Conference 7.286::digital

    
    Karl-

    All of these courses are the embodiment of what makes Digital what
    it is today. Without these unique and far-reaching offerings we, as
    employees, could begin to lose our focus and grasp of these
    critical concepts that will mean the difference between success and
    failure as our company forges a new and bountiful future. Your
    remarks would seem to trivialize and denegrate the establishment
    and continuation of these programs that have brought about new
    awareness and appreciation of the diversity that we have within
    Digital.

    We as employees need to touch and explore this bounty of diversity,
    for if we fail to do so we may not be individually and/or
    collectively reaching our fullest potential either as individuals
    or as a corporation. Awareness and communication are the keys to
    the future, by all means let us use them to the fullest extent
    possible to unlock every door that would hinder us.
    
    Lee
    

    I will jump in and defend one of these... Change Management
    
    Most of the projects which are launched in any company fail....,often
    at great expense and often setting stratigic direction back several
    years...
    
    This course is on how to prevent that, and should be taken by anyone
    involved in project implementation. If more folks took this course
    there would be less projects, because projects would be thought thru
    and introduced in a way that would let them succeed the first time!
    

Re .0:

	The manager I had in my last job took some of those courses.  The
    result was that I got to keep my job.  Before he took the courses we
    just did not understand each other.  Afterwards it was much easier to 
    understand what he wanted done and do it.  He also found that I was 
    really trying to help and appreciated that.

	At least some of those courses are valuable.

<FLAME ON>

	Now look at your own attitude buddy!  One of the hardest things to
    get around here is adaquitly trained people.  You're suggesting that we
    don't train our managers?  Or are you one of these techno-nerds who thinks
    anybody can be a good manager?

I am a first level manager who has taken some of the "offending" courses, 
and I would have to say that they were helpful, informative, and assist me 
in dealing with physically impaired employees, employees who need more help 
and understanding in their career, and others who need to have me help them 
understand changes going on around them and help them thru those changes.

Am I a perfect manager? Hardly, but these courses have been useful and I 
would not throw them out. I have worked for companies where someone with a 
manager/employee problem would be gone in about 30 seconds at most, and 
there would be no financial package with it......in other words, as Lee 
said in .1, this is part of what makes Digital different and a great 
company to work for.

I would suggest you (.0) reread your comments, and ask yourself, would you 
really want to work for someone who sounds like he has no interest in 
anyone who has no appreciate for people who are different in any way from 
them, or don't care how you feel about your job other than having to do it, 
or sounds like they have a chip on their shoulder for people who don't 
think like they do? I may be reading too much into your comments, but you 
don't sound like you are interested in being tolerant of Digital's very 
diverse workforce. If I have mis-read your commentary, I apologise, but 
somehow I don't think I have missed it by much.....

    Vic Hamburger

    Aside from the very positive reasons already mentioned for these
    courses, there may be a very practical one.

    One purpose of these courses (but not the only one!) is to ensure that
    Digital will meet legal requirements and goals imposed by various EEO
    laws.  Knowing one should not discriminate against those with
    differences is quite different from understanding to avoid such
    discrimination, even when it is not conscious. The existence of these
    courses provide evidence that Digital is actively trying to observe
    those laws.  If Digital did not offer them, it would be far more
    difficult to show we really intended to observe both the spirit and the
    letter of the law.  The fines and costs of violating the law could
    exceed the cost of providing them.
    
    Steve

Re:                      <<< Note 1386.6 by ATPS::BLOTCKY >>>

>    One purpose of these courses (but not the only one!) is to ensure that
>    Digital will meet legal requirements and goals imposed by various EEO
>    laws.

    Now I'm curious... is Digital really mandated by law to provide
    such courses as outlined in .0? I thought they were there as purely
    a benefit.
    
    Lee

>>    One purpose of these courses (but not the only one!) is to ensure that
>>    Digital will meet legal requirements and goals imposed by various EEO
>>    laws.
>
>    Now I'm curious... is Digital really mandated by law to provide
>    such courses as outlined in .0? I thought they were there as purely
>    a benefit.

    Please don't read things my statement which are not there.  I never
    said that Digital was mandated by law to teach any course.  Many of
    courses foster skills and values which, if learned, will cause
    employees to behave in a manner consistent with the law - and with
    Digital's own philosophy.  The courses have value in themselves.

    I was noting that courses provide tangible evidence that Digital is
    making an effort to comply with the laws.  But they are not, as far as
    I know, specifically required by law.  On the other hand, if one day
    Digital found itself in court, and needed to prove that it made efforts
    to comply with the law, I am certain that the courses would be
    mentioned.

Steve

    
    I have to agree for the most part with .0.
    
    My experience is that the attendees of such courses break into two
    groups, with minor exceptions:
    
    o those who have the basic skills but don't know the buzzwords, so are
      are perceived as not having the basic skills. They learn the
      buzzwords, and are deemed successes.
    
    o those who don't have the skills or the buzzwords. They also learn the
      buzzwords, and are deemed successes, when in reality they are now
      dangerous, because by using the buzzwords they can convince others that
      they have the skills. Buzzwords, like DECwrite, can make even the
      most content-free document look quite authoritative.
    
    But since I am resigned to the fact that touchy-feely courses will
    never go away, how about adding some useful topics, like
    
    o  Creative Risk-taking
    
    o  Fighting the Concensus Monster
    
    o  Making Decisions that Stick
    

    
    Granted, many of the people who most NEED to take one of the courses
    listed in .0, probably won't! Hopefully, some will volunteer to take
    the course before they are MADE to as part of a performance problem, 
    because of an incident or employee grievance. 
    
    Perhaps .0's reason to eliminate HR is to reduce expense? Ask these
    questions too: What is the cost to Digital of a harassment lawsuit? An
    EEO/descrimination lawsuit? Even just the manpower required to get the
    documentation together to respond to an investigation by the labor
    relations board? How about the cost to Digital of a work group 
    "organizing" ("unionizing")? 
    
    HR practices are in place to prevent disputes that employees feel can
    only be settled by a union. These courses are preventative tools, well 
    worth the cost. 

    Beautiful, .0...I couldn't agree with you more...but you realize you
    are going to be buried by those who espouse the DEC equivalent of being
    "Politically Correct".  Don't you understand we have all kinds of
    people who make their living from this garbage?  They might have to
    go back to Amherst and start looking for grants again.
    
    .1 --- that's the problem!  These courses really are "the embodiment
    of blah-blah-blah...."  That's why they should go.
    
    But don't get over-excited that anything will happen.  You're dealing
    here again with an entrenched old-boy (old-girl?) bureaucracy here,
    and they really know how to fight when their existence is threatened.
    
    Fat Chance!!!

    Re:0
    
    	When we talk about managering diversity, it is not a trivial topic
    that digital should ignore. Our work force is changing, and the people
    DEC does business with will change to. We have many people in this
    company that don't take the time to understand someone who is
    different, and frankly don't care. When times are bad, that's when we
    get negative comments like these. Unfortunetly, you are getting your
    wish, because these courses are not offered to my facility anymore. 
    
    	I wish more employee's would take some of these courses, maybe
    people of difference would not feel so frustrated working at DEC.
    
    -Harvey 

Re .9:

	I think you are over simplifying things.  You seem to be assuming 
    that the people will either have the skills required going into the 
    course or they will be totaly lacking in those skills and then only thing
    the course will teach is the buzzwords.

	Well, it isn't that simple.  The people taking the courses will have
    variable levels of proficiency with the skills covered and variable levels
    of insight into the application of those skills.  While a few days in a
    classroom is not likely to improve the persons proficiency, it will often
    provide additional insight and techniques and will focus the persons 
    attention to the point where they will become more proficient over the 
    weeks that follow the course.

	As for people who simply use the courses to put a new gloss on their
    vocabulary without learning anything else, they will continue to have 
    problems that no amount of talk will be able to cover up.

	The classes you mention would be interesting to say the least but would
    be better for middle management than the people who usually take the
    courses under discussion.

Re .11:

	Mr Negative opens his mouth again.  While being 'Politically
    Correct' is hardly a laudable goal,  neither is making things difficult
    for other people just to make yourself feel important.

	As I understand it, one of the main goals of these courses is to get
    the managers out of the 'I'm the boss, do what I say or else' mode and 
    into the mode where they become part of a team that is trying to solve
    business problems.  I've actually seen it make a difference.

	As for the 'entrenched' beuracracy, if they learn something from 
    courses like this, they will be easier to live with than you probably are.

    re -1.  I'm talking about the entrenched bureaucracy that designs,
    develops and delivers these courses.
    
    Why do you feel the need to insult me??  Don't you value my
    differences??  I'm hurt.

Re .14:

>    Why do you feel the need to insult me??  Don't you value my
>    differences??  I'm hurt.

	Because you seem to be insensative to other peoples feelings.  You
    have a right to be different but you also have a responsibility for what
    you do.  I have a bad habit of reflecting what I pereceive to be other 
    peoples attitudes in my responses.  If you are hurt, it is because you 
    have tried to hurt this company and other people in it.  If that is not
    your intent, you might find a better way to express yourself.  Maybe one
    of the courses you are putting down would help.

>   I'm talking about the entrenched bureaucracy that designs, develops and 
>   delivers these courses.

	These courses are relatively new, so the 'entrenched' part is a bit
    of an exageration at least.  Personally, I think these courses are a net
    benifit to the company.

    Would you mind telling me how I have "hurt" this company?  Or does the
    truth hurt?
    
    Along similar lines, its only been a couple weeks since some kind of
    program announcement came across the net outlined six or seven courses
    and seminars, etc., to help women cope with their problems in the
    workplace.  These also cost money, and take people away from their
    jobs.  We can't afford this foolishness anymore.  INCOMING!!!

