna attitude to spend your time
    grousing and assuming that a priori the grousing will set things
    right.

>                Without the revealing of ALL problems and discussing them
>   openly, there can never be change.  NEVER.

    This is silly. If my car has a flat tire and a scratch in the
    door, I can't fix the tire until I paint the car? Get real. The
    more you indulge in obvious hyperbole, the less seriously you will
    be taken in more reasoned suggestions.

.26 is still my favorite!

;-)

    Ref: <<< Note 1228.45 by STAR::BECK "Paul Beck" >>>
        
    "Without the revealing of ALL problems and discussing them openly,
    there can never be change.  NEVER."

    >><<This is silly. If my car has a flat tire and a scratch in the
    door, I can't fix the tire until I paint the car? Get real. The
    more you indulge in obvious hyperbole, the less seriously you will
    be taken in more reasoned suggestions.>>

    You're quite correct.  What I meant to say was that unless problems are
    revealed and discussed OPENLY, and therefore acknowledged as existing,
    then such problems are likely never to be corrected.  And from that,
    all problems will be corrected only when all problems are revealed,
    acknoweldged and addressed.
    
    Regarding grousing and complaining, I guess that depends on your
    perspective.  Over centuries, there were small groups of people who
    were accused of grousing and whining for centuries about the
    immorality of slavery.  Until an unethical action is addressed, I stand
    on my right to complain based on moral indignation.  And speaking
    personally, I do more than just complain -- I do offer specific actions
    to address said problems.  When you complain about complainers, on what
    ethically basis is your argument that I or any employee should be
    silent, no longer saying anything, with problems allowed to go
    unaddressed?
    
    I am NOT a "resource" to be used and abused at will.  I am a member of
    the Digital family and with the values espoused by Ken Olsen, I am a
    partner with equal responsibility to affect change to help build a
    better and more successful Digital.  And that means thinking for
    myself, bringing my intuition and intellect to creating ideas for
    improvement, and ALSO INCLUDES identifying problems and bringing them
    into the light of day to be addressed.
    

    
    re .47
    
    I believe you've hit the "nail" on the head with your mention of
    values.  
    
    In spite of all the words being "slung" around the corp about them,
    to me anyway, it appears that not many folks spend time understanding
    what those words mean as applied to each and every aspect of what we
    do everyday.  
    
    These thoughts are "simplistic" only because I don't want to get too
    lengthy.
    

    re: .49
    
    I can't comment on your youth, but if you think you can get a job
    easily today, you verge on being foolish.  For the next 18-20 months,
    jobs are going to be hard to get, even for well-qualified people.
    Don't jump ship unless you have an iron-clad guarantee of a place
    to land, or no need of a job.
        John Sauter

    re -.1
    
    Kathy,
    
    Many folks at Digital started here a "few" years ago sans family,
    mortgage, etc.  Please realize that we are not anymore in a position 
    to flip hambergers and sling hash.  The fact that we are not as mobile
    as we used to be doesn't mean that we are not deserving of respect by 
    the company's management.  Voting with one's feet is an effective way 
    of preserving one's rights and integrity.  But it's not the only way.
    
    -dinesh.

    .45: A scratch on the door and a flat tire to 2 mutually exclusive problems
    of extremely different impact of the functionality of the whole.  Since
    the solutions to these problems are independent of each other, this
    analogy doesn't apply to the topic of this note.ok
    
    Actually I see this note in a constructive light:
    
    1. For those who deny there are these behaviors or that they're fairly
    widespread, they can look over the variety of these notes
    
    2. There are few things more eroding to morale and motivation than the
    feeling of isolation. This note allows many of us to see that we're not
    alone.  It gives hope and, therefore, optimism.
    
    3. The ethical deterioration we're having is, in part, fed by declining
    hope.  If hope can be raised, so will ethics.
    
    I see this note as a beginning - not an end.  If those who must be
    convinced that there's a management style problem are not, then this
    notes will be an end.

RE: .52
    

>   The fact that we are not as mobile
>    as we used to be doesn't mean that we are not deserving of respect by 
>    the company's management.


	I never implied that in any way, come on!  (Hell, for a minute
	I thought I was in SOAPBOX).

	Of COURSE everyone deserves respect!  And I will always
	fight hard to get it!  But when all the fighting is
	done, when I have no OTHER recourse, when there IS nothing
	more I can do......I will not submit.

	I'm expressing a personal opinion here...what *I* would do.  Your
	mileage may vary.  I'm a fighter, not a walker......but I think
	all fighters know that sometimes walking is better than submitting.
	And sometimes, the needs of others outweigh the need to walk.

	I'm not saying one way is better or worse....My point is that we
	DO have control over our situations...we are NOT helpless.


	nuff said.


	kathy

    There's been a lot of talk here about "why not leave such a rotten
    place" and "there aren't other jobs to get."  I'd rather see this thing
    a bit differently.  
    
    If you're really part of a family or a real team, do leave when there's
    trouble?  If you really care for the group, do you give up after the
    first couple tries or bad experiences?  Maybe some do, but others
    don't.  I believe in the outside world some call sticking it out 
    "loyalty and dedication."
    
    However, I suppose if one puts up with it too many times, one could be
    called a sucker.  So there is a fine line we each have to find for
    ourselves.
    
    Just started "The Addictive Organization" by Schaef and Fassel.
    Contains very interesting perspectives relative to this note
    

    Please refer to note 39, item 5 within the note, for why someone
    might hang around even though he was abused by a manager.
    
    Let me elaborate. I was the one abused. Psychological warfare was
    used on me to try to force me out of an organization in NAC (when
    it was still called NAC). This same manager used a similar technique
    on at least one other person working for her.
    
    The reason I stayed is loyalty to the Corporation and to its customers
    who rely on the product on which I was working. Knowledge that if I
    left that the project would certainly fail. (This is not egotism on
    my part. It is verifiable fact.) Knowledge that the sale of 300
    VAXstation 3100s by one customer hinged on the success of the project.
    And, finally, the hope that if I succeeded that my manager, and the
    organization I was working in, would openly discuss her mistaken
    management methodology (I'm being kind here) and correct it.
    
    The project did succeed, and will bear the mark of my work as long as
    it continues to provide that service. And I did get recognition for
    the work, but only outside of that organization.
    
    We need to understand why and how we have been hurt by mismanagement
    in order to heal, grow, understand it, reject it in the future,
    empower ourselves.
    
    							Regards
    							Jon

    Re:  base note and those opposed to it
    
    
    A slight elaboration of .53, I think.
    
    I have, in the past, worked in several groups in an (unnamed)
    organization where I found myself a target of a couple of the
    previously named tactics.
    
    It was devastating.  I was an individual contributor in different
    groups of individual contributors:  everyone was pretty much on
    his/her own.
    
    Eventually I got frustrated that I started to actually talk/befriend
    others in my group.  What I learned was that I was not the only
    one who was a target of such control techniques.
    
    And it helped to talk:  It helped me, and others.  Because those
    others had told me what I felt.  I felt, "It must be me, they
    don't like me, I'm the one screwing up, I'm going to get fired,
    or never get anywhere....
    
