Conference 7.286::digital

				BINGO!

   >... I mean most of these people were productive
   > in the past as individual, technically competent contributors. 

    That's the part I don't buy.  I know a couple like that, but quite a
    few that were never particularly competent at anything.
    
    Except changing jobs.

    When technical career development beyond a certain level is nil in some
    parts of DEC, the only manner of advancement available and indeed the
    tradition 'route to the top' is via the management chain.
    
    	- andy

 Managers above the line supervisor level should be *strongly* encouraged to
 have from 10-20% of their staff reports be consultants.  And those consultants
 should be given all the "special projects" and individual contributor type
 assignments that currently get dumped on lower level managers and supervisors
 (since the current behavior keeps them from doing people management and being
 of some real value to THEIR direct reports).
								paul

    One (Manager) to One (Subordinate)
    
    One (Manager) to No  (Subordinate)
    
    are very common here...
    
    
    

    
    To:.5
    
    	To echo a previous reply... BINGO
    
    		Fred Deady

    BINGO-BINGO.
    
    Mark

    Two additional observations ...
    
    1. When I first came to Digital, I was told that one didn't have to go
    into management to have significant contributory influence - you could 
    do that and still be an individual contributor.  I thought that was a
    highly progressive idea - how great!!!  But it ain't true!!!!!!!!!!
    
    2. The "culture" has not matured to respect people management as a
    skill and art.  I've know numerous people managers whose evaluations
    are less than 10% based on any aspect of their people management
    performance - they're almost solely evaluated on their individual
    contributions.  This has not only perpetuated poor people-management
    (leading to very low morale) but professional abuse of subordinates and
    many forms of pliagarism.  I give a lot of credit to those few people
    managers who got ahead because of their GOOD people-management
    performance.  They're more rare than Yttrium!

>> I give a lot of credit to those few people
>> managers who got ahead because of their GOOD people-management
>> performance.  They're more rare than Yttrium!
   
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.  There are some real good managers out
there, both peoiple and project managers, and yes, I salute them too.

But it's like I said in '.0', people just migrate to where the money
is, and probably conversely, migrate away from where the money isn't.
If there are too many non-productive type managers, maybe salaries in
that area should fall and salaries in other *needed* areas should rise.
I wonder what the natural migration path would look like then?
 

    Within the greater Customer Services organization, there seem to be
    large numbers of marginally (I'm stretching here) competent managers
    who are almost Rasputin-like in being able to survive every time
    someone finally catches up with them.
    
    They always seem to find an equivalent or better job in just a few
    days or weeks.  There is an absolutely incredible, silent old-boy
    network that seems to always work for them.
    
    They range from mid-level to many former Jack Shields cronies. 
    Watching them operate provides real insight to the problems that
    Gorbie is dealing with in trying to get the USSR functioning.  I
    still maintain you could go to Stow and arbitrarily order every
    other person out of the building with zero negative impact on the
    operation.  Finally, I have no/nada/zero confidence that this mess
    will be fixed.

    I know, let's hire John Silber as corporate personell manager, give
    him an axe and let him go!  
    
    As his unofficial campaign slogan said: " A bad man for bad times"
    
                                          

    In Field Service a candidate for U.M. had to pass a fairly rigorous
    board of review to obtain a "license" to be a manager.  It often took
    the candidate a full year to prepare for the board... attending
    management classes of various sorts, learning management skills,
    policies and practices.  
    
    The review board (usually five to seven middle/senior level managers)
    listened to a "formal presentation", and then interviewed the
    candidate.  The review was scheduled for about two hours, and resulted
    in one of three actions:  a) unconditional pass  b) conditional pass
    (the candidate would be given a check list of weak areas which had to
    be accomplished) or c) fail.  A failing candidate could return three
    times (I am not sure any one ever did).
    
    The goals were to filter out those candidates who were not positively
    motivated to work for the license.
    
    Once the candidate won his/her license, (s)he could then shop around
    and interview for available jobs... 
    
    I think that method of reviewing and qualifying managers was in place
    until I left the field service organization a bit over one year ago.  I
    don't know if it is still done.
    
    I have noticed that where I am NOT ONE MANAGER has been board
    certified.  
    