    Well, I didn't get any hate VAXmail... I must be slipping.  Let the
    generic rebuttals begin.. "I'm right, you're confused".  Read my lips;
    In an era of company-mandated personnel cutbacks, it seems bizarre and
    cruel to still have these HR classes.  They are a throwback to when
    this company WAS genuinely profitable and could afford it.  We can't
    afford it now, it's FAT and should be cut BEFORE the next wave of
    bloodletting begins.  In case you missed it, ALL field employees are
    having an unscheduled Performance Appraisal.. everyone at or below
    PA level '3' will soon be in grave danger.  No pun intended.
    
<<< Note 1386.6 by ATPS::BLOTCKY >>>

>    One purpose of these courses (but not the only one!) is to ensure that
>    Digital will meet legal requirements and goals imposed by various EEO
>    laws.

    This has the ring of truth; anything as content-free as most Human 
    Resources classes has to have its origins in government...
    
>Note 1386.10            REEF::LAMBKE "Rick Lambke @FLA dtn 392-2220"
>    HR practices are in place to prevent disputes that employees feel can
>    only be settled by a union. 
    
    I thought that's what the Open Door Policy and Personnel are supposed
    to ensure.. oh, I get it, this is a Redundant System.
    
Note 1386.3             VMSNET::WOODBURY                
>	Now look at your own attitude buddy!  
    
    Hey, it's negative !  It's not like I HID my distaste for HR classes..
    
    >One of the hardest things to
>   get around here is adaquitly trained people.  You're suggesting that we
>   don't train our managers?  
    
    If a manager was truly terrible, anyone who thinks that HR classes
    alone would turn it around probably believes IBM can cluster...
    
    >Or are you one of these techno-nerds who thinks anybody can be a 
    >good manager?
    
    A good manager is hard to find.  Unfortunately I don't think HR classes
    make an iota of difference.  You have a different experience.  Fine.
    
Note 1386.5             SENIOR::HAMBURGER 
    > ......in other words, as Lee said in .1, this is part of what makes 
    >Digital different and a great company to work for.

    Lee, would you care to comment on your reply .1 ??
    
>.it doesn't sound like  you are interested in being tolerant of Digital's 
    >very diverse workforce. 
    
    Well, here in our office we have Black and Hispanic employees, all of
    whom I'm on excellent terms with.  What does that have to do with these
    classes ?
    
    >If I have mis-read your commentary, I apologise, but somehow I don't 
    >hink I have missed it by much.....

    Well, Vic, you've guessed it - I think diversity is fine, but company
    mandated, expensive classes to shove it down our throats is another
    story.  Part of UDD is for people to sit around and call out every
    cruel racist, sexist remark they can think of, and they're written in
    big letters on a flip chart.  How sensitive.
    
    karl

Re .16:

>    Would you mind telling me how I have "hurt" this company?  Or does the
>    truth hurt?

	You discourage people, especially managers and subordinates, from 
    working effectively togeather.  You seem to want to bury subordinate's 
    ideas under a pile of manageral perogatives.  That is destructive to this
    companies future success.

>    Along similar lines, its only been a couple weeks since some kind of
>    program announcement came across the net outlined six or seven courses
>    and seminars, etc., to help women cope with their problems in the
>    workplace.  These also cost money, and take people away from their
>    jobs.  We can't afford this foolishness anymore.  INCOMING!!!

	You think women shouldn't be working at Digital?  Or if they do,
    that they don't need help dealing with people with attitudes like yours?

Re .17:

>    Well, I didn't get any hate VAXmail... I must be slipping.  Let the
>    generic rebuttals begin.. "I'm right, you're confused".  Read my lips;
>    In an era of company-mandated personnel cutbacks, it seems bizarre and
>    cruel to still have these HR classes.  They are a throwback to when
>    this company WAS genuinely profitable and could afford it.  We can't
>    afford it now, it's FAT and should be cut BEFORE the next wave of
>    bloodletting begins.  In case you missed it, ALL field employees are
>    having an unscheduled Performance Appraisal.. everyone at or below
>    PA level '3' will soon be in grave danger.  No pun intended.

	First, we have only had one quarter of loss and that was due in large
    part to the amount set asside for TFSO.  The company is still profitable.  

	Second, while we do need to cut back on the fat, we should be very 
    carefull not to cut out the muscle with it.  In fact we need to build up 
    our business muscle.  One of the ways to do that is with appropriate 
    training.  The human relations training for our managers is as vital to 
    building and keeping our business muscle as the technical training is for 
    our individual contributors if not more so.
    
>>    HR practices are in place to prevent disputes that employees feel can
>>    only be settled by a union. 
    
>    I thought that's what the Open Door Policy and Personnel are supposed
>    to ensure.. oh, I get it, this is a Redundant System.

	Not quite.  The human relation training is required to assure that 
    the open door in the open door policy stays open and does not just become 
    an illusion.  Neither the open door policy, nor Personnel, nor human
    relation training by itself is enough to assure success in managing a 
    company this size, but they reinforce each other and improve the odds a
    lot.

>>   One of the hardest things to get around here is adaquitly trained people.  
>>   You're suggesting that we don't need to train our managers?  
    
>    If a manager was truly terrible, anyone who thinks that HR classes
>    alone would turn it around probably believes IBM can cluster...

	The problem is not the trully terrible managers.  Hopefully a lot of 
    them left with TFSO.  It's the ones who don't know what to do but want to 
    learn that need training.
    
>    A good manager is hard to find.  Unfortunately I don't think HR classes
>    make an iota of difference.  You have a different experience.  Fine.

	Yep.  I've seen it make a lot of difference more than once.

>>    .it doesn't sound like  you are interested in being tolerant of Digital's 
>>    very diverse workforce. 
    
>    Well, here in our office we have Black and Hispanic employees, all of
>    whom I'm on excellent terms with.  What does that have to do with these
>    classes?

	How about the blind and the lame?  How about those with unusual 
    medical requirements?  Would someone with a heart condition trust you
    to administer CPR or would they feel that you would quit in the middle 
    because it was too much effort and they will not be able to work for a 
    while afterwards anyway?
    
>    Well, Vic, you've guessed it - I think diversity is fine, but company
>    mandated, expensive classes to shove it down our throats is another
>    story.  

	I believe that most of the courses are voluntary.  On the other hand
    having your manager tell you (nicely) that you are an insensitive lout and 
    need to learn what is in the courses if you want to keep your job might 
    just open your eyes a bit.

>    Part of UDD is for people to sit around and call out every
>    cruel racist, sexist remark they can think of, and they're written in
>    big letters on a flip chart.  How sensitive.

	Since you take the event out of context and I have never had the course,
    it is hard to tell what the function of the exercise really is.  It could 
    be to open your eyes to what hurts other people.  It might be to teach you 
    not to over react when someone gets mad and becomes abusive.  It could be 
    an exercise on how to divert attention away from a particular topic.  In 
    other words, there is no way of telling if the intent is legitimate or not 
    without knowing a lot more about the course than you have presented.

    re .-2
    
    >If a manager was truly terrible, anyone who thinks that HR classes
    >alone would turn it around probably believes IBM can cluster...
    
    They can.  It's called "sysplex".  Announced in Sept 1990
    as part of the huge /390 announcement package.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of what groups utilize
these H.R. courses.  I have what may be an unfair suspicion that you
would find certain "headquarters" functions vastly overrepresented
among the student body.

If all managers are the primary target group (as opposed to just
"headquarters" managers and pseudo-managers) then the distribution
should be relatively level across organizations and geographies.  I
don't suppose anyone here actually has the numbers?

I think there are too many disparate courses aimed at managers, and
not enough of a "core curriculum" of a few reasonably comprehensive
courses that could cover the major bases (such as: Digital policies
and philosophies, financial stuff, dealing with the whole range of
performance issues--both positive and negative, etc.).  I know that
when one of my former organizations made me a manager the only course
they were in a real hurry to see me take was "Corrective Action".;-)

							paul

    Isn't the use of the courses .0 argues against influenced by the laws
    of supply and demand, i.e. employees and/or their managers deciding
    there is a need by an individual for a specific type of training?
    
    If no one needed such training, and no one signed up, then they would
    not be offered (I assume). But people do feel the need for training, so
    the courses are offered.
    
    Doing away with specific courses, or types of courses, across the board
    just doesn't make sense. The company empowers us all to be responsible
    for what we do. If enough people feel the need for this training let's
    trust that they have good and proper need, and let's trust that their
    managers are doing their jobs and that they agree that the need is
    valid. 
    
    Let's get back to work and stop second guessing others, and let's stop
    insulting each other.
    
    Thorgan
    

    
    re .21:
    
>>    Doing away with specific courses, or types of courses, across the board
>>    just doesn't make sense. The company empowers us all to be responsible
>>    for what we do. If enough people feel the need for this training let's
>>    trust that they have good and proper need, and let's trust that their
>>    managers are doing their jobs and that they agree that the need is
>>    valid. 
    
    I suppose this theory also applies to the cost-effective use of those
    little yellow Post-It's...
    
    
    HAH!
    

    For many of these courses there may be less expensive alternatives to
    a $500 plus two-days plus transportation course.
    
    Like you could go to the self-help section of any reasonable bookstore
    and pick up a book on the subject for about $4.95 and read it in a few
    hours.

    I get it !  This IS a political conversation.  Just as if I were a war
    protester, the knee-jerk response is to call me "unpatriotic", since I
    think these classes have had their day, and then some, I'm magically
    labelled insensitive, racist, sexist, homophobic and prejudiced against 
    the disabled.  Crappy tactics, and anyone with an ounce of sense is
    looking past it toward the core issue; in our business climate (and
    according to several layers of MY management, we ARE about to
    experience mass firings in the field - I have a PA coming up this
    month, and wasn't due for 6 more, but I expect NO personal problems,
    thanks for asking), is there any place for these fluff classes ?  
    