    So, you see, talking about these things helped because I realized
    that it wasn't personal -- that I was simply watching the techniques
    of controlling people in the groups/organinzation in which I worked.
    
    It helped to know I wasn't alone.
    
    Our group mental health was benefitted, and we all moved on, knowing
    that there really wasn't anything wrong with us.

    
    IGNORE ETHICS AND DUE PROCESS, AND HARASS THEM OUT THE DAMN DOOR
    
    Here's a fresh actual case:
    
    Manager to Employee A:  "I just spoke with Employee Y and Employee Y
    has accused you of doing X.  This is unacceptable.  You cannot remain
    in my group.  Your job is essentially immediately discontinued and you
    will find aonther job elsewhere."
    
    Employee A:  "I did NOT do X at all.  That's a lie!"
    
    Manager: "I can't trust you.  You're out."  End of discussion.
    
    Employee A then goes to personnel rep, supposed representing the
    interests of employees, and NOT being management mouthpieces [quote
    from John Sims, Digital VP Personnel].
    
    Employee A to Personnel Rep:  "I did NOT do X.  Can my manager do this
    to me."
    
    Personnel Rep: "Sure can.  Nothing you can do."  End of discussion.
    
    Next day or so.  Manager to Employee A: "Oh, by the way, here's your
    WRITTEN warning."
    
    Suffice it to say, Employee A, claiming innocence, is devastated and
    was an inch from resigning and walking out the door.  Hasn't yet.  When
    questioned as to what happened to personnel supporting ethics and due
    process for JUSTICE, like in the ability to confront an accuser and
    deny charges, Employee A was so shaken that Employee A couldn't think
    straight and is totally shell-shocked from even using the Open-Door
    policy JUST TO GET DUE PROCESS!  And, after all, the Personnel Rep has
    further said that manager was within rights to slap Employee A with a
    written warning!
    
    Is this the ethics this company preaches?
    
    Is this due process?
    
    Is personnel representing justice and due process and the interests
    FIRST of the employee?
    
    Is this how easy it is now to get rid of someone?  If I call Ken Olsen
    and say Jack took home company pencils, and even if Jack says it's a
    lie, that Jack will have his job immediately discontinued with a
    warning to find another real fast or else, and if Jack consults his
    personnel rep, he gets slapped with a WRITTEN WARNING lickedy split in
    RETALIATION!  And Jack has yet to have due process where he gets to
    confront his accuser, me, where some wisdom needs to be brought in to
    determine who IS speaking truth, and what the ETHICALLY action is
    called for it, ESPECIALLY if it is NOT proven one way or the other?
    
    What happens if I now accuse all employees of taking home a company
    pencil?  Is everyone going to be gone?
    
    Hello, hello?
    

    
    
    			YOU ARE LUCKY YOU HAVE JOB!
    
    Sounds like .50 bought this one or lives in New England.
    
    No personal attack intended.
    
    

    re: .59
    
    While I acknowledge that no personal attack was intended, as the author
    of .50 I feel obliged to respond.  Even though it is used as an
    intimidation tactic, ``you are lucky to have a job'' is true in today's
    economic climate.  Nobody who is harassed by the tactics described in
    this topic should resign without first thinking carefully about what he
    will do after leaving Digital.
    
    Also, if you resign as a result of harassment, you encourage the
    tactic.  I encourage everyone who thinks he is being treated unfairly
    by his management to hang in there and continue making a nuisance of
    himself for as long as possible.
        John Sauter

    re. 58
    This whole case sounds like a very bad joke or a story brought
    back home from Kindergarten age!
    
    Did anyone try to find out the truth ? 
    Had I been employe A, that would have been my first action !
    Running to a "Human Resources" lawyer without having done a little
    investigation yourself sure won't help a lot.
    /fred

    
    Forgot to be specific:
    Did employe A ever ask employe Y about the accusation ???

    
    Ref: .58 - Employee A
    
    Employee A did not confront Employee Y, either officially (which should
    have been DEMANDED, and supported by Personnel, doing their job
    ETHICALLY) nor unofficially to my knowledge.  Now that said employee
    has calmed down enought to think, the debate now within this employee
    as related to me, is "do I go with the flow and don't make waves and
    get another job IN Digital, or even OUT of Digital, and start afresh"
    or "is this a concerted effort to get me out the door and should I
    start fighting for ethics and justice, and the right to face my accuser
    since I did NOT do what I have been accused of doing."
    
    I suggested DO WHAT IS RIGHT ETHICALLY.
    
    Which suggests that the Personnel Rep should have represented the
    interests of the employee, saying at the first consultation: "You say
    this accusation is a lie?  Okay.  I will set up a meeting where you,
    your accuser, personnel and the manager will confront this.  Then, and
    only AFTER then will it be determined who speaks truth, if possible;
    just how serious this "x" action you are accused of doing ACTUALLY IS
    in the great scheme of things in Digital; and what actions will be
    therefore taken.  Shall I set up this meeting?"
    
    This seems like the common sense approach to me.
    
    What do you think, John Sims?
    

    Apart from the sick case ( employee A/B) and anonymous mail message
    ( contact security immediately) well, all other examples can be more or
    less summarize as, a manager told an employee "go back to work".
    For different reasons and with varying degree of tact.

    This an unacceptable harassment , right ?

    The go an sell your stock, at $46 it's still a good price .

    I have been told off several times, this is a price of having opinions
    and expressing them, and I was wrong quite few times as well.
	

I think this note is valuable because it shows us the kinds of tactics to
look out for.  Once you see beyond the intimidation and understand what's
really happening you'll be better prepared to decide what to do next.

				-- Bob

    
    I've been burned once, but this is ridiculous. Thank God it wasn't my
    manager.
    
    I'd be interested to know how many of these incidents happened in an
    Engineering group.
    
    /prc

RE: .58

We are, of course, only hearing Employee A's side of the story.  Before passing
any judgement I would also like to hear the Manager's and Employee Y's
viewpoints on the incident.

For all I know, Employee A may be a bona fide chronic troublemaker, and this
incident was, as far as Manager and Personnel Rep are concerned, the last
straw.  I am not saying that this in fact is the case, but it would explain
management's behavior and it fits the facts that have been presented.

--PSW

    Re: .67
    
    One has to be very, very careful about definitions of "chronic
    troublemakers". My coworkers sometimes, in jest, say that my
    middle name starts with T, because I am the one who often raises
    a fuss when something stupid is happening - I don't "go with the
    flow" when we're obviously doing the wrong thing. And I often lead
    an effort to do the "right thing" such as (on my previous project):
    
    1. starting to maintain a notesfile
    for formal communication between the engineers and the writers when
    reviewing product manuals. When the writer left Digital, leaving no
    paper trail behind her about what she had done or not done, the
    notesfile was still there to guide the new writer.
    
    2. establishing a master edit history for a
    product that is more lucid and detailed than CMS edit histories.
    When bugs arose, we could look at the engineers' detailed descriptions
    of what was done to the product to figure out what went wrong.
    