    I wonder if there is a corolary there?
    
    tony
    (who is not a manger...)

    well, a friend of mine (a manager) told me that most future managers
    during their management classes succeed in hiding their "power" 
    motivation and showing it as a "missionary" motivation
    
    Many (10) years ago i remember the then sws branch manager "making" 
    another person into a manager in order to become himself a second level 
    manager... 
    
    Bruno_who's_not_a_manager.

    Yeh, I've seen that little back-filling trick done several times.
    
    Don't under-estimate the power thing.  I had a manager tell me once
    that he didn't want any more money....just P-O-W-E-R.  He was sloshed
    at the time.  The good news is that he was canned shortly thereafter.
    
    P.S.  ......well not really canned......he's still on various staffs
    several years later, but no longer in a position to hurt people.

    If power is so important, then maybe some people should consider
    a career in the military... or at IBM.  
    
    When things get too confussing, sometimes I step back and look at
    the big picture.  I get a check every week to help DEC make computers,
    not add to my empire or posture for more money.  I may be naive,
    but I'd like to think that if I do a good job, the money will come.
    If you have a good manager, that is indeed the case.  But yes, there
    are indeed many power seekers and clever non-productive types -
    at all levels - that shift around from one safe job haven to the
    next.  Maybe a way to redirect those energies/cleverness should
    be devised and these people should be retrained to be productive
    using their *skills*.  (I'm being liberal here in case you didn't
    notice)
    
    In any case, too many are riding the "Gravy Train", Wallstreet sees
    it and now, finally, corporate sees it.  Just hope their actions
    are not misdirected... which reminds me of a little story:
    
    THere once was a small town down by a river.  The people all decided
    to build a grand bridge over the river to promote commerce.  Well,
    after some time and a lot of work, the bridge was complete and it
    was then decided that a single attendant should be hired to maintain
    and oversee the bridge.  The attendant was hired and was happily
    doing a good job, collecting tolls, painting, and shoveling snow
    in the winter.  Then, it was decided that this atendant needs
    a supervisor to make sure he was doing his job and prepare bridge
    maintenance presentations.  One was hired full time.  Then, an 
    accountant was hired to handle the wages for the attendant and the 
    supervisor.  Then an auditor was needed to review the books kept by 
    the accountant.  Well, the auditor soon realized that it was costing 
    too much to run the bridge and that someting had to be done about
    it... a 25% reduction in the workforce was needed.  They fired the 
    attendant.
    

    I won't argue with previous writers, they see different parts of DEC 
than I do, but....

    Several managers I know have been given the package right along with 
individual contributors. Some of those managers were first line, others are 
2nd level and higher.....

    Just because all you see are IC's getting the package doesn't mean that 
is the entire picture.....

    Vic

    yes, some third or even fourth level managers got the package here
    (Italy) and left...
    Bruno

    It doesn't surprise me that Europe is doing a better job in spreading
    the package.  I've always been impressed with their management
    approach.  Personally, I'd like to see Pier-Carlo step into the #1
    position.

	From some scuttlebutt I heard some time ago, he told the US-based
management that he was doing it his way, period, and would ride with the
results he got.

    From my 12 years of DEC experience being both an IC & Manager of
    people, it seems to me that many managers are being created/
    developed by higher level managers who want to move upward in the
    structure.  To do so, they need lots of high level/high compensated 
    folks reporting to them to create a bigger budget & seeminly more
    accountability & responsibility...then bingo...promotion time.
    
    How many higher level managers get promoted to group manager or even VP
    by cutting back their budget & staff?  
    
    Mark
    

	One of the most damaging things that seems to have happened
	in the last few years is the number of managers one sees
	who are not "computer people."

	They can't program 'em, design 'em, troubleshoot 'em,
	or connect 'em, and only use them reluctantly.  How is it that
	someone can  make business decisions about software,
	repair service, or support if he doesn't understand how
	this stuff works, how it's used, etc. ?

	Training budgets alone require a great deal of knowledge of
	our products and their weaknesses, the market, and
	the realities of dealing with them as vendor's reps.

	Sometimes 'techies' don't say all the 'in' management
	buzzwords, but would the result be much worse if they
	had held sway for the past 10 years ?

	Steve H

	P.S. "Empowerment', 'walk the talk', 'vision', 'escalation plan',
		'consensus', etc. do not a manager make.....

    Re: training budgets requiring technical knowledge...
    
    In ESDP (ed services development and publishing) we are lucky to have
    a number of pretty technical unit managers, many of whom were course
    developers in previous work lives.
    