    Knee-jerk response :
    "Oh, no, they're not fluff !  They're vital to our success !"  As vital
    as... business travel ?  As vital as... current rotational inventory on
    support desks ?  As vital as... office supplies ?  As vital as...
    co-workers ?  I recently filed a request for a corporate resource to 
    travel here to help with some high level presentations at a large CSO... 
    turned down.  That SAME WEEK, this office, sales, sales support, and 
    customer services all attended a mandatory UDD class.. $500 a head, two 
    days' work lost.  Tell me YOU'D be happy with this disconnect.  I'm not.
    
    Knee-jerk response :
    "That was a local management decision and we can't agree with you based
    on the skimpy, one-sided evidence you presented."  
    
    Just for one day, pretend all the money this company spends is YOURS. 
    Are HR classes at the top of your spending list ?  Mine neither.
    
    karl moeller, still hoarding POST-IT NOTES (tm)

    Git 'em, Karl!   I like the idea of treating HR courses like college
    home study courses.  In fact, I'm in favor of eliminating software tool
    courses, if only to force us to make software tools so easy to use and
    manuals so good that courses are not needed.  But, that's a whole
    'nuther rathole.  I also prefer working to meetings and use "notes" as
    my break and eat lunch at the terminal ...
    
    Steve

  Paul Dickson makes a good point in .23 -- perhaps it can serve as the seed
  of a real suggestion.

  I stopped going to DEC courses almost 10 years ago for reasons that, if
  expressed here, would only fan the flames.  But before I decided
  against ever attending another DEC course, I tried to acquire the course
  materials, figuring that I could save DEC's money and my time that way.

  Alas, I was told that my cost center would pay the same price for the 
  course materials as for attending the course itself.  That was a long
  time ago and I don't know if they same policy applies today.  Does anyone
  know?

  If that policy is still in effect, I'd be willing to write up a DELTA
  suggestion to get it changed.  E.g., course materials should be made 
  available at cost, or perhaps even for free from the corporate library.

  JP

    Even getting the materials for the cost of the course could be much cheaper
    than transportation, lodging and lost workdays.  I agree that .23
    brings up a valid point.  It could be in Digital's best interests to
    sometimes enroll for a course to get the materials and then skip class.
    
    Steve  

    re -2 ..... you just totally validated my concerns about the
    "entrenched bureaucracy" that runs this "training".  If they made
    the materials available....what would they do?
    
    What makes the whole thing even worse, is that a hell of a lot of the
    presentor/facilitators aren't even DEC employees!  These courses have
    become a feeding trough with no measureable value to the Corporation.
    
    I have heard for a long time that Personnel was going to be heavily
    impacted by reductions-in-force.  Maybe there's still some hope.

                     <<< Note 1386.29 by COOKIE::LENNARD >>>
>    What makes the whole thing even worse, is that a hell of a lot of the
>    presentor/facilitators aren't even DEC employees!  
    
    Certainly true of the so-called 'facilitators' that ran UDD in this
    facility recently.  I seem to recall a Smith memo forbidding use of
    outside consultants in the interest of reducing expenses.  HR
    management should be made to answer some questions regarding this
    policy, assuming expense controls are still in effect. (hah!)
    
    >These courses have become a feeding trough with no measureable 
    >value to the Corporation.
    
    What he said.  karl

    In a recession and in a business downturn ALL costs should come
    under scrutiny, these ones included. If it can be demonstrated real
    worth comes from them then they should be retained, if not, junk em.
    Its that simple, in the real world, people call it business.
    
    Now all I'd like to know is if these courses push such concepts as
    equality and understanding, how come the great bulk of them are based
    in the Greater Mass. area? Have you Northern North Americans got some
    mandate on problems that the rest of the Corporation has to outlay
    dollars to fix up? Seems like part of the great US Central office
    cash cart to me (along with turkeys, radio training in offices,
    subsidised cafeterias, helicoptors to the airport, weekly technical
    training seminars, joy rides at some amusement park). Again I'm not
    criticising their existance, just the way they are spread.
    
    Meanwhile, I'd like to receive QFD training now rather than two years down 
    the track. In 3 years of CSC work I never received any customer handling 
    training (believe me, no matter what you might think of someone in an 
    interview or their technical knowledge, there are some real arrogant jerks 
    on the end of some of our lines). That is not to say that there are no
    quality people, its just SOME fall a bit short in the human interaction
    stakes. With all the talk going on about how our customer face falls 
    short can I suggest the ADDITION of two fundamental courses:
    
    "Answer that telephone dammit" - a guide to surviving in business by
    		attention to small things.
    "How to handle customers the new Digital way" - focusing on mechanisms
    		to ensure 1. customers receive prompt attention
    			  2. they are not treated with arrogance by a 
    				techno weeny hell bent on feeding their
    				own ego at the expense of someone who has
    				paid dollars for the privilege.
    			  3. customers are not left hanging on an open line
    			  4. employees see weedling the last ounce of
    			     margin out of customers can be a bad thing in
    			     the long run
    			  5. make sure that all employees understand why
    			     they are here, what there job entails doing right
    			     to ensure customer satisfaction.
    These two courses should be enforced for all employees, before you are
    allowed to do ANY other training, technical or otherwise. Lets use
    training to address the problems we have in the current business
    climate and use it with focus. And please make sure that head office isnt 
    the only place they are run.
    
    John
    EIC/Engineering, Sydney
    
    

    
    Re: .0 and others
    
    I'll not argue about the effectiveness of the particular courses
    mentioned.  I haven't taken any of them yet and if I did I might
    agree with you about how well they achieve their particular goals
    and whether they were a waste of time.
    
    I will argue, however, whether the intention and goals of courses
    like that are needed and valuable to Digital.  If your point is 
    that it's all "touchy-feely" fluff stuff then I suggest you get 
    in touch with the real world.  You want to talk business, then
    let's talk business.  The competition is getting INTENSE out there.
    Anyone who thinks that training our workforce to be sensitive to
    each other and to understand each other better is fluff is in
    for a rude awakening.  One of the biggest dollar drains on any
    company is the ineffeciency of the work force at being able to
    work effectively with each other.  In the 90's, a company with a
    work force that can't work effectively together to satisfy its
    customers may as well close up shop and go home.
    
    We need MORE of this training rather than less, but I agree that
    it MUST be effective.
    
    Steve

    My point about books was that for many of these courses we do not even
    need the "course materials".  It isn't as though DEC was the first
    place to think of any of this stuff.  The bookstores are full of books
    on these topics, and those books cost a lot less than the DEC-developed
    material.   The DEC materials are expensive because they are produced
    in relatively small volumes (the writer still expects to be paid!) and
    in many cases the packaging is way over-done.
    
    I have talked to people in Ed Svcs about those books, and the course
    developers have little say about how the packaging is done.
    
    What would be useful is a reading list on these topics.  Not all those
    books in the bookstore are equally well written, and it would be nice
    to know which to avoid.  (L. Ron Hubbard?? :-))
    
    It is common practice for Ed Svcs courses to be taught by contractors.
    It is actually cheaper this way, as if nobody signs up for the course,
    you don't have to pay them.  They can juggle the course schedule more
    freely.  To be able to give as many course sessions, at convenient
    times, would require a larger full-time staff that would end up costing
    more than the contractors do.
    
    Now, some (not all) of these courses are not even developed by DEC.
    We buy the rights to the course, and to duplicate the materials, and
    then it is taught by either DEC or outside people.  "Positive Power and
    Influence" is a popular course like this.  Whether the way courses like
    this are taught is more effective than just reading it out of a book
    depends a lot on individual learning styles.  Me, I prefer a book.

    re .32 sensitivity, communication skills, etc..
    
    How naive of me to get personal growth skills on my personal time.
    
    karl

Re .32:

	Very well said!

Re .34:

	Not naive.  Anybody who wants to get ahead will try to learn what 
    they need to know whenever they find the need.  I've bought books at the
    local book store that I could probably have gotten my manager to get me
    IF I had spent (wasted) enough time to do it.  I've taken professional
    reading (including some of the human relations material) on vacation and
    considered the time well spent.  However, I have also found that the 
    courses I have taken at DEC were very useful.  Many times an instructor 
    can add the additional information that simply is not present in a book.  
    This is especially true for human relation courses where much of the 
    material is non-verbal.

    
    Re: .34
    
    > How naive of me to get personal growth skills on my personal time.
    
    I think you miss the point.  You will always benefit from time and
    money that you invest in yourself, but here we are talking about
    what is proper for Digital to invest in itself.
    
    If Digital's workforce is not as a group investing in the skills that
    Digital needs then Digital had better look out for itself.  One of
    my pet peeves in this area is how Digital tells us that our careers 
    and our professional development are our responsibility and then
    accepts no such responsibility for itself.
    
    When was the last time that you were able to ask a manager or personnel
    representative for information about what skills etc. Digital expects
    to need in its workforce 3, 5, or 10 years from now?  I'm told that
    planning my career is my responsibility, but not yet seen where Digital
    accepts the responsibility for doing its part to ensure that its
    workforce has the information it needs to do that planning effectively.
    
    So for now, here we all are diligently doing our planning with no clue
    about whether what we are planning for will match what's needed even
    five years down the road.
    
    Steve
    

    Karl....I love it!! Reminds me of HST when someone yelled from a crowd
    "give 'em hell, Harry...", he yelled back, "I don't give them hell....
    I just tell the truth, and they think it is hell."
    