    3. using formal inspections for the manual set and product documents.
    We caught numerous defects that would have been found by the customers.
    
    Leadership from the ranks - I was just one of four principal engineers
    on my last project - can be seen by management as a blessing or as
    chronic trouble, depending on the commitment of the manager to quality
    workmanship. Unfortunately, my manager was committed to hiding
    problems, mouthing abstract good-sounding slogans and goals, and producing
    terrific-looking presentations and plans for her boss.
    
    In retrospect, it would have been much healthier for me psychologically
    to have left that organization and let them fail. In a healthy company
    these situations should be rare or non-existent. I hope that Jack and
    Ken will read these notes and realize how awful things can be when
    there is no focus on quality/excellence/empowerment.
                       
    							Thanks
    							Jon

    Let's calibrate our expectations.  I share the concern for the way some
    managers manage upwards, issue superficial propaganda as if it were
    sound business decisions, put down boat rockers, and, in general, waste
    the company's most important assets, its people.  Whenever the open
    door policy fails, we have a problem.  Where people are doing "the
    right thing for themselves, not Digital", we have a problem.
    
    But, we must be realistic.  Managers are people.  We all know we don't
    live in a perfect world.  We have been stiffed by people outside
    Digital as badly as by Digital managers.  My experience is that Digital
    managers are more enlightened than those in other industries and
    businesses, not perfect, but (generally) better.
    
    Every case of managerial abuse must be dealt with as the exception it
    is, not as justification for generalizations which are just as false as
    the rosy view that denies we have problems.
    
    No sucessful business makes general policy based on exceptional cases. 
    It places the accountability for handling the exceptions squarely on
    the management chain.  So if manager A is a despot who reports to
    manager B who is a despot who reports to manager C who is a despot ...
    
    We need to exercise the Open Door policy all the way up the chain until
    we get to someone who understands and disapproves.  Short circuiting by
    going directly to Jack or Ken may appear to save time, but I think that
    is an illusion.  Working the Open Door is not quick or simple, but when
    you find that receptive manager in the chain, you have clear
    documentation of where the problems lay.  That doesn't happen if you
    work top down.  Persistence in the face of adversity is tough, but I
    think it will pay off.

RE: .68

I agree totally.  My point in .67 is that every argument has two sides, and a
fair judgement of who's right and who's wrong cannot be arrived at without
hearing both points of view.

--PSW

	KEEP CHANGING THEIR JOBS AND MANAGERS, KEEP THEM FROM PROMOTIONS
   (posted on behalf of a Digital employee who wishes to remain anonymous)

I have recently had an experience with my supervisor that reenforces my belief
that my whole career in DIGITAL has been predetermined, or at the very least 
manipulated so there is a no win situation on my part.  I also firmly believe 
that any effort that I undertake to progress my career will be fruitless.

I have witnesses that will testify that information is not shared evenly in 
the group.  Selective information sharing can make or break a career
depending HOW it is delivered, IF it is delivered, WHEN it is delivered, the
CONTEXT in its delivery, and MANNER of intention.


                  Here is a recap of my  "TOUR OF DUTY":
                  --------------------------------------

I started as a "WORKER 1" in the subcontract business and eventually was 100%
responsible for 55% of the total Plant shipments.  As a "WORKER 1", I had 
trained 2 new hires that came in off the street that were hired as "WORKER 2's".
I applied for two "WORKER 2" position's in the same group, that I was working 
in and was refused twice!!  

The only noticeable difference to the "WORKER 2" position was a list of EOL 
products that I transferred over to that person.  I have had "MY" ideas stolen 
and transferred to that person so they could receive credit.  This form of
activity is very upsetting and used as a standard, call it "Internal Controls
politics" (ICP) if you will.

I was rotated through several Managers only to be labelled as a minimal 
capabilities "WORKER".  I believe that this is still in my personnel file
from a MANAGER'S review that I received.  I believe that I am the victim of
manipulative Managers who do not realistically do jobplans, don't take 
ownership, don't support their people, don't promote training, don't promote 
career development, promote favortism, punish the less favored regardless of
ownership and spread damaging rumors.

YET! I was training a "WORKER 3"!!!   Then through a re-org I was dumped into 
an ailing "FIX-IT" business in which a fine tuned "WORKER 3" would not touch and
or cringe at the workload involved.  The people working for that particular 
"WORKER 2" at the time were tremendously relieved of the change.  Morale 
was at its lowest ever, it took me about a year to un-do all the unrealistic 
screwed up schedules and procedures this person had created.   

YET! That particular "FIX-IT WORKER 2" was promoted, you see "WORKER 2" 
followed "ICP" politics closely.

A "WORKER 3" position was given in my present group and was not announced
for about a month.  The information of this news came from OUTSIDE the 
organization.  I fronted my supervisor about this and he informed me
that "I hold your paycheck and I can do what I want".  At the time I was
carrying the total workload of ANOTHER "WORKER 1" as that person was out on 
STD.
Besides carring the heavy "FIX-IT" workload and overseeing a co-op student and 
some other EXTRA "WORKER 1" duties in the traditional space.

I hate to mention all my Jobplans that were thrown out, rejected, re-dated, 
rewritten.  It didn't make much difference anyways, I was never going to get
the chance to grow and develop favorably.  My supervisor has actually re-dated
many of my previous jobplans and submitted them as such, without even talking to
me!

I once applied for a job within the Cost Center with (NAME) and was not 
even considered as an interview candidate.  The reason given was that I didn't 
have the necessary skills that the job required.  
This was a "WORKER 2" position that was to replace (NAME).  End result was 
that an outside untrained NEW hire was awarded the position.
    -I was later the welcoming bridge between the TWO jobs because I had the 
     knowledge, drive and people skills to "DO" the job.  This can be 
     reinforced by the very same "WORKER 2" that was hired from the outside, 
     whom I also trained a great deal.

About nine months ago in the latest of the re-org's... I was slated to go
into another group.  Let's make it a little stronger "PROMISSED", but because a 
person literally cried and made a big scene, that person refused to put up 
with my current supervisor and I was forced out of the position.  There was no 
reward or human emotion for MY part, I was heart struck and felt that I had 
just been fired.

I also applied to work within another Cost Center position with (NAME).  I had 
all the skills and expertise that this particular MANAGER was looking for, but 
was told that OUR cost center couldn't afford to promote me to the position.  
This job would require that I work on weekends.  An outside "WORKER 3" was 
hired and would never fulfill the stated job requirements.
    -Just a note, recently I have been selected as having the expertise 
     necessary to do this job and have been transferred to the VERY SAME
     POSITION to fulfill requirements in that capacity.  Now I'm working 
     weekends....

I have since had two offsite meetings with the Cost Center Manager, about a 
multitude of problems posed by my supervisor, a third offsite is currently
scheduled.  Nothing has been accomplished except for the fact that I've been 
doomed!

Now, we are going through another re-org cycle.

Why I haven't I changed jobs??  Maybe because I see the potential that this
job could have.

Do I need to change jobs?  YES, I believe it to be in my best interest if there
is such a thing as a career in Digital.