    It would be very hard for me to work for a unit manager who couldn't
    discuss the technical issues I have to make decisions about when sizing
    and writing courses.
    
    Holly

    I've found that independent workers need little management.  In
    other words, they tend to manage themselves.  The ability for base
    level contributors to communicate and work in a group also diminishes
    the need for management.  
    
    Perhaps we have to refocus our managerial training to the individual
    contributor?  In that way, the ratio of manager/worker might drop
    considerably.
    
    Just a thought

    
    As a couple of replies mentioned PCF, you might like to know that there
    is a very hard hitting video lasting 3 hours doing the rounds. He made
    it a few weeks ago as part of a European Leadership forum, & I can't
    believe he wants the content kept secret.
    
    His bottom line was that managers will have his authority to MANAGE.
    They have his authority to create their own organisation, go get the 
    business, & to succeed. He clearly stated that if they regularily do not
    succeed, they have no future.
    
    Said he was prepared to live with failure, providing learning results.
    I suspect the key issue is how many failures... Feeling was of a vision
    that was clear & unambiguous -- even if some would argue. PCF made the
    point that being 80% right all of the time was a great average --
    didn't want to indulge in perfection, just profit. Followed that with
    the line that individual managers should not waste time arguing with
    the vision, but get on & make the numbers.
    
    His view would also be directly contrary to all those who keep harking
    back to super-techies & super-products as the answer to our (perceived)
    ills. He was adamant that that was right in the 70's, less so in the 80's
    & very little use in the 90's. He is wedded to business solutions, & full
    service capabilities.
    
    He was also very bullish about our long-term prospects, but dismissive
    of faint-hearts who panic at the moment.
    
    
    

>                     <<< Note 1316.25 by CHEFS::OSBORNEC >>>
>                             -< PCF recent video >-

    
	Pardon my ignorance, but who is Pier-Carlo ?  I get the
	impression he's  a high-level European manager.

	Could someone post some info ?

	Sounds like a breath of fresh air...

	Steve H

	P.S.  If anyone knows about the title, availability of
		the video, I'd appreciate your posting that here,
		as well.

    PCF is the European Vice President, That is, he 'owns' Europe....

    the way i figure it, if you used the numbers in (-1), by the time you
    got to the 4th level of management down from the top, there would be
    168,421 employees...  
    
    heck, there are four levels of management in my organization before you
    get out of the *building*
    
    tony

    
    Someone mentioned the concept of having Consultants at all levels of
    management. I don't know how it is in other functions but it's very
    difficult to convince managers that having truly technical consultants
    reporting at any level above first is a good idea. About the only
    consultants I know of reporting to managers are ex-managers converted
    to consultants when the last re-org happended. 
    
    A frustrating situation...
    
    -Ray
    

    re .28:
    
    OUTSTANDING IDEA! Let's Start the process for the New Year.  I'll
    start with my group.  Woooops, I don't have anyone working for me...
    and rather like it that way.
    
    re .29:
    
    Shooooot, there's more than 4 layers in my group, never mind the
    building.
    
    
    
    BTW, how did the people in this aircraft manufacturer respond to
    the reorg?  How did salaries/wages get effected?  Were employees
    made an offer by the hiring manager?
    
    
    Dave

    One answer to the question posed by the base note is "We all made the
    managers."  It's an answer we should think about.
    
    Many, if not most, employees aspire to enter management at some point
    in their careers.  In my profession it is very common for people to
    want to become managers after five or ten years.  It is often the only
    way to advance your career and increase your income.  I've known people
    who set management as an absolute career goal (as in "management or
    bust").  Some made manager; some didn't and left to manage elsewhere. 
    The accumulated pressure of thousands and thousands of workers trying
    to become managers is one of the reasons we have managers in the first
    place.
    