    As far as I can determine, this business of HR using outsiders
    continues, regardless of what J. Smith has mandated.  Just a couple
    weeks ago there were posters all over Colorado Springs locations hyping
    some woman who comes in and talks about her life with a homosexual son.
    I'm guessing it's supposed to sensitize one to issues around working
    with homosexuals.  I didn't sign up as I felt it was a blatant
    violation of every cost containment measure I was aware of.  But I have
    to ask, WHO THE HELL APPROVED IT??  I wonder, what does this woman get
    paid for her story?
    
    Tell you what I'd like.....I'd like a work station (I'd even take a
    used one), some good database, financial, presentation, publishing
    software to help me with my job, and about two weeks of intensive
    training on how to really use it IN MY JOB.  That's what would help
    me!!  And it pisses me off that good money is being poured down the
    drain on these other courses.
    
    And, please...please.....please, anyone who is warming up their fingers
    to dump all over me about homophobia.....save the effort.  I'm guilty.

    Gee folks, many of you are really hostile.  I know that many of us are
    going to get the axe through no fault of our own, but we don't have to
    act like a school of piranha, as if that will somehow protect us.  The
    people in human resources were hired to do a job like all of us were. 
    The management structure has defined what that job is, either actively
    or passively.  If they want to change it they can.  The same goes for
    educational services and the courses that they offer.  One can conceive
    of a legitimate need for most of these courses for SOME of our
    employees.  Somewhere along the line, one or more managers has to
    approve a course request.  If they don't, and if no one signs up, then
    that's that.
    
    Tony

    Not one of the respondents that thinks HR classes are swell has
    answered my query sometime back, given a choice of mass firings or
    shedding some NON-ESSENTIAL NON-TECHNICAL amateur counseling classes, 
    which would you choose ?  
    
    Later : "There might be fewer of us, but I feel really good about
    everyone that's left, don't you ?"
    
    karl

Re .39:

	Even at $500 per, dropping these courses would only save a few jobs
    so it is NOT a question of these courses vs mass firings.  If the courses
    ARE dropped, the managers who need the training will be less effective,
    make less money for the company, and we'll have to do MORE cutting.

	You're also assuming that the only kind of training that has any value
    is technical training.  That assumption is flat out wrong.

    re .40:
    
    Quite true.  As a life long techie, I have taken several non-technical
    courses that were both valuable AND impossible to learn from hard-copy.
    A couple of courses on presentation techniques and skills come to mind,
    since they involved interaction with people as a basic part of the
    course.  Few courses on actually dealing with people (project
    leadership, negotiation skills, or any other skill involving dealing
    with REAL people) can be taught in any other than the most theoretical
    form without some kind of "controlled lab" that is difficult to set up
    individually.
    
    FLAME ON
    
    Don't like the course?  Don't take it.  It'll get cancelled.  In my
    years at DEC I've seen lots of courses disappear.  Let the market take 
    care of it and stop "whining" (to use a phrase seen all too often).  The 
    entire education program at DEC probably doesn't come close to matching 
    a single loss on a poorly conceived engineering or marketing decision.
    
    Lets see.  VT52, GIGI, TRAX (remember all those VT61s), The PRO family
    (I had one - attack at your own risk!), the RA adhesive problem, PRISM,
    SVS, the Jupiter cancellation, cannabilization of our own hardware
    products (Did the 8600 ever make money?), Forms wars, database wars, 
    and TP system wars.  The list is impressively long.  Any of them would
    cover all kinds of courses!
    
    You want MAJOR cost savings?  Forget the odd courses - start looking at
    better engineering and marketing decisions.
    
    FLAME OFF
    
    /Dave

It seems like HR bashing is somewhat of a favorite sport in this 
conference.  Now, I'll let you in on a little secret...sometimes Digital 
managers do not do the right thing.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's true.  One important function of the 
Personnel Department is to keep Digital out of court.  I know that saving 
the company money isn't given the same priority as making money for the 
company, however, given our litigious society and sympathetic juries, 
Digital stands to lose a bundle if and when cases go to court.  Plus, 
Digital does not like to be in the limelight when it's connected to a civil 
complaint.

If you are a woman or a person of color you are probably concerned about 
pay equity.  Your manager may or may not hold your pay equity as a pressing 
concern.  Personnel, however, takes a look at these issues and will deal 
with managers who have a lousy track record regarding pay equity issues.

We have managers within Digital who attempt to fire women when they become 
pregnant, who sexually harass employees, who base performance appraisals, 
ratings and pay increases based on nothing more than the 'good old boy' 
mentality instead of more objective criteria.

People who work in line functions or in revenue generating jobs may feel that 
it is an inalienable right to regularly trash personnel people because, in 
their opinion, personnel people don't do real work.  However, it seems to me 
that personnel people have the thankless job of following managers around with 
pooper-scoopers cleaning up the messes that some of these managers leave behind.

A majority of employees will never experience grossly unfair treatment, 
sexual harassment or wrongful termination.  For those employees who have 
been treated in such manner, there is EAP, Health Services and your local 
Personnel rep or EEO manager to help resolve the problem.  (Both EAP and 
Health Services are brought to you under the larger umbrella of the Digital 
Personnel Organization.)  I suspect that we would see greater number of 
these problems within the company if we did not have the services of 
personnel people or these kinds of training sessions readily available.  

There are great manager and there are lousy managers.  Should the entire 
management function be trashed because of this?  There are great personnel 
people and there are lousy personnel people.  Is it really necessary to trash 
the entire function because of a few poor performers?

And all of the above is said with the qualified disclaimer that although 
Digital is not perfect, it is many times better than other companies I have 
worked for.  In fact, there is no other company I would rather work for 
than Digital.

                                                     

                    <<< Note 1386.40 by VMSNET::WOODBURY >>>
>	Even at $500 per, dropping these courses would only save a few jobs
>    so it is NOT a question of these courses vs mass firings.  
    
    When people are losing their jobs, office supplies and company travel 
    are seen as superfluous, and HR classes are not, someone around here 
    is living in a fantasy world.  And it's not me.
    
    It's actually a bit more than $500 to your cost center.. but what
    about the lost time ?  Let's assume that the average wage of the
    attendee is $150 per day.  Folk wisdom tells us that company benefits
    approximately equal the stated salary.. so in straight wages the
    company has lost $300, and factoring in benefits for the lost two days,
    we get into about $500-600 lost to the corporation, plus the charge for
    the class itself.. how many lost $1000 does it take to fund a position?
    Oh, and the cost for the HR adminstrative staff (every large facility
    has one..).  So every 50 people attending one UDD class rob one person 
    of a job.  I wonder how many person-days HR classes have eaten in the
    last year.  I wonder how many jobs have or will be lost because of this
    hemorraging of money.  Yes, it's just one area.  Start somewhere.
    
>You're also assuming that the only kind of training that has any value
>is technical training.  That assumption is flat out wrong.
    
    The message I've been hearing over and over and over and over again is
    that the fat days are behind us, real competition is making things
    harder, we need to be able to survive on thinner margins (read up on
    RISC margins sometime), and that we need to be lean and mean.  I
    totally, emphatically support personal growth classes and study, and,
    yes, counseling - on my own time.  The time is past for the company to 
    sponsor this stuff.  The training *I* want to see the company offer is how 
    to make better products, how to understand, support, and effectively sell 
    these products.  Digital is not a municipality, responsible for offering 
    a total support infrastructure.  It's a business, and that business is to 
    make and build software and computers.  PERIOD.
    
    karl

    
    Re: .43
    
    >The training *I* want to see the company offer is how 
    >to make better products, how to understand, support, and effectively sell 
    >these products.  Digital is not a municipality, responsible for offering 
    >a total support infrastructure.  It's a business, and that business is to 
    >make and build software and computers.  PERIOD.
    
    I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the goal that you propose,
    but whether your view of how to reach that goal will work.  It's
    simply a question of what DOES it take to effectively position
    ourselves to "understand, support, and effectively sell these products"
    to our customers.  We've seen your opinion, now in MY opinion and
    perhaps that of others here, that the intention of the "fluff"
    you're complaining about is to help do this.  IMHO, the world is
    changing around you and you aren't seeing it.  Frankly, we have
    all the technical knowhow that we need.  What we DON'T have is the
    simple realization that our customers have problems to solve and
    are NOT impressed with our techno goodies.  We DON'T know how
    to listen to them and to talk to them.  To be blunt, we do a lousy
    job at communicating with and understanding our customers.  The
    mindset that we have to "understand, support, and sell" products
    is PRECISELY what has gotten us into this position.  What we
    need to do is understand and support CUSTOMERS.
    
    Steve
    
    

    In order for business to be conducted, isn't it necessary for the
    people within a company to be able to communicate clearly with one
    another and with customers? But, if I need to communicate with an 
    individual who is (fill-in-difference-of your choice), and I have 
    a bias of some sort against that category of person, communication 
    becomes difficult. I distort my communication; my ability to do business
    becomes impared. These classes allow us, to a certain measure, to
    do better business. 
    
    On a different note, if these classes keep even one person from
    acting in a hurtful, harassing or discriminatory manner, they
    justify their cost. There is no price tag to be placed on the
    damage done to someone who has been the victim of such behavior.
    So, ease up on the attitudes, folks. Unless you've  been on the
    receiving end of this stuff, you may have a hard time seeing
    its worth. Don't propose taking it away from those of us who
    find it a useful tool. 
    
    Ellen
    

I can't judge these courses because I haven't taken one.  Those of you who've
taken them -- did they change your attitudes?  Were your prejudices reduced
by the courses?

    I'll jump on the dump'em band wagon.  Though I do know what the
    content of some of the courses is, I'll avoid bashing based upon
    personel (dis)taste, or lack there-of.
    
    My biggest problem with these courses is that they provide an excuse
    for our employees and management to avoid accountability.
    