I have recently upgraded my resume and hope to share my money making ideas and
expertise with a growing company.

    re: .72
    
    You cannot judge a process outside the context of the situations to
    which it is applied.  What matters are results.  In this particular
    case, we have been presented precisely half a story (which is no
    guarantee of half the truth) by an aggrieved employee.  That alone is
    enough to make the articulated "truths" suspect.  Without the other side
    of the story, this discussion is just so much balloon juice.
    
    Al
    

    re: .73
    
    One of your problems is classic.  That is, you have become the expert
    in your field and are, as a result, unpromotable.  Had you been only
    above-average you might have been promoted.  I suspect your managers
    realize your expert position and have sought to keep you put so that
    your group could be successful.  There may also be a problem with your
    resume in that others have looked better than you on paper.  If you
    have submitted ideas that others have used, it does not serve anyone
    for you to pretend that the ideas were not yours.  You should claim
    them and be vocal about it.
    
    Steve

    The following ten rules for stifling initiative are discussed in 
    The Change Masters by Rosabeth Moss Kanter:
    
    1. Regard any new idea from below with suspicion - because it is new
       and because it is from below.
    
    2. Insist that people who need your approval to act first go through
       several other levels of management to get their signatures.
    
    3. Ask departments or individuals to challenge and criticize each
       other's proposals.
    
    4. Express your criticisms freely and withhold your praise. (That keeps
       people on their toes.)  Let them know they can be fired at any time.
    
    5. Treat problems as a sign of failure.
    
    6. Control everything carefully.  Count anything that can be counted,
       frequently.
    
    7. Make decisions to reorganize or change policies in secret and spring
       them on your people unexpectedly (that also keeps them on their toes).
    
    8. Make sure that any request for information is fully justified and
       that it isn't distributed too freely (you don't want data to fall 
       into the wrong hands).
    
    9. Assign to lower-level managers, in the name of delegation and
       participation, responsibility for figuring out how to cut back, 
       lay off or move people around.
    
    10. Above all, never forget that you, the higher-ups, already know 
        everything important about this business.

All of the examples of people abuse given here are characteristic of bad
management--in any company, not just in Digital.  There's nothing unique
about our situation.

How does (generic) bad management get a foothold and then persist, anywhere?
	1. Bad management could come from the top down (not true of us, i
	   hope), in which case there's no way to fight it.
	2. It could be that the measurements used to judge performance of
	   middle and lower echelon managers are off-base (don't reflect
	   what people really need from a manager).
	3. It could be that managers are actually being judged for things
	   other than what they're supposed to be measured on (old boy
	   network, number of "errands" run for boss, etc.).
	4. It could be that the person doing the measurement is too distanced
	   from the situation to judge how good a job the manager is doing.
I suspect we have some combination of 2, 3 and 4.  The fixes are easy to see
(just invert the conditions described), if not so easy to implement quickly.
We seem to be belaboring the point over dozens of topics and hundreds of
replies though.  What is any of this contributing to a solution?
								paul

      REF:  <<< Note 1228.77 >>>
    
    >><< What is any of this contributing to a solution?>>
    
    Increased Awareness among lots of good employees who joined to be a
    part of something, to build something, and to share in that success.
    
    Who then, having increased awareness, start speaking up, communicating
    direct to Jack Smith (who welcomed direct feedback in his last DVN -
    JACK SMITH @CORE) what needs to be brought into the light of day --
    problems, impediments to constructive change and genuine employee
    involvement, and ideas for cutting waste and expense, plus increasing
    productivity and building customers, revenues and margins.
    
    This topic is the public forum to reveal ALL methods used to
    effectively intimidate employees into NON-participation, which is NOT
    in the best interests of this corporation and its members -- the
    employees who want to work here, who want to contribute both their
    labor and their minds grow this company.
						
    What is missing in these public debates in the DIGITAL VAXnotes
    conference is executive management commitment in VAXnotes.  Jack has
    said "send me memos"; Jack needs to now enter this conference and put
    in a reply in every existing topic that is relevant to what needs to be
    done to change the system: "Tell me more everyone."
    
    And he needs to start NEW topics on those subjects he wants feedback
    on.  When all of us start believing we really are Digital partners,
    owning joint rights and responsibilities to build a better and more
    successful Digital, then Jack will see a million ideas a year, just
    like Toyota, and perhaps like Toyota, huge margins and $18,000,000,000
    in extra cash sitting in the bank.
    
    Just 1,700 contributors (or was it just ideas submitted) in the last 12
    months in DELTA falls a bit short of full participation by 70,000+
    employees in the United States.  I wonder what it was worldwide.
    

    re .77

> How does (generic) bad management get a foothold and then persist, anywhere?
>
> 1...2...3...4...

    Yes, there will always be cases of "bad" management -- and this question
    of persistence is really the key. Actually, the answer is pretty simple.
    It persists because it's not rooted out. Why? Because our perennial
    management changes make it impossible for managers to get to know the
    managers working for them. Look, say you're a manager in a new job. The
    first question you have to answer to your boss is how your business/
    plant/ software release/ whatever are doing, not, "What is your in-depth
    appraisal of your group's management talent/expertise?"

    When we constantly put our company in a position where untold numbers of
    people are spend 99% of their time figuring out what they're doing and
    how they're doing at it because they're new at it, what else do you expect?

    I'd be interested in seeing how management turnover/reorganization and
    "bad" management persistence are correlated. (Only a rhetorical question.)

    /Petes

    re .79
    
    How (generic) bad management and other antisocial behavior gets a
    foothold, persists and can be rooted out has of course been discussed 
    for years from alot of perspectives.  A few months ago I came across an 
    interesting book on this subject called "The Evolution of Cooperation".
    The author's name is Axelrod, if I remember correctly.  His perspective
    was games theory.  The model he uses is a game called "the prisoner's 
    dilemma".  Briefly, the conclusion is that an appropriate strategy for 
    many business and political situations is "tit-for-tat".  Begin every 
    new encounter with cooperation.  Thereafter, do what the other person 
    did last time.  There are a few refinements, such as always retaliating 
    a bit less than the other person and watching out for unproductive
    cycles of retaliation.  Applying this to Digital, I believe that we
    have traditionally had a culture where cooperation is highly valued. 
    Over the years exploitative players entered the group slowly.  Many of
    us (I include myself) failed to retaliate against the exploiters.  At
    this point the exploiters are on the verge of taking over (I don't
    think that they have yet).  The solution is something I learned when I
    first went to elementary school...stick together with the "good" kids
    and stay away/ostracise the "meanies".  In time, the benefits of
    cooperation accumulate while non-cooperation is seen as unsuccessful.
    
    -dinesh.

    "IDEAS" They are what made this company what it is or was.  Now they
    have come up with IDEAS CENTRAL for all us to "contribute".  It would
    be nice to see a reply when you write to them.

    re: .81
    
    I have gotten several replies to one of my ideas.
        John Sauter

    
                            PRACTICE HYPOCRISY
    
    During a performance appraisal, tell the employee that "contributions
    to SIX/SIGMA, DELTA, Employee Involvement" do NOT count as doing
    "extra" as part of one's "job" in Digital.  Then turn around and tell
    the employee that any passion and fire reflected in making those
    contributions to employee involvement is adversely affecting the
    employee's performance of his or her work.  Hopefully, the employee out
    of spite will cease and desist from participating any further in
    anything, and will just keep silent, doing "just the job" he or she is
    paid to do and nothing more.
    