    In the hypothetical organization of 75 workers and one manager, how
    many of the workers aspire to management?  Knowing human nature, I'd
    say ten to twenty.  What would you do if you wanted to make manager but
    there were twenty people in line ahead of you?  Your options would be
    to leave, live long, or outmaneuver your competition.  From a business
    perspective, all three of these things are bad.  You don't want to lose
    senior people for lack of opportunities; you don't want a stagnant
    workforce hanging around, and you certainly don't want a hothouse of
    Machiavellis stabbing each other in the back.  So I claim the
    management structure of this and many (all?) other companies has
    evolved to relieve this demand for advancement as much as for the value
    of managers themselves.  Let me point out that as companies mature,
    they tend to add more layers of management (as long-time DECcies will
    attest has happened here).  The pressure for advancement exists all
    throughout the management hierarchy, and I have long felt that the
    yearly reorganizations within companies serve to create new positions
    and opportunities for senior managers and vice presidents as much as
    anything.  (I think reorgs have three purposes: to make, reward, or
    punish managers; to make a change to stimulate productivity; and
    because the company believes the new organization is better.  I would
    rank the reasons thusly, even though the stated purpose is always the
    third reason.)  Hey, it's the American dream!
    
    In theory, technical employees do not have to lay awake at night
    dreaming or scheming.  There is a dual-ladder advancement program at
    Digital (as at other companies), in which you can rise through the
    ranks of consulting engineer almost as far as you can in management. 
    In practice, though, what is the ratio of managers to consulting
    engineers (who have equivalent rank)?  I think it's something like 50:1. 
    In practice, you have a far better chance of becoming a manager: there
    is a clear path to management, including courses for prospective
    managers and managers who will serve as your mentor, while prospective
    consultants must be appointed, not promoted, and may have no mentors; no
    review board sits in judgement of your nomination; everyone in
    management has some notion of what you will do; and there are simply
    far more slots open for you.
    
    What's interesting about this is that I haven't had to talk about the
    importance of or need for management.  I have presented a justification
    for managers based solely on the need to provide career advancement
    for individual contributors.  So even if managers had no function
    whatsoever (no cracks, please), there would be people who wanted to be
    managers simply because the job exists, you can get to it, and it pays
    more than the job you've got.

    A major misconception that I keep seeing in here is that managers
    earn more than their employees. Subject to career age and experience
    it very normal for a manager to have several people earning more
    than he/she does.
    
    "Manager bashing" seems to be a popular sport in this and many other
    files. That is an unfortunate way of people. In a sports team the best
    player is most often NOT the captain. There are usually a few star
    players who get paid a whole bunch of money. They usually make lousey
    captains because their greatness came from being a superb-at
    whatever-they-did as an individual. Very few great players ever
    become great team mamagers. 
    
    It is significant to me that these "1" type performers are not the
    ones that we hear bashing their managers. I here a lot of griping
    from people rated "3" or lower. I know that there are bad managers
    and that there is little protection from one, but griping is not
    the answer. The answer is to change your manager. Two ways that
    this can be done. Firstly you can just leave, with associated griping
    all the way out of the door. Secondly you can try and change your
    boss. Most people respond to good spirited, well implemented and
    reported work. Some respond to you telling them what you want to
    help you do well. Others may even tell you what they want if you
    ask them.
    
    What I am saying is not easy to do. Heck!, we grew up, survived
    parents, teachers, proffessors etc and now we have 'BOSSES". no
    justice right?, Wrong!.
    
    I have experienced the change from individual contributor to manager
    several times with different companies and one thing always happens.
    I initially feel a tremendous sense of "Loss-of-value". I see people
    compensating for this in many ways. Power trips, meetings of sole
    importance to them, but we all have to be there. Some become aloof
    so that they can deal with "The workers". 
    
    The real problem is within us all. We all instinctively distrust
    and resent anyone who appears to have power over our lives. Managers
    control what we do, how much money we get, if we get promoted and
    even if we become managers. The solution to the distance that all
    of this creates is to get closer. Talk to the people that you work
    for and that work for you. Plan things that will make you both
    successfull. Ensure that you both know what is expected.
    
    I often object to what my Boss wants done but I will not leave his
    office with him thinking that it will not be done unless it is not
    "Doable"!.                       
    
    It is my job to give my boss the feedback that he needs to make better 
    decisions. As much as I try to extract the same from my own team I 
    still find the basic fear that they have of being penalised for "Speaking
    out". As time goes by this usually changes and I am a better informed 
    manager. Can you do this with your manager?.
                                                                      
    This notes file is very enlightening and I usually tend to be a
    reader. I wonder if there are more managers who read-only in case
    their replies get disected and "Bashed"?. 
    
    It, (management) is a two edged sword that really does cut both ways 
    but in the right hands it could be a sculptor's scalpel instead of a 
    weapon!.
    