    If we do not listen to customers, and fail to produce products or
    offer services, or answer support questions, we are not doing business
    properly.  (I'll leave the assumption as to whether its "lack of
    listening skills", or gross incompetence as an excercise for the
    reader).  The people responsible for such poor performance should
    receive bad reviews, not get raises and promotions, perhaps even
    let go.  
    
    This would provide sufficient incentive for people to alter such
    bad behavior. 
    
    Instead we have very nice socially acceptable names for behavior that
    is detremental to our business.  Rather than take the hard stance
    that Joe screwed up and cost Digital $500,000 and we better do
    something before he sets a new record, we say "Joe has a listening
    problem" and send him to listening school.  If Joe likes these courses
    he will lose a couple of million just to attend a few more.  Joe's
    manager feels good about this, because he/she has a plan and can
    show actions that should be leading Joe to salvation.
    
    A bit of a side note, all those poorly planned, politically motivated
    money losing projects, likely had one or two vocal team members
    who were saying all along that there is a better way to proceed.
    
    Those people obviously had a communication problem.  Today we'd
    send them to Positive Power and Influence.  ANd we would feel good
    about that.
    
    -Kevin
    

RE: .42

>We have managers within Digital who attempt to fire women when they become 
>pregnant, who sexually harass employees, who base performance appraisals, 
>ratings and pay increases based on nothing more than the 'good old boy' 
>mentality instead of more objective criteria.

And I could add a few other things ...

Unfortunately, every time I have tried to get HR personnel to get involved and
do something about a situation (which was clearly out of line in my mind)
they have wimped out. They have sided with the offending manager, and done 
nothing. In Digital, to push it further than that represents potential career 
suicide, so one ends up backing down.

You could argue that things looked wrong from "my side of the fence", and that
after careful investigation HR found nothing wrong. You could accuse me of
not recognizing REAL discrimination when I see it, or brand me as a trouble-
maker. Two of the employees from my examples have left the company. The 
manager? He's still around.

>People who work in line functions or in revenue generating jobs may feel that 
>it is an inalienable right to regularly trash personnel people because, in 
>their opinion, personnel people don't do real work.  However, it seems to me 
>that personnel people have the thankless job of following managers around with 
>pooper-scoopers cleaning up the messes that some of these managers leave 
>behind.

I would agree that it is a thankless job of sorts. And I can definitely see
viewpoint of following management around with pooper-scoopers. I agree that
this is HR's function. I just haven't had much luck getting them to do the 
complete job. If cleaning up means smoothing things over and burying the
poop so nobody sees it then OK, that gets done. If it means taking
disciplinary action on lousy managers who intimidate, descriminate, and 
harass, I'm sorry but I have to say that I think the job is NOT 
getting done.

One person's experience, anyway.

/se

    

    If I'm to be interviewed for a position, I want to be
    interviewed by a DEC employee, not a contract Personnel 
    (HR) Consultant.  I had a hard time accepting that the
    "nitwit" who interviewed me for a job a few yrs back had
    the final say, and s/he was 1) Not familiar with the Job codes
    2)  Not very good, in my & a few others opinions who interviewed
    for the same job.
    
    Lynne   

    ...while I agree with your premise, .46, what possible assurance is
    there that two days forced attendance at a seminar will change my
    attitude?  What is if think the instructor is wrong?  What is I
    don't agree I have a problem.
    
    ....Yes, I did attend one...something on sexual harassment.  Not
    voluntarily by the way...I was ordered to go, as was the case with
    most male attendees.  I learned that there are more aspects to
    sexual harassment than I had previously thought.  I learned that
    totally innocuous statements can be twisted and turned into something
    sick.  I learned that part of the fault was the reluctance on the
    part of a lot of career-driven women to report such instances...as they
    felt it would effect their careers.  The real shocker is that a
    significant percentage of the women attending this course openly
    stated they would not report a rape while on a business trip....but
    instead would try to transfer out....wouldn't want to hurt the career,
    I guess.
    
    Bottom line...I guess I approach women with more caution than in the
    past.  I'm not sure that's of any value.

re: .-1

In spite of the benefit you saw, it makes me extremely uncomfortable that any
group would MANDATE an H.R. course for all its employees (still worse for a
subgroup based on race, sex, or whatever).  This really smacks of political
indoctrination (AKA "brainwashing").  Another thing is that i have most often
seen management-mandated training on what are essentially "fad" issues--hot
today, gone tomorrow, with no impact other than on the manager's being able
to tell his/her boss that "all MY employees have taken _________ training!".

								paul

    
    Re: .51
    
    >Bottom line...I guess I approach women with more caution than in the
    >past.  I'm not sure that's of any value.
    
    Of course it is of value.  It's made you more aware of how a
    significant number of your co-workers, the women in this case,
    experience their lives at work.  Look at your own "shock" at knowing
    that a "significant percentage of women attending that course openly
    stated they would NOT report a rape while on a business trip."
    This knowledge will contribute to you being better able to understand
    and work with women.  Everyone benefits: you, the women, and Digital.
    
    Steve
    

Re .51, .52:

	Generally, the human relations courses are more effective if the
    people enroll voluntarily.  If you go into one with anger and a 
    determination not to listen and not to learn, you are very unlikely to
    get a lot out of the course.

	There are (hopefully rare) occasions where 'mass indoctrination' is
    needed to overcome a particularly hot problem or head off a local issue
    around discrimination of some sort.  I'd guess these are the sticky cases
    where there are a small number (maybe only one) people who is causing a
    problem but there is not enough evidence to single the people out for 
    action.  
	It is also possible that the people who are misbehaving are otherwise
    very productive but their actions are making other people less productive.  
    In these cases it is not productive to fire the people causing the problem 
    and not fair to fire the people being effected.  
	In both of these cases a mass human relation course serves to put 
    everybody on notice that something has to change and provides some 
    guidance on how and what needs changing.  It can also change group norms 
    so that peer pressure moderates the undesirable behaviour.  The situation
    where Lenard was generally more carefull with his dealing with others after
    taking one of the courses was likely to be exactly what was intended and 
    needed.
	So, it may be 'political indoctrination' but it is generally better 
    then firing someone (the equivelent of taking them out and shooting them.)
    (Yep, some of you seem to think we might as well take em out and shoot 'em
    and then we would not need the courses, but then we wouldn't have a 
    company either.)

	There have been 'fads' where a manager took a particular course and
    then required or otherwise pressured others into taking the course.  These
    really are 'touchy feelly' fuzzy things not much different from a revival
    meeting.  (Revival meetings have their place but DEC is NOT one of those
    places.)  DEC really should not be paying for those courses.  BUT the 
    courses mentioned in .0 are not that kind of course.  They deal with real
    business problems, not just fluff.  If it seems that there has been a 'fad'
    for these courses where you are, it may well be that there is a serious
    problem that you don't know about.

    
    Re: the cost of these things.
    
    You know it occurs to me that perhaps the cost of the problems
    could be more than we realize.  Just think, for example, what
    it might cost Digital to send say 20 people, for example, to
    a one day workshop on sexual harassment.  Say at $500 a head
    plus about $150 a day per person in salary plus benefits etc.
    that could come to $15000, and this is the key: ONE TIME.  Sounds
    like a lot of money.  Now lets look at what ONE sexual harrassment
    complaint might cost Digital.  Is 20 person days an outrageous
    guess?  Could that by itself cost Digital $15000.  Any people in
    personnel out there who can comment on the level of effort?  How
    much is Digital saving by 20 people being made aware of the problem
    and how to avoid it?  Not simple, is it?
    
    Steve
      

    re -2....talk about fads and mass indoctrination.  In '85, 120 of us
    in the ill-fated Target Sales Force were forced, and I mean forced, to
    attend an all day brain washing session by some neo-Nazi.  Suffice it
    to say, that the session dealt almost exclusively with how to play
    mind games with potential Digital customers.....things like how to
    confuse, mislead, misdirect attention, etc.  Many people walked out
    in disgust...others like myself were in such a state of shock we didn't
    know what to do.  The manager of us all thought this animal was
    fantastic.  Oh, yeh, he got paid $15,000 for the one day.

Re .56:

	Now that's the kind of stuff we can do without...

	IBM uses FUD.  We need to learn to counter it, not add to it!

    The latest (March 13, 1991) issue of Business Week has an article
    entitled "Ending Sexual Harassment: Business is Getting the Message".
    In the U.S., courts, legislatures, and companies are expanding the
    definition of harassment and stiffening the penalties drastically.
    
    In the article it also mentions that David Stone's TNSG organization
    has hired a sexual harassment consultant to lead a series of programs
    for management.
    
    re: attitudes
    
    It is true that a course won't be likely to change someone's ingrained
    attitudes.  However, given some of the penalties discussed in the BW
    article and recent awards and court rulings, that isn't likely to be
    much of a problem.  Given the increasing costs of litigation and the
    proposed addition of jury trial and punitive damages for sexual
    harassment, companies will have little choice but to go out and actively 
    find people whose actions and statements endanger the ol' bottom line
    and give 'em a "change or leave" ultimatum.  Or maybe just fire their 
    little buns out the door without any choices.
    
    /Dave

    re: .many
    
    There is an issue here I'd like to emphasize.  I believe it was Karl
    who talked about impending layoffs in the field, etc.  Someone else
    commented about cutting off the "fat" but leaving the "muscle".
    
    Well, if I understand Karl correctly, he is saying that the current
    "threat" in the the field is to cut both "fat" AND "muscle"!  This
    concurs with many of the whisperings heard locally.  It appears that
    the fear is that in order to play the head count game, employees who
    have done their jobs well and (in EIS, at least) have brought in net
    profit for the company could be chopped from the employment roles.
    
    Mind you, I have no idea if this is actually the case.  Unfortunately,
    local management either doesn't know what's going on or isn't telling.
    