    <<< Note 1228.83 by SAHQ::CARNELLD "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF" >>>
    >                            PRACTICE HYPOCRISY
    >During a performance appraisal, tell the employee that "contributions
    >to SIX/SIGMA, DELTA, Employee Involvement" do NOT count as doing
    >"extra" as part of one's "job" in Digital.  
    
    That's clear enough - no brownie points for these activities.
    
    >Then .. tell the employee that any ... contributions to 
    >employee involvement is adversely affecting the employee's performance 
    >of his or her work.  
    
    The two attitudes as expressed are congruent.  No points for employee
    involvement activities, and the time thus invested is seen as time away 
    from the job one is paid to do.  I see no hypocrisy here. 
    
    karl

    re: .83
    
    Enough already!  DELTA is not an excuse for not doing your job!
    Everyone is expected to do their part to make the goals of their
    organization a reality.  That is the MINIMUM expectation for an 
    employee's performance.  That's why they give us a paycheck.  If someone
    cannot consistently meet the minimum expectations of their job, they 
    shouldn't be here.
    
    Neither is DELTA a substitute for functional excellence.  Granted,
    reward and recognition for employee involvement should be awarded and
    involvement outside the narrow scope of your job is certainly a good 
    thing.  But why should that recognition and reward manifest itself as 
    raises and promotions if the substantial portion of your job
    description does not read "Corporate idea submitter"?  In the true
    spirit of Digital, "he who proposes, disposes".  Anyone who feels that
    participation in DELTA is more important than any parochial concerns
    OWNS THE RESPONSIBILITY for placing themselves in a position where they
    can contribute in an appropriate manner.
    
    Employee involvement is an excellent vehicle for getting people to
    improve the quality (in every sense of that word) of their job. It's
    a great way of letting each and every employee make a significant
    contribution to the overall success of Digital.
    
    But I must have been napping when they said I didn't have to sell as
    long as I occupied my time making submissions to IDEASCENTRAL.
    
    Al
    

re: .81,.82

Things seem to have slowed way down lately in the DELTA notes conference too.
Is it possible they've just been swamped under with suggestions since the Jack
Smith DVN broadcast?
									paul

    
    Ref: last several
    
    My perception shows that employees ARE doing their jobs, and doing them
    well; AND are getting dinged for "contributing" outside their "boxes".
    
    Contributing an idea to SIX SIGMA or DELTA for other parts of Digital
    has nothing to do with one's work assignments.
    
    Maybe DELTA is slowing because of this plus few submissions are being
    given any serious consideration and most employees are seeing that
    "contributing" more to Digital outside one's box gets nothing in
    return, not recognized as a Digital partner and getting dinged for it
    on top of that!
    
    Don't propose unless you do it is absurd; if you are the recipient of
    an incoming idea that would lead to greater efficiency or
    effectiveness, it is YOUR responsibility to seriously consider
    implementing it for it affects YOU and YOUR WORK/GROUP and YOU have the
    authority to do it; not the submitter.
    
    Every group for themselves, every employee for his or herself!
    Anarchy and self-serving interests already reign here, manifested in
    the bureaucratic controlling and manipulation, and slogans that pass
    the buck for responsibility!
    
    Let's have a new slogan:
    
    YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR INCURRING CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE
    AUTHORITY YOU HAVE -- BUCK PASSING NO LONGER IS ACCEPTABLE IN DIGITAL!
    

    
            THREATEN EMPLOYEE WITH FIRING, DIRECTLY BY THE TOP
    
    Call the employee and tell them you're from Ken Olsen's office and that
    if the employee doesn't stop writing and sending memos, [meaning
    advocating change, employee participation], that he or she will be
    fired.  Hang up before the employee can get a name and telephone
    number.
    
    Sidenote:  No, please don't call me with this one.  I just got my call.
    In fact, I got such a call three years ago from "someone" from Jack
    Shield's office regarding my not following "protocols" [I sent a
    marketing idea suggestion regarding a way to get more customer
    intelligence].  Regarding the latest call I just received, about 30
    minutes ago, I then accordingly called Ken Olsen, his secretary, Ann
    Jenkins, plus John Sims in order to seek verification of what is truth;
    and if false, to inform them of said intimidation accordingly.  They
    were all out of the office; other secretaries said such a thing would
    NEVER come from said office.
    
    I guess some do not want some of us to think of ourselves as Digital
    partners.
    

    re .88 check with the person in you facility who handles phone
    services. I know they can print out all numbers dialed _from_
    a given extension, maybe they can find out who called _you_.
    Get security on it, too. Harassment of employees in this manner
    is *wrong* !

    RE: .86
    
    You have hit the nail on the head!!!
    
    IDEAS CENTRAL has received and processed 1000 ideas this month.  We
    processed about 300 in September.  Our first priority is to acknowledge
    and forward off all of the ideas and we have just about caught up.
    
    New notes will be put in the CAPVAX::DELTA_IDEAS notesfile as soon as
    we can.  They are all identified but time is at a premium right now.
    
    Be patient!  We have added some extra automation to our system as
    a result of this month's volume and shouldn't have this back up
    again.
    
    Colleen - we have status on both of your ideas.  Please contact
    IDEAS CENTRAL @OGO, as requested in our acknowledgement, if you
    have any questions.
    

    Only ten notes to go ! Keep those replies coming, it's a GREAT cause!
    
    karl

    			EDIT THEIR MAIL MESSAGES
    
    Your mail messages to the engineers cause alot of heat. Fom now on I
    want you to send all E-Mail to me (supervisor, manager, etc.) first.
    I'll just take a look at them and send them on when appropriate.
    

    A few I have been involved with:
    
    1).  Don't respond to note # xxxx because it will just create more
         controversy.
    2).  No memos to or conversations with a vice-president until you
         clear it with me first.
    3).  We are developing a reorganization plan; we'll let you know where
         or if you fit when it's done
    4).  We are different than most other groups; we will add layers of
         management & because we are so different & complex, we will have
         a ratio of 1-2 workers to manager 
    
    Mark
    

    
    
      Here's an actual statement that was addressed to a Field Service
     department in a staff meeting by a district manager. 
      "MYWAY_OR_THE_HIWAY". His arrogance and total lack of understanding
     still burns in my mind. Like one of the replies said...this company
     was built by ideas, actually one mans dream. And i believe that for
     Dec to be successful in the future it will need alot more great or
     not so great ideas. It will only better the company as a whole. 

    
                  USE "DOWNSIZING" TO EFFECT ELIMINATION
    
    Using my own example:
    
    Yesterday at 5:15 pm I was informed in a conversation with local
    management that under Digital's downsizing guidelines that management
    had the right, if they saw fit, to take my job and work away, and give
    it or contract it to other Digital employees in another Digital group,
    and then accordingly transition me into the Digital unemployment
    resource pool.
    