    Eric H.

This is not a bash-management reply,

I think .32 was correct. I've been in field service for several
companies for the last 15 years and its been consistant that if
you want to have a real career you have to give up fixing and start
managing. I've been delighted that DEC makes as many career oportunites
available to us techie types as it does. But really how many managers
does a company need? While a person is "labor" we seem to view our 
job as something of a temproray thing but when someone goes into management
they become like a part of the building or something.

Fred Mudgett

    
    Anent .33 (Henderson):  I'm aware that some workers make more than some
    managers, but turn around your statement and you get what I see as the
    norm: It is very normal for a manager to have few people who earn more
    than he or she does.  Given that each managerial level (manager, senior
    manager, vice president, senior vice president) has its own,
    ever-increasing pay scale, it's highly likely that the average manager
    makes more money. especially since, as I pointed out, it is so
    difficult to get into the equivalent technical level (consultancy).
    
    I think your point is a good one, though.  I wonder what would happen
    if pay scales were adjusted so that managers did *not* earn more than
    workers of the same age and seniority?  I think one of the major
    factors that makes individual contributors want to become managers
    would then be removed.
    
    By the way, you fuel our paranoia when you say that the people who bash
    managers are 3 performers, not 1 performers.  How do you know? 8^)

    In the base note, I meant to identify a possible explanation for
    the migration path from the main body of workers into management
    and how this might not be what's best for DEC.  It was never meant
    to be a *bashing* session of any kind.  In fact, I salute the good,
    productive managers that I have known in my time at DEC.  It's the
    lost, less productive souls in the management layer that I'm concerned
    about.  
    
    I may be too much of an idealist, but I'd like to think that employees
    (technicians, engineers, managers, execs.... ) get paid what they're
    worth, i.e. a direct reflection of how much they help DEC make a
    profit, and NOT for other reasons.  If someone get's paid less than
    they're worth, then they move and the company looses.  If they get
    paid more than they're worth, then the company looses and the burden
    of supporting their artificially inflated salaries is born by the
    others.  This applies to EVERYONE amanager and worker alike.  And
    yes, I'd say that managers get paid more than the people that work
    for them (in general) the few exceptions not withstanding.
    
    If a productive, leadership role in management is needed, then fine, 
    let's fill it and make the company higher profits in the future as a 
    result of this.  And, let's pay this manager appropriately.  However, if
    no such positions are needed, then let's not create them for the sake
    of retaining senior people. 
    
    For some, replies to this topic could be construed as resentment
    from the "grunt level" about management.  I'm not resentful.  I'm
    a '1' performer who happens to work for an outdtanding manager that
    probably gets paid a lot more that I do and deserves to!  I also
    see others at my manager's level who contribute less than the lowest
    paid individuals in our group.  It's crippling DEC and something
    should be done about it.
    
     

    I work for customers services and this past year (1990) my unit was
    involved in a manager reshuffle and consequently we worked about 6
    months without a "manager" to report to. We had unit meetings amongst
    ourselves found what had to be done ie: service calls,pms,ecos and fcos
    and needed and necessary audits, preks and scheduled work. We did our
    all work with enthusiasm and vigor and the unit performed as one and no
    one dropped the ball. After the period of time our DM had a meeting
    with us to tell us of the very fine job that we are were doing and
    asked us if we did indeed want a manager. The concensus of opinion was
    no we did want one, but we had to get one because: there was no one to
    do our P.A.s and do our salary reviews. The manager we got does just
    that, but it is a very SAD state of affairs when your unit gets
    recognized for doing a excellent job and one of them gets shoved down
    you throat anyway. Maybe there is point here that if the so called
    managers would let their people do their job the way they know how and
    what is best for the customer we could climb out of this mess that DEC
    is in. 
    
       -It happened to our unit-
    	 

This is really sad. If the DM wouldn't buy a Self-Managing Team concept, how 
about just having each employee write their own review and submit it to the 
DM, who would verify that employee's performance through peer interviews and 
unit results?

Attrition of management is such a significant and painless thing to do if it 
is done right. Why we ignore these easy things is beyond me.