    With this in mind, I can see why people would be upset about HR courses
    (especially those of the mandatory variety).  The feeling is that we're
    about to cut the muscle, so let's do what we can to save the most
    important muscles: the jobs of productive workers.
    
    -- Russ

    I can see two sides to this issue.
    
    I write technical courses as part of Ed Services Development and
    Publishing.  You couldn't pay me enough to write the other kind - what
    I call the 'process courses'.  I'd be bored.  
    
    On the technical side of the course development house, we have been
    investing a large chunk of change into figuring out how to write 'lean
    and mean' online training that runs in Bookreader, is bundled with the
    product, and that targets technical users.  No cutesy graphics, no
    color, no bells and whistles, just a simple interface  with lots of
    optional support material that you can call up only if if you want to
    see it to a subject matter expert's well-documented path through a
    difficult tool.
    
    This can save a lot of travel dollars and a lot of inconvenience IFF
    it's done well.  The customers seem to love the 'lean and mean'
    concept.  (If anyone wants to see a sample, check out the online
    training with DECdesign V1.0, or the revised version that will be
    coming out with 1.1 in a few months).
    
    I think this concept could be applied to some process types of training
    where the goal is to learn skills.  I could have learned mind mapping
    and Information mapping in this format.  They were both courses that I
    found extremely valuable because they both provided me with tools that
    help me capture what's in my head.  After three years, I'm still
    actively using what I learned in mind mapping.
    
    In a self paced format you get to take what you want and leave the rest
    - the thing I have the most problem with in classroom courses.
    
    I also attended an excellent course taught by Barbara Walker called
    Affirmative Action University about 5 years ago.  That is not a course
    that would lend itself well to anything but a participatory format.
    
    I think it was a 3 day course, but it was worth every cent DEC paid to
    send me.  I don't love process stuff at all, but Barbara is a
    profoundly good trainer.  I had some mind shifts occur during that
    course that I have never forgotten around racism issues.  Barbara and
    the other Black people in the class spoke from their personal
    experience about things a white person would usually not be privy to
    hearing.  The women and the men talked about some painful issues that
    rarely come up in mixed company.  (It was a little bit like going to the
    Aquarium and getting to see the underwater world from the fish point of
    view without having to go through all the training to become a scuba
    diver to achieve that perspective.  Standard analogy disclaimer....)  
    
    As a result, I have sat in meetings for 5 years since that training and
    seen and heard things more accurately.  I believe I have responded more
    sensitively based on what I learned.  I have been able to better
    understand why I feel ineffective sometimes when trying to work with
    people who have class/sex/race/world view differences, and I don't have
    to make them bad or wrong to work on it.  Best of all, as I acquire new
    skills, I am still continuing to integrate things I heard in that
    course ("aha, so that's what so and so meant...") because it made such
    a deep impression on me.
    
    I have gone to other courses that weren't so wonderful.  It usually
    seems to depend on the trainer.  Some trainers are sadly out of touch
    with our lives and jobs, and get so busy with their lesson plan that 
    they don't seem to realize that most people in the room are getting
    little value from the course.  So QC the courses after a couple of
    rounds of students take them and return!  I always knew which ones were
    supposedly the excellent ones, and they were the only ones I ever
    volunteered to attend.
    
    I have been in a women's group and a core group.  Both were extremely
    valuable, but I chose to make up the work time I missed to take them.
    I didn't feel that they were more important than my project (for which
    I have to make and hold to the budget), but I felt that they were
    extremely valuable.  I got some very helpful feedback on the way I
    participate in groups, and on the way I present myself to others that
    I'm not sure my co-workers would have ever given me.  
    
    In the last year I have started getting requests to do a lot of demos
    from the field. The technical know-how is critical, and there is no
    substitute for it, but I think the groups I've been in have helped very
    much in learning how to interact more effectively.
    
    Along the way, I've met an interesting breed of person, the
    professional process-course junkie.  If DEC wants to start trimming
    fat, this might be an area to start with.  If Mr. Lennard has run into
    a few of these, I can actually understand his frustration.
    
    These people have good verbal skills, and enjoy interacting with
    people.   They would be perfectly happy to be in a process course every
    day of the year because it's personally satisfying.  When things were
    more easygoing, they usually managed to attend 8 or 10 a year.  In
    addition to that, they spend weekends and vacations attending personal
    growth workshops.  It's a way of life, sort of a hobby.
    
    I don't think that supporting this type of habit on DEC's nickel should
    be the goal of this type of training!  These people probably aren't
    learning a lot of new skills after so many courses.  If I were a
    manager, I would really try to achieve a balance between technical and
    process type training.  I would make sure that no one was being denied
    technical training so that others could attend their 6th process
    training of the quarter.  But in the past some managers have supported
    endless amounts of attendance at this type of thing.  
    
    One last thought - I have had 2 somewhat difficult co-workers in the
    last 5 years.  I liked them both as people, but they weren't easy to
    work with.  Both of them got sent to a course where we had to rate them
    before they went!  And the questions were very candid.  I participated
    in rating both of them.  Whatever happened at this training was a real
    eye opener for both of these individuals, probably because it was so
    personalized for them.  They were dealing with hard data about
    themselves and their patterns.  Both became better listeners, less
    abrasive, and much more efficient to work with.  And the changes stuck.
    There was probably a marked improvement at first, but even after the
    initial rush wore off, there was still a marked positive change in
    behavior.
    
    Holly
    

    Re: .60
    
    Thank you, Holly.  You've said best what I think some of us
    others have been trying to say.  I agree with every word.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .59
    
    Thank you, ZOT. You've said best what I think some of us others have been 
    trying to say.  I agree with every word - cut the fat before we reach
    the muscle.
    
    I have on my desk a questionnaire from the southwest Discovery seminars
    group, attempting to quantify incremental sales resulting directly from
    customer attendance at Discoveries.  Apparently this is getting a very
    hard look and this is an attempt to justify its current existence.  I'm
    a Discovery booster and a regular presenter on things like X Windows. 
    IBM has regularly advertised technology classes in this area.  The
    Discovery Seminars give a wonderful intro and sometimes in-depth look
    at many technology areas, free to customers, on DEC.  We get wonderful
    customer responses, which may or may not map directly to incremental
    revenue.  I believe it does.
    
    So I am angry when I see a truly valuable resource like Discovery
    having to justify its existence (based on sketchy data), while HR
    classes go unscrutinized and untouched.  
    
    karl

    	This is in reply to a variety of notes discussing mandatory
    training in HR-type topics.
    
    	I too have difficulty with the idea that courses should be
    required.  
    
    HOWEVER...
    
    	IGNORANCE is no longer acceptable as a valid legal excuse for
    inappropriate behavior, and it's an incredibly poor excuse for 
    behavior which may lead to poorer productivity for others in the
    workforce.  I am always struck, in this discussion, in "post-course"
    discussions with co-workers, etc, at how many people use expressions
    like
    	"Gee, I didn't know that these folks were subjected to..."
    or 
    	"I wasn't even thinking that this could bother folks with this
    	background/experience/cultural value, etc."
    etcetera.
    	I've been on the receiving end of such comments--and if I repeated
    the actual content some of you could not believe them.
    
    	In other words, ignorance.
    
    	At least mandating courses removes that as an excuse.
    
    	Another point, here in CXO, the point is made repeatedly that
    the company does NOT expect you to change your attitudes toward
    personal value topics, but does expect your behavior to support
    the company values WHILE YOU ARE HERE.  
    	

    This is probably going to get me some flames,but,I have to agree with
    .0's basic premise. There certainly *are* a number of courses taught at
    DEC which serve no useful purpose. Such courses,for the most part,teach
    common sense and I don't think that anyone who has to be taught common
    sense should have been hired in the first place.
    Let those who think this is heresy in some way start slinging their
    arrows.
    
    Ken

    .64 speaks truthfully!

    Some of the courses listed in .0 are part of the 'new wave' of
    management thinking that is rampant in companies today and are
    necessary for the reinforcement of that style of thinking.

        
    I somewhat look at DEC's growth as being compared to a dependable
    old pickup truck. In the beginning the truck was well built,
    properly maintained and driven by a single driver. It did a good
    job and did it well in a simple fashion. Despite the rocky road the
    truck got down the highway safely, surely, steadily. Imagination,
    vision, hard work, honesty and reward were the only fuel components
    needed.
    
    Now, slowly, the truck has undergone a metamorphosis- lots of
    chrome, custom paint job, trick modifications to the motor, all
    sorts of gismos, knobs and switches have appeared due to the
    increase in size and load. Instead of a single driver we now have
    many- some to steer, others for the gas, and more to work the brake.
    At times the truck attempts to move forward with a simultaneous
    application of gas and brake while many navigators either fight for
    control of the wheel (or let go completely)- the result is an
    erratic lurching down the highway. Motion sickness breaks out among
    some on board!

    Some people try to convince others that all the chrome and gadgetry
    is indeed progress and is necessary- "our truck has never looked
    better" they say or "this is the 90's and driving (read 'business')
    has changed a lot". Courses are offered such as "how to appreciate
    chrome" or "hubcap management" much to the delight of many.
    
    Nowadays there is lots of engine revving and roaring, wild wheel
    spinning and smoking tires. This makes for an impressive display
    for the race fans and gives them a feeling of accomplishment and
    progress... but is it really? New eager drivers in fancy racing
    suits with visions of grandeur compete to get a hand on the
    steering wheel. These new drivers acknowledge with their lips
    commitment to the basics that worked so well in the past but most
    are secretly anxious to try their special technique or add on their
    own special attachment. 