    Should this happen, it would then be my problem, of course, to find
    another job.  I was encouraged to "apply" for any proposal positions
    that might be posted, created to do proposal work in other groups.  It
    was indicated that this was within corporate downsizing guidelines, and
    was ethical, moral and legal.
    
    Take away people's jobs and then create new job reqs elsewhere to do
    the same work.  Absurd.  But that's just my opinion (and, yes, I know
    I'm guilty of exceeding my quota some would like to impose of allotted
    public forum space per employee for opinion expression).
    

    5 more to go

    
    Employee:
    "I think I have a new, innovative idea for a product which I'm quite
     excited about......"
    
    rough explanation of idea.....
    
    
    Manager:
    "Well thats really terrific, BUT we find the best ideas come from
    customers"
    
    or
    
    Manager:
    "Well thats really terrific, BUT we have already presented to the 
    Investment Review Board, it would be at least 1 year before we could 
    even start to look at this."
    
    
    Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh.......
    
    

    Manager:  "It's not your decision to process this or not to process it. 
               It's your job to do what I say!!!"
    
    Me:  "So what you're saying is that my opinion that this process will
          scrap this board means nothing???!!!"  (me, being the operator)
    
    Manager:  "Yes!"
    
        The quotation marks are there for a reason...exact dialogue.
    
                                                             Capt. Scott

Manager: The idea of doing such a thing is not new.  It's probably not even
         feasible, because no one else has done it yet.

I've read Peters.  Right now, Digital needs all the wild ideas it can come up
with.  A few will be big winners.

Sometimes I feel that in Digital you have to create a demonstratable product as
a midnight project before anyone will believe some things can be done. 

> Sometimes I feel that in Digital you have to create a demonstratable product as
> a midnight project before anyone will believe some things can be done. 
    
    Ah, but if you do this then surely some other group in the company will
    complain that you are infringing on their turf.  Or their planned turf. 
    Or their envisioned turf.  At least as they see it.
    
      John

                          SELECTIVE TERMINATION
    
    Selectively lay off those who are too outspoken; those who challenge
    the system; those who are whistleblowers; those who espouse ideas for
    change; those who promote equality of reward, genuine participation and
    real empowerment; and those who express opinions contrary to the status
    quo and acceptable.
    

    
       <<< Note 1228.102 by CSSE32::M_DAVIS "God bless Captain Vere." >>>

    >><<re -1
    
    >>You might want to label your note "pure speculation" unless you have
    facts to substantiate such serious accusations.>>
    
    I've seen employees "harassed" over the years into leaving Digital. 
    And speaking for myself, my duties of generating proposals, done
    successfully, doing over 200 over 3 years, influencing winning and
    retaining potentially over $120,000,000 in customer services revenue
    (includes multi-year contracts), were "given away" on December 3 and I
    was "volunteered" and somehow I have ended up the ONLY customer
    services employee in an Area Hdqs who has no job now and who is the
    ONLY customer services employee now sitting in the resource pool in
    this Area Hdqs, where my "new" temporary work is data entry, and who
    will likely be among those laid off since I have no job, having had it
    "given" to others in other groups doing proposals in far less time than
    I have been. Since Digital has announced "involuntary methodology" that
    will lead to reduction in the workforce, then I include reply 101 as
    part of that "methodology" that may likely be defined by some.
    

    RE: .103
    >>  ...were "given away" on December 3 and I was "volunteered" and
    >>  somehow I have ended up the ONLY customer services employee in an
    >>  Area Hdqs who has no job now and who is the ONLY customer services
    >>  employee now sitting in the resource pool in
    
    David, weren't you offered the CHOICE between sitting in the resource
    pool and taking TFSO?

	re .102:

	I'm afraid you walked into an elephant trap there, Marge. 8-(

	re .104:

	Having thought it over carefully, and in the light of my limited
	information, I feel that David Carnell's case is one of many in
	which the MOST CHARITABLE interpretation is that management is
	laying off people without regard to their contributions.

	The other interpretation is the one which he has offered, and
	I must admit that it's hard to label his thinking paranoid. On
	account of the big axe sticking in his back.

	/Tom

                     <<< Note 1228.104 by ODIXIE::GEORGE >>>

    >><<David, weren't you offered the CHOICE between sitting in the resource
    pool and taking TFSO?>>
    
    No, there was NO choice.  Our group was a volunteer group.  I was
    "volunteered" into unemployment AFTER the window closed.  There was NO
    choice.  In fact, weeks earlier I filed a grievance about retaliation
    and THAT was not even resolved until AFTER the window was closed.  And
    it was 90 minutes after being informed by personnel that there was no
    retaliation, that I was then informed by local management that my
    duties were being given away and I had no job.
    
    You should repeat your story, Steve, about choices.  As I recollect,
    the prisoner was asked, "Do you want to be hung or shot while trying to
    escape?"
    

RE: .105

I have only ever heard David's side of the story, via notes in this conference.
I would want to hear management's side of the story, as well as an objective
evaluation of David's value to the company, before I made any judgement on this
issue.

--PSW

    re .108 by PSW::WINALSKI
    
    Obviously you will never hear managements side so you can always cast
    doubt on David's view.  However, you could volunteer for a tour of
    duty in the field and experience it first hand yourself.  As part of
    that experiment you would have to do many of the same things David has
    done, e.g. suggest changes you think would help, write letters (on your 
    own time), etc.  I think you'd be back in your old job sooner than you
    expect.  DEC Field is not DEC TNSG.

RE: .109

Doing a tour of duty in the field would accomplish nothing towards resolving
this matter.  So I'd know what it's like to do David's job.  That still wouldn't
give any indication of whether David was doing David's job when he had it.

David and his management have obviously had a major disagreement and
misunderstanding.  We've heard David's side in this conference, and after
David's latest reply to this note, people started dumping on his management.
There are always two viewpoints to any misunderstanding or disagreement.
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make judgements, in either direction,
without hearing both viewpoints.

--PSW

    REF:  <<< Note 1228.110 by PSW::WINALSKI "Watch my MIPS - no new VAXes" >>>

    >><<Doing a tour of duty in the field would accomplish nothing towards
    resolving this matter.  So I'd know what it's like to do David's job. 
    That still wouldn't give any indication of whether David was doing
    David's job when he had it.>>
    
    I was doing my job very well.  The written PA done by the cc manager in
    November, 1991, says so in writing.  In addition, it acknowledges how I
    came up with ways for 2 people to do the work that would have taken 6
    people doing things the way they were when I started doing proposals
    three years ago.  In addition, it acknowledges that I have received
    many unsolicited memos from the people I support (maybe 20+ memos)
    stating in writing the excellent, professional, prompt work I have
    done that has helped them win and retain business.
    