Jim

    About 4 0r 5 years ago our unit had no U.M also for several months
    and things worked out great. As for the board that people have seen
    disapear ,from where I set it has change to E.O.C. BTW my district
    manager says there is no such tnhig as a 1 performer.

    re .39
    [mild rathole alert]
    
    I have heard of managers that maintain that there is no "1" performer.
    However, these same folks would readily admit that they sure could find
    a "5" easily enough! 
    
    I suppose all the management classes served coffee the day they covered
    `Beware of performance skew. It is always upward.' 

    re:.40
    
    You mean they were all in the restroom,or what?
    
    Ken

    RE. 39
    
   Regarding header < A 3 is'nt bad > the following comment.
    
    A 3 performer for most of DEC's history used to be treated with
    gratitude for the job you have done and used to be greaded at an
    average of "midpoint" on the salary range. Now over the last few years
    (about 4-5) a ranking of 2 has replaced this as midpoint ranking, +- a
    little. DEC used to reward its employees consistant job performance 
    (a 3 said you met all job expections,you did what your were paid to
    do). Now they say that to get a raise you have to be a 2 performer or
    very under paid as a 3 (entry level). So what they do ,in the interest
    of saving money, DEC continuely raises job expectations for a 3 performer, 
    (I'm doing my job as put down in my job plan) and therefor continue to
    pay low to mostly nothing for all those employees who consistantly do
    the job every day DEC asks them to do. Since employees, who were at
    midpoint or above as 3 performers in the past are now to high in the
    range since moving 3 performers below midpoint and replacing them with
    2's the avarage employee gets it in the pocket book again with little or
    no payraises. All this is in the interest of increasing job
    productivity while reducing expenses by keeping pay raises and levels 
    lower. It's getting harder to get rated a 2 performer since they keep
    putting more of the 2's responsibilities in the 3 pay level. If you
    get discouraged and quit the company, who cares? Not DEC, especially if
    you have been with the company a long time. If you leave they just pay
    half as much for another entry level performer and pocket the rest.
    
    Just for info this is from one who has been with Digital 19 years and has
    not had a pay raise in 3 years. Discouraged YES, am I quitting NO. I'll
    continue to do the job I'm paid to do and hope things will get better
    in time, before they stop giving any buyouts at all to leave DEC and 
    just hand out pink slips.
    
    Regards
    Al Root
        

>    get discouraged and quit the company, who cares? Not DEC, especially if
>    you have been with the company a long time. If you leave they just pay
>    half as much for another entry level performer and pocket the rest.
 
    If an "entry level performer" can do your job for half the cost to DEC,
    why would this be a bad idea?  Kinda reminds me of those overpaid auto
    workers -- oops, we discussed that already.
       
      John

    re:-1
    
    If an entry level person can do the same job and has the same skill set
    and cababilities as defined in my job description (by definition of
    entry level it doesn't) then that's between the new hire and his boss 
    if he wants to work for half pay but I'm not working in an entry level 
    position and DEC's latest interest is only in cutting expenses and not 
    necessarly in maintaining current skill sets or maintaining the same level
    of service to our customers. They will settle for less if it saves them 
    money as a bottom line.
    
    Now if you want to keep going in this rat hole we can or we can begin
    to deal with the problems in DEC by using some good judgement with an
    eye to the future including our dealings with our own employees as well
    as our customers. Using wallstreet mentality for the short term quick
    fix and not dealing with the major long term issues in DEC will only
    cause DEC, its employees and customers more problems and strife.
    
    Regards
    Al Root
     

    re .43 and .44
    
    One affect of the "duty inflation" combined with typical DEC pay policy
    is that by the time management gets around to replacing an experienced 
    person, the job itself has expanded to the point that the minimum
    qualified replacement costs considerably more than the previous person.
    
    Some years back, I was administrator for an Engineering data base
    system, with one assistant.  At the time I was a Senior Prog/Analyst,
    and she was the next step down (forget the exact title - P/A II or
    something).  I told my management that I wanted a promotion to
    Principal - they said no.  (After I said "Goodbye" they suddenly came
    

    re .29
    
    > heck, there are four levels of management in my organization before
    > you get out of the *building*.
    
    > tony
    
    JEEEEZ.  Must be a BIG SHOT.  There's four levels of management in 
    TWO floors of my building 'fore it goes up North.  What's scary about
    all of this is I'm a consultant one and in a sales support
    organization...in the field.  Think about it.

From what I was told by my sales exec manager, there are 38 stovepipes
in our office of under 500 people.

???????