    Some of the old timers (that came in on that simple old pickup)
    feel that all of the chrome and motor roaring is creating an
    illusion (delusion?) of progress and that many of the basics that
    worked in the past are being abandoned in favor of all of the new
    gadgets and fancy paint. The old timers also worry in the zeal to
    'lighten the load' the truck is being stripped of essential items
    such as an oil pump or radiator and not just the useless chrome
    add-ons.
    
    Fuel? Well, we don't have the simple fuel that the old truck
    used... I couldn't even begin to tell you what is used today since
    it is so hard to analyze. I do know that the engine has been
    running rough for a while and the focus has mostly been on
    stripping weight off instead of getting the fuel formula back
    closer to the original brew. The scientists try to tell the old
    timers that the new vehicles won't run on the old mixture but we
    assure them that the old mixture will do just fine.
    
    Of course, all of the add-ons have been permanently welded on
    making their identification and removal painful, difficult and
    ugly. Yanking them off may damage and destroy some of the
    functionally critical parts.
    
    The old timers aren't against all of the changes- seat belts,
    electronic ignition, anti-lock brakes are fine but will all of the
    chrome and fluff that has been added it is hard to separate the
    wheat from the chaff.
    
    Many would like to see those at the wheel spend more time guiding
    so as to avoid a crash into the ditch and the resultant of the
    truck.  Having a wreck is not the best way to get rid of the extra
    chrome and attachments although it would accomplish that... hard on
    the rest of the truck though.
    
    The general hope of all is that the maladies can be properly
    identified and dealt with so we can get on down the road.



    I'm sure there will be many flames saying that this analogy doesn't
    apply to Digital but it is just an illustration. Yes, it is
    terribly simplistic but I'm sure many old-timers would agree with
    the picture as I have painted it.

    Lee Roth
    
    p.s. The posting in .1 of this note should have had smiley
    faces in it.... ;^)

Re .64:

	The simple fact is that common sense, when it comes to personal
    interactions and emotions, simply is NOT very common.  Some of it CAN
    be taught and what can be taught should be taught, especially to 
    managers whose job it is to manage people and their interactions.

	As for the courses that serve no useful purpose, either they really
    do not serve any purpose, in which case they will go away fairly quickly,
    or they serve a purpose you don't understand.  At least some of the 
    courses mentioned in .0 DO serve a useful purpose.

Re .65:

	If DEC was a pickup truck two decades ago, it would be squashed under
    the load it is being asked to carry today.  A minor imperfection in an
    axle can be ignored in a pickup truck, but could put a heavy duty hauler,
    like DEC is today, out of action.  (We're not even in the semi class any
    longer.  We're talking HUGE here!  Just because there are bigger haulers
    around does not mean we arn't BIG.)  The people who think DEC is still a 
    pickup truck, simply should NOT be trusted near the heavy machinery that
    DEC is today.  They might just try to hang a quick left in the face of
    oncomming traffic (something you can do in a pickup) with results best
    left to the imagination...

    
    Re .65:
    
    This "old-timer" thinks your analogy rings astoundingly true.
    
    "Hubcap management" -- wonderful lunch-time reading.
    

    re .66
    
       Re .64:
    
       "or they serve a purpose you don't understand."
    
       Re .65:
    
       "The people who think DEC is still a pickup truck, simply should 
        NOT be trusted near the heavy machinery that DEC is today."
    
    Attacking the author is not a very positive or constructive method
    for dealing with conflict.  We might need a refresher in "Reading
    for Clarity," "Dealing with Conflict," and "Positive Power and
    Influence."  This negitive attitude is obviously not helping you.
    
    When you're all better, you can take "Hubcap Management" too.
    
    

    Allow me to expand just a bit on what I said before:
    
    Over the years,I've been scheduled into classes that were highly touted
    (mostly by management types) as being "great". (the implication being
    that this class is indispensable to people like me)
    At the end of said class I would look around and say to myself:
    "Self,if this class helps anybody in here to do a better job for
    DEC,I'd like to know what in hell kind of job he/she has"
    
    Before anyone jumps on me let me say that I know that this company is a
    lot bigger than it used to be and some courses other than courses that
    teach ones and zeros have to be conducted,but,I think that we could
    safely cut the non-technical course offerings in half and be just as
    competitive if not more.
    
    Ken

re: .65,

	So, I hear DEC has an entry at the Monster Truck Rally this weekend...
    are ya goin?


	;^)

	Seriously, it's hard enough to find a *technical* course worth
    attending these days (much less a non-technical course).  I think our
    [internal] educational system deserves a *major* revamping if we plan
    to even keep pace with the rest of the world (much less lead).

	It seems that while the rest of the world is cutting back on
    social programs and focusing on the bare basics that we who still
    remain here at DEC are still trying to mold some sort of Utopian
    vision of perfection.  Meanwhile, Rome is burning beneath the Ivory
    Towers as the fiddler plays on...

				   -davo

Re .68:

	The responses were not particularly attacks on the authors of the
    note.  The reference to .64 was a reminder that we all have limitations,
    just as you reminded me that I have limitations.  The reference to .65,
    while a little snide, was trying to point out how false the analogy drawn
    was.  The difference in DEC over four decades is a difference in kind, not 
    just a difference in size, and that people who do not understand that 
    could do us all a lot of damage no matter how good their intentions are.

Re .69:

	It is very possible that a manager could recomend a course because he
    found it valuable to someone with a different set of values and have that
    someone not get much out of the course.  It could also be that the manager
    has a 'group dynamics' problem (like sexual harasment) and needs to put
    specific types of pressure on his whole group, not just on specific
    individuals.
	If the first was the situation you were in, you are correct that fewer
    people could take the course with the same benifit to the company.  If the
    second situation was the one you were in, (and it is intentionaly hard to
    tell the two situations appart), there would be considerable benifit to the
    company in having you take the course, even if you did not get (or do not 
    think you got) anything out of the course.

	There are at least three types of mental process, and each responds to
    training.  The three I am talking about are verbal/visual, kinesthetic
    and social/emotional.  The human relation courses fall into last catagory.
	Most technical people recognize the value of the verbal training since 
    that is their area of particular mental strength.  They often find the 
    other kinds of training difficult because they are not particularly well 
    developed in those areas and the resulting exercise can be quite painful.  
    Rather than go through the pain, they avoid it and deny that the training 
    has any value.  This is the process we are seeing in .0 and other similar 
    responses.  
	It is perfectly reasonable to try to avoid pain.  The problem comes 
    when these people, who have a natural tendency to think of themselves as 
    'well rounded without any major weaknesses', have to face the fact that 
    they are not as well balanced as they might be.  Rather than face that 
    fact, they will do almost anything to maintain their own self image...

	Some of the courses mentioned have considerable merit, either by 
    helping people be more productive or by helping Digital as a whole avoid 
    situations that could cost the company a lot of money.  Some may be fluff 
    and will soon be recognized as such and dropped, especially now that 
    everything is being reviewed for its impact on the bottom line.  Any 
    judgements beyond that are likely to be based more on emotion than on 
    logic, so let's drop this topic.

    Back to the base note topic...
    
    I know for a fact that the U.S. Human Resources organization has been
    downsizing. The (unconfirmed) rumor today is that HR will downsize by
    another 50 real soon. I know some of you noters have had difficulties
    with HR in the past, but my personal experience in the MAA or excuse
    me Southern States Region has been a pleasant one; professionals that
    I have had the pleasure to work with and know. Of the seven I've
    known in this piece of the SSR, 5 are left to cover over 1000 employees
    in 15 locations, while in another geography there are 16 HR folks for
    750 people in one building. To my way of thinking it's certainly a case
    of
    
    	your mileage may vary...
    
    -Terry

Re .72:

	Sorry but the base note topic is human resource COURSES, not the
    'human resource' FUNCTION.  If might be a good idea to start a topic
    on PERSONNEL FUNCTION; How Necessary?

    One final word. (well,maybe not my final word) Something to think
    about: As more and more employees are scheduled into non-technical
    courses,we get to spend less and less time doing what is supposed to be
    our business,making and selling computers. Or,have we become a company
    whose objective is to get as many people as possible through "hubcap
    management" and to hell with computers? Food for thought!
    
    Ken

    
    re .73
    
    	Sorry for the wrong tangent. I read the topic title, got confused
    by some of the HR comments.
    
    -Terry

Re .74:

	IF our job was ONLY to make and sell computers what you said might be
    true, but there is a whole lot more to DEC than just hardware these days.

	The real objective is to get customers to pay us money.  If we do that
    by providing them with computers, fine.  More often we get them to do that
    by providing solutions to their problems.  That involves a LOT more than
    just a few pieces of hardware.

	It also takes a lot more than technical ability to get what is needed
    to the customers.  Also, if you LOOK you'll find that amount of 
    non-technical training has decreased in recent months as the budget screws 
    have been tightened.  The one exception that comes to mind is the number of 
    managers being re-educated.  And that makes sense if you think about it.  
    The managers need to be taught to solve management problems, not technical 
    problems.  Sending them to technical courses in this time of crisis would
    NOT be the right thing to do.  Teaching them how to interact with and 
    lead other people is what they need.  And that is what the human relations
    courses do.

	 Re .76 "Teaching them how to interact with and lead other people is 
	         what they need."

	In other words, teach unqualified managers how to do their jobs.

	Why?

	rd

    Let's simplify this,shall we? (ok,ok,so my last reply wasn't my final
    word) When I came to work here there were ZERO non-technical courses
    and we were making money hand over fist. Now we're not making much
    money but we've got a glut of those courses. OK,now you'll say "it's a
    different world" and I must agree but things aren't *that* different,we
    still have our business to mind.
    
    Ken

        Re: .77

>	 Re .76 "Teaching them how to interact with and lead other people is 
>	         what they need."
>	In other words, teach unqualified managers how to do their jobs.
>	Why?