    Nevertheless, just weeks before "the volunteer offer" the cost center I
    was a part of suddenly had people moved to different cost centers,
    including one person junior to me in time with Digital (doing other
    work -- only 2 people in the cc were doing proposals - my partner
    volunteered, took the buyout, plus was eligible for retirement).  And
    nevertheless, my duties were given to others who were doing proposals
    less than one year vs my three years doing the work well.  And it
    should be noted that I understood there was MORE than enough volunteers
    for the buyout but they still wanted 66% from my tiny cc of 6 and only
    got 3 so I was then volunteered, after the window closed on the offer.
    
    The Area Hdqs SALES proposal group as of yesterday was BUSY, including
    doing now Customer Services proposals.  Yet, instead of allowing me to
    continue to do my job that I was doing well, documented by both the
    manager and the people I supported, affecting the generation of major
    amounts of revenue and margin, I'm instead now jobless, doing data
    entry clerk duties as my temporary assignment.
    
    This would make sense to someone off the street?
    
    And I'm the only Customer Services employee in this Area Hdqs who is
    jobless.  And in addition, while I can't confirm it, I "suspect" the
    only employee (or certainly one of but a couple) who is/are now jobless
    in this Area Hdqs facility, having had their duties taken away to meet
    a headcount reduction number from corporate.
    

    re .111
    
    But David, you said a few replies back that Personnel told you that
    "YOU WERE NOT BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST"...  What did they tell
    you the rational was for you being the "ONLY" CS person without a
    job, if you were not being discriminated against?
    
    Also if a new group has taken over doing the work you used to, were
    you interviewed for positions with this group, did they have any
    openings....
    
    Based on your facts, it does read very badly... and maybe it is....
    but if your management rated you so highly so recently why aren't
    they trying to assists you now...  This whole situation is beyond
    rational discussion, and noone can help David correct the inequity
    he feels,  but there were lots of rec(s) in ALF in a variety of
    opportunities, so it is even more mysterious that David is doing
    clerical work with the skills that he has demonstrated....
    
    I am at a lost to assists you in finding more meaningful work, but
    at least they have given you more opportunity to focus on what you
    can do to help digital generate more revenue.  It would be more
    productive for all of us if this is how you utilize your time and
    efforts. Mentor the people who haven't been writing proposals as
    long and help them produce more winning proposals.  Jot down your
    experineces and what works and what doesn't,  how to get sales and
    sales support to gather the necessary information to make the pro-
    posal more credible and effective.  Dave, you have a lot of ideas
    which need to be gotten to people now doing your job, focus on
    that and help the corporation out of its need to reduce head count.
    I know you might not feel like helping the people who stole your
    work, but remember they were not the ones deciding this, be the
    professional you project in this notefile and help them out.
    
    Paul N.

    REF:   <<< Note 1228.112 by CANYON::NEVEU "SWA EIS Consultant" >>>
                       -< "Use your time productively" >-

    >><<But David, you said a few replies back that Personnel told you that
    "YOU WERE NOT BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST"...  What did they tell
    you the rational was for you being the "ONLY" CS person without a
    job, if you were not being discriminated against?>>
    
    I must have written at least 15 pages documenting this, sent upward to
    personnel.  I provided local employees to be called to verify some of
    the points.  Neither personnel nor John Murphy called them.  It was
    Murphy who informed me there was no retaliation.  He also refused to
    discuss ANY of the points I had made.  No discussion.  Zip.  Period. 
    And I was informed the issue was closed; no higher authority as he
    spoke for the office of Ken Olsen and Jack Smith.
    
    >><<Also if a new group has taken over doing the work you used to, were
    you interviewed for positions with this group, did they have any
    openings....>>
    
    The FOUR SALES proposals groups locally (2 at ALF, another 1 fifteen
    miles down the street at ATL, and the 4th at ATO twenty-five miles
    away) were ALREADY filled BEFORE the downsizing "volunteering" started. 
    I was informed by all 4 SALES proposals groups that there are no new
    job reqs open.  They could not hire me.
    
    >><<Based on your facts, it does read very badly... and maybe it is....
    but if your management rated you so highly so recently why aren't
    they trying to assists you now...>>
    
    I can't imagine.  Unless you suppose it has something to do with being
    so outspoken, advocating change, employee involvement and empowerment?
    
    >><<but there were lots of rec(s) in ALF in a variety of opportunities,
    so it is even more mysterious that David is doing clerical work with
    the skills that he has demonstrated....>>
    
    Indeed.  And subsequently to having been volunteered, I have yet to
    have a single interview, having applied to ALL 40+ of them.
    
    >><< but at least they have given you more opportunity to focus on what
    you can do to help digital generate more revenue.>>
    
    I'm hanging in the wind, close to losing my livelihood, without cause,
    and subsequently my home and sanity.  I fail to see where I have the
    wherewithall to contribute via mentoring others, from my current
    jobless, seemingly hopeless situation, waiting for the ax to fall, or a
    heart attack from the relentless stress, whichever comes first.
    
    You see the stories of corporate whistleblowers on the television
    series 60 Minutes who are persecuted just for trying to "do what's
    right" for their companies; I never appreciated the anquish those
    employees went through until now.
    
    Empowered employees free to express their ideas and opinions indeed.
    

    re .110 by PSW
    
    Paul, don't you get it?  It has nothing to do with doing David's job.
    It has to do with David's suggestion activity.  You don't believe it?
    That's why I suggested you spend time in the field.
    
    I believe even you, super employee, would suffer if you did the
    suggestion activity David did.  But you say you wouldn't do that
    activity.  Aye, but that's not the point!
    
    Career limiting move #1:  make waves.

         Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has asked for someone
    to "make a judgement".  And for that matter, I didn't think the purpose
    of this topic was for advice (sometimes unwanted).
    
                                                            Capt. Scott

"Your grievance has been taken to the highest levels of the company.  Everyone
agrees that you are not being harassed.  However, it has been observed that
you have become emotionally upset over this issue.  There is concern that
your performance is suffering.  I strongly recommend that you drop this matter.
In the future I will be watching you carefully and monitoring your performance.
I will be sending reports of your performance to my superiors.  I also
recommend that you get counseling so that you can learn to accecpt the
work environment of this company.  It will not change."

re: .116

At the risk of P$%%ing off the establishment, I just dont like the tenor
of your reply....
I hadn't supported Dave's contention that he was be harrassed, discriminated
against and intimidated but, now I don't know.

>In the future I will be watching you carefully and monitoring your performance.
>I will be sending reports of your performance to my superiors.  

What is the purpose of making this statement in this forum? if it is not meant
to intimidate Dave? If you really wanted to caution him I think the proper
method would have been to do it privately, not here. On the otherhand, if as
his topic states you wanted to "silence him" by intimidation, then what you
did was right in line with what he has been stating all along.

I REALLY hope this is an ill advised attempt at humor and not what it seems 
to be.

    re: .117
    
    I took .116's content to be one of the "101 ways to silence an
    employee", not a response to anything anyone had written here.  I too
    would be very disturbed if the sentiments of .116 were actually
    directed at me or anyone else.
    
    mtcw,
    dlw

    RE: .116 & .117 & .118
    
    It might be paranioa, but .116 sent me looking to see if there was
    a MCBRIDE in personnel at ALF.  There is.  But then again DECWET is
    not at ALF... So maybe its a MCBRIDE in Customer Services, there is
    at CXO where DECWET is....  If .116 wanted us to see the quotation
    marks better, it would have been nice to start with "another way to
    harass/intimi..."  and probably to put the smiley face at the end...
    
    This hits very close to home... especially if David's feeling the
    way he stated earlier...  So lets none of us sya/do anything stupid
    on this topic.....
    
    		Paul N.
    

This was said to me by my supervisor.  It is as close as I can get to an
exact quotation, relying on my memory.  The event happened yesterday.  It's
a little spooky that someone immediately thought of Mr. Carnell's situation.

re: 119  (I didn't see it before I wrote 120)

I am an "Information Systems Specialist" (whatever that means).  I work
at DECwest Engineering in Bellevue, WA.  The author of 119 doesn't need
to be afraid of me, but I don't think the suspicions voiced in that note
are unjustifiably paranoid, based on my experience.

re: .120

>This was said to me by my supervisor.  It is as close as I can get to an
>exact quotation, relying on my memory.  The event happened yesterday.  It's
>a little spooky that someone immediately thought of Mr. Carnell's situation.

Thank you VERY much for clarifying this for me and all of us. I also, as did
Mr. Neveu looked in ELF to see if there was a McBride in ALF and there is.
Once more the person happens to work in Personnel, which really made me 
nervous. I on the otherhand didn't know where DECWET was. I apologize for the 
misunderstanding, I saw the quotes but didn't understand the context of the 
quotation. 

Well, never mind....

    re: .116

    If I were a moderator here and received a complaint regarding this
    reply, I'd delete it.

    The offense in a reply is a judgment made by the reader and not by the
    author.  Intent doesn't count unless it's explicit in the text of the
    note.  Notes doesn't enable one to read the mind of an author.

    Authorship of the text in .116 is unclear.  It's also terribly unclear
    if .116 is sarcasm or not.  Once, in this conference, a person wrote
    "only a fool..." and a few lines later mentioned an analogy that I had
    written three replies previously.  So this is a common problem,
    especially in notes which contain ridicule as .116 does.

    Regarding the content of .116.   I've not read the other replies
    recently so the context of the following is self-contained and doesn't
    refer to any case in the other replies: I believe that a performance
    problem can exist when a employee can't "let it drop" but has stopped
    pursuing formal steps to address the problem he or she has with another
    employee.  If an employee doesn't want to work the system  through
    personnel that's fine, but if that employee is carrying a grudge and an
    infectious bad attitude, that's a performance problem.

The topic is "101 ways to silence an employee."  My note .116 is one
of those ways.  That someone would conclude that my note applied to
Mr. Carnell's case is, like I said before, spooky.  Mr. Carnell was
never in danger of thinking that himself.  I still think my note was
appropriate for this topic, and that it is not really different from
the other 101 ways entered, appart from my being a stranger here.

re: .124
As the employee that made the conclusion, I do not know what you mean by 
"spooky", please explain.
I'm not  passing judgement on Dave but consider the following set of 
circumstances:

. Dave authored this topic and is a strong participant in the conversation
. Dave is a stroong advocate for change in DEC
. Dave is undergoing a very tough time and he believes it to be a
  result of his outspokenness.
. He had filed a grievence and was recently told that there was no
  harassment of him.
. Dave works in ALF
. A number of replies prior to .116 (.100 - .115) discuss Daves current
  situation and Dave is again part of the converstion.
. AN employee named McBride works in ALF in the Personnel dept.
. You did not sign (add your first name) to .116

The above set of circumstances led me to incorrectly  but. understandably 
believe that you were that personnel employee and you were addressing Dave 
with .116. I fail to see why thats "spooky".

Again I apologize to you for the misunderstanding and I apologize to
the  McBride of ALF.

    
    
    It's spooky (and more than a little naive) to assume a personnel rep
    would make that kind of statement in an open notesfile. 
    
    Mike

    REF: THE ADDITIONAL EXAMPLE OF WAYS TO SILENCE:

    >><<Your grievance has been taken to the highest levels of the company. 
    Everyone agrees that you are not being harassed.  However, it has been
    observed that you have become emotionally upset over this issue.  There
    is concern that your performance is suffering.  I strongly recommend
    that you drop this matter. In the future I will be watching you
    carefully and monitoring your performance.>>
    
    That example sounded familiar.  I received this "line" over two years
    ago.  I refused to sign the PA that even said it in writing because my
    performance had not been affected whatsovever.  I used the open door
    and was told by a HIGH level manager that PA's "didn't mean anything
    anyway."  (yeah, sure)  I have a copy of that PA but for some strange
    reason it never made it to my personnel file, which I just recently had
    copied for me.
    
    I also just received a call from another employee from another facility
    who not too long ago got nearly the same exact dialogue.
    
    >><< I also recommend that you get counseling so that you can learn to
    accecpt the work environment of this company.>>
    
    I received this line, at least six times in an hour conversation, when
    I showed for the first time an employee suggestion memo that I was
    sending to corporate (KO) in response to Ken Olsen's explicit statement
    that any employee was welcome to send him suggestions, ideas and
    proposals.  It was said by the cost center manager who just recently
    volunteered me into no job, having my job duties given away.

    Speaking of spooky, I'm reminded of the story of Saddam telling his
    cabinet ministers to speak their opinions freely.  And the reported
    outcome to the health minister who thought the invitation was for real. 
    Or the more recent free press and opinions being expressed in the
    Baltic states in the USSR and the subsequent crackdown this last week
    by a threatened Soviet bureacracy.
    
    More madness than spooky considered IBM just generated for the quarter
    about $2.6 BILLION in profit, almost yearly in PROFIT compared to what
    Digital does in SALES.  I fail to see Digital EVER catching up, with
    IBM or Japan, unless EVERY employee is treated as a "partner" in
    bringing their intelligence to the table for original thinking to
    affect some quantum leaps of effective change in literally every
    function within this company.  All my suggestions were in this
    direction and in building customer satisfaction and more accurately
    matching customer wants and expectations in products, services and all
    actions within Digital.
    
    Yet, instead of moving in the direction of a Toyota-like environment,
    where every thought has value, with employees treated like partners,
    and the company makes tons of profit because of employee involvement
    and TQM and listening to customers, it seems that the environment in
    "some" pockets of Digital is more like Eastern Airlines -- who's
    expendable, who's no longer wanted, who's too outspoken, challenging
    abuse of authority and bureaucracy.  In short, management vs employees.
    
    Yet, Ken Olsen and Jack Smith and DELTA have encouraged employees to
    challenge the bureaucracy and red tape!!!!  How can any employee be
    expected to do this when the risk of suddenly having one's duties
    "given away" at will, making any suddenly "unemployed" is a REAL
    possibility?  Why bother, why take the risk to one's income, and
    therefore the well being of one's family and home and security?
    
    Real teamwork and commitment and loyalty means everyone sticks together
    to succeed, and always acts together as one; no individual is left on
    the battlefield, dismissed as cannon fodder when no longer needed, or
    wanted, to be used and then discarded.