        Turning an unqualified manager into a qualified manager
        through the use of courses in areas of weakness is much better
        than leaving them as an unqualified manager and much less
        expensive than firing them and finding a replacement.  [If the
        person can't be a good manager, finding them another job or
        firing them would be appropriate.  Preferably find them another
        job and rebuke the person who made them a manager.]

        Also, given the choice of

           a:  take Digital employees with the potential to be good
               managers and provide them with managerial training

           b:  consider all low-level technical jobs to be dead end
               jobs and fill all supervisors, managers, and high-level
               technical position with people hired from the outside

        I would much prefer option a, which requires teaching
        unqualified people to act as managers.

        					B.J.

	Re .80: "Preferably find them another job and rebuke the person who
        	 made them a manager."

	Getting close...

	And

	  "a:  take Digital employees with the potential to be good
               managers and provide them with managerial training
 	   ...
 
           I would much prefer option a, which requires teaching
           unqualified people to act as managers."

	The words in .76 were  "Teaching them how to interact with and lead 
                 other people is what they need."

	You've migrated the thought in 76.  Being unable to "interact with 
	and lead other people" is a disqualification.  Can teaching remove
	it?

	By the way, can someone give an example of a managerial skill that
	can be tought?

	Regards, Robert.

Re .81:

	Argh!  Blasted semantics.

	All right, it may not be possible to TEACH someone to interact with
    people well or to lead, but it is something a person can LEARN if they
    want to and the courses do aid in that learning.

	There are also courses that expose people to different aspects of
    interpersonal interactions in ways that allows them to become aware of
    aspects of the problems that they may not have been aware of before the
    course.  Once they are aware of the problems they may elect to modify 
    their behaviour to avoid the problem.

>	You've migrated the thought in 76.  Being unable to "interact with 
>	and lead other people" is a disqualification.  Can teaching remove
>	it?

	Given the above, no, they can not be taught, but very few people are 
    UNABLE to interact with or lead other people.  They may do it poorly, but 
    they can learn to do it better and the human relation courses will help 
    them learn.

	So let's drop this.  The human relations courses provide valuable
    contributions to the corporation in non-technical areas.  There are some
    exceptions and there are some people who do not need or will not benifit
    from this type of course, but the courses do have their place.

	Re .82:

>	"Given the above, no, they can not be taught, but very few people are 
>    UNABLE to interact with or lead other people.  They may do it poorly, but 
>    they can learn to do it better and the human relation courses will help 
>    them learn.

	Maybe.  Personally, I think these courses attempt to correct personal
	deficiencies, rather than enhance professional abilities.  Anyhow, my
	opinion aside, why should they learn at my expense?

	Regards, Robert.

Re .83:

	You are entitled to your opinion, but the lack of a skill is NOT a
    deficiency, it is simply the lack of a skill.  Just like not knowing how
    a class and port driver interact inside VMS is not a deficiency, but
    something that can be easily rectified with a little study.

	This company is in despirate need of GOOD managers who understand how
    DEC works.  People coming in from outside will not know the way this 
    company works and are not likely to be very good as managers.  (If they
    were very good managers, why are they out of work and looking for jobs?
    Up till recently it might have been the job security, but we don't have 
    that any more, and it has never been the pay.)  That means we need to take 
    good internal people and turn them into good managers.  That takes 
    training.  Interpersonal skills and leadership training.

    re .83
    
>	                                                        Anyhow, my
>	opinion aside, why should they learn at my expense?
    
    What makes you assume that without training, "they" won't be learning at
    your expense anyway?  TANSTAAFL!  You WILL pay, either directly or via
    the company, one way or the other. 
    
    Related to this topic, some points excerpted from "Newsweek" on
    U.S. military management:
    
    1) Within three months of a new assignment, a soldier and supervisor
    draw up WRITTEN goals and expectations so objectives are clear.
    
    2) Every year  each Army soldier or officer receives a full evaluation
    from a supervisor so he knows where he stands.
    
    3) Commanders are evaluated on their relationships with their troops,
    including racial issues.  A NEGATIVE MARK CAN HALT A PROMOTION.
    
    4) Officers must go through a series of workshops THAT TEACH HOW TO
    MANAGE A DIVERSE WORK FORCE.  Only a few big companies do the same.
    
    Hmmmm.  Some lip service is paid to the first two, but it is definitely
    not universal in Digital, from what I've heard from people outside of
    Engineering.  Anyway. note that the military apparently does at least 
    some of the types of training that have come in for condemnation in this 
    note, with considerable success.  Digital's problem may be that we do the
    training, but don't properly (and promptly) stomp those who can't (or 
    won't) learn the lessons.  (See point 3.)
    
    /Dave

    Especially at the lower levels of command, military officer and
    non-comm training paces GREAT emphasis on people management issues. 
    This is made necessary be the need to eventually tell a bunch of people
    "Kindly go over there and geet yourselves killed!".
    
    If you're a good people manager, they do it.  Otherwise they may decide
    it's simpler to shoot you instead.
    
    -dave

	Re .85 "What makes you assume that without training, "they" won't be 
	    learning at your expense anyway?  TANSTAAFL!  You WILL pay, either 
	    directly or via the company, one way or the other."

	Oops.  In .83, I said "	... I think these courses attempt to correct 
	    personal deficiencies, rather than enhance professional abilities.  
	    Anyhow, my opinion aside, why should they learn at my expense?"

	I ought to have said "... why should they take these courses at my
	expense?", since I was referring to non-professional courses from
	which I doubt reasonably talented, intelligent individuals can
	learn anything.  I assert facts can be taught, talent cannot.  I was
	implying that people who need to "learn" how to deal with other
	people lack basic qualifications properly acquired before they were
	hired.

	Regards, Robert.

    re .87:
    
>	expense?", since I was referring to non-professional courses from
>	which I doubt reasonably talented, intelligent individuals can
>	learn anything.  I assert facts can be taught, talent cannot.
    
    Facts can be taught.  Sometimes.  To people willing to accept them.
    
    Lots of folks really don't like 'em much and try to have as little to
    do with 'm as possible.  I've known lots of people who have taken
    "professional" courses and gotten NADA out of 'em.  On the whole, I 
    doubt that the effectiveness of "professional" courses is nearly as 
    great as it is made out to be - even for "reasonably talented,
    intelligent individuals".
    
    Never had instruction in music, dance, sports, or any other
    "non-professional" field?  Techniques can be taught and refined.
    Reflexes can be trained and modified.  Even the most talented music and
    dance students seek out teachers.  Even the greatest athletes have
    coaches and trainers.
    
    Even a person with modest talents in a given area (like dealing with
    other people, presenting to other people, etc. - talents like any
    others) can benefit from coaching and training.
    
    /Dave

    If you could quantify the situation, I think the ideal would be to
    make sure you are starting with someone who has demonstrated leadership
    abilities, and a natural talent for management, and maybe half the
    necessary skills.  Perhaps extra strength in one area could offset the
    need for 'remedial' work in another area.
    
    If someone new to management achieved the following hypothetical
    scores, assuming we could measure such things, I would have confidence
    that training them was well worth while.
    
    [ 10 high - 1 low ]
    
    leadership ability	8
    project management skills 9
    problem solving ability 9
    interpersonal skills 8
    knowledge of Digital standards 5
    knowledge of Digital finance procedures 4
    knowledge of managing diversity in the workplace 4
    understanding of personnel procedures 3
    
    ***
    
    Now, if it were the other way around, I'm not sure it's worth training
    this person, or whether they should even *be* in management.  There
    are definitely a couple of these walking around:
    
    [ 10 high - 1 low ]
    
    leadership ability	4
    project management skills 3
    problem solving ability 2
    interpersonal skills 1
    knowledge of Digital standards 7
    knowledge of Digital finance procedures 9
    knowledge of managing diversity in the workplace 8
    understanding of personnel procedures 9
    
    Holly
    	

>	... people who need to "learn" how to deal with other
>	people lack basic qualifications properly acquired before they were
>	hired.
    
    Then we never should have hired any of those people, should we?

Re .89:

	I suspect you could knock a few points off your initial requirements
    IF the person had a strong desire to learn and an understanding that the
    skills were required to succeed, especially if the understanding was
    recently aquired.

	re .87,  I agree with the points in .88. Much management 
	development is about developing skills and behaviours. Knowledge
        is a small part of what's needed.

        As for saying that the skills should be acquired before hiring,
	it's not realistic. As an example, where in the University of Life 
	might you learn to do the interview-type skills for JP&R, 
	recruitment etc. In another company ? - which uses different 
	techniques ?

        Secondly, "re-skilling" is the name of the game in Digital at the
        moment. Career paths are no longer straight up, but spiral, taking
        in tecnnical, line and staff roles on the way.

        Re-skilling also takes place as new techniques and/or approaches are
        taken. Quality Management is one such area where fashions come and
        go. Just as technical skills and knowledge need to be improved and
        updated if the company is to prosper, the same is true of management
        skills.

	Peter
	(ex manager, now individual contributor)

[from LIVE WIRE]
    
        Digital's social consciousness cited in MONEY magazine report

 In an article entitled "The 50 best clean and green investments," the June 
 issue of MONEY magazine rated a number of companies as investments on the 
 basis of environmental practices, employee practices, and corporate 
 citizenship.  The investments were grouped by blue chips, growth stock, 
 utilities, mutual funds, and cash investments.

 Digital was included in the "blue chip" category, along with Dayton Hudson,
 Stride Rite, Xerox, Amoco, Cabot, 3M, Stanley Works, McDonald's, and Northwest
 Corp.  Apple was included in the "growth" category.
 
 Digital received the highest rating for environment and employee practices,
 and the second highest for corporate citizenship.  Among other factors, 
 affirmative action, employee relations and AIDS awareness were cited.