Conference 7.286::digital

    Most definately. More so inside than out but it seems to be pervasive
    throughout the Metro Boston area. And yes, I'm sure the times we are
    in have everything to do with it.
    
    Jim C.
    

    ...only in "Soapbox".  But seriously, if you mean within DEC, what else
    would you expect with the way the latest downsizing is being
    mishandled?  People are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

    Everyone is feeling very tightly strung.  Even revenue-generating jobs
    are not clearly sacred.  All bets are off in tough times. You need to
    remember that security is not something a job can give you.  It is what
    you carry inside/on your own back.  Even on the way out.

    Take it from a former Southerner, Massachusetts has always been rude.
    Maybe hard times just make people more sensitive to it.
    
    Katherine

re:         <<< Note 1418.5 by MR4DEC::KHARPER "Friends in low places." >>>
                   -< Some folks just ain't had no raisin'. >-

   > Take it from a former Southerner, Massachusetts has always been rude.
   > Maybe hard times just make people more sensitive to it.
    
    
    agreed...  it's pretty bad when you first get here (i moved here in '89
    from Texas, myself).
    
    
    but, folks here are just like anywhere else, once you get thru that
    first contact... (and, once you learn the language!)
    
    tony   ;^)

    I've noticed a real big change with the people in our work place.
    Those happy looking faces aren't smiling anymore... Most of it
    because of what one noter said you don't know what shoe will
    drop.. And when you ask anyone who is suppose to know you
    don't get any real answers... So we all just wait and grind
    our heels on all the rumors floating around... When will it
    stop nobody knows...

    it should not stop ... 
    
    everyone should know that their job for life at DEC is over.
    
    one must earn their keep every day
    
    What I see is that people become more productive, and that is good.
    buz

    
    Re: .8
    
    Not so fast.  Being productive and doing work has nothing to do
    the subject of this note.  Being productive doesn't mean that
    one has to be rude, abrasive, or abusive to do it.
    
    I know of a case where a product manager prided on a start up
    product prided himself on getting results.  He was rude,
    arrogant, abrasive, and even abusive to people.  He left and
    the ones who had to manage the product after him had a lot
    of damage to undo.  In fact one person in another group put it
    plainly, "After the bad blood created by the first product 
    manager, no one wants to see any of you coming."
    
    Steve
    

                      <<< Note 1418.9 by SQM::MACDONALD >>>
                  -< Rudeness and abuse are NEVER justified >-

    Not so fast.  Being productive and doing work has nothing to do
    the subject of this note.  Being productive doesn't mean that
    one has to be rude, abrasive, or abusive to do it.
    
    Steve
    
>>>    Thank you Steve! I have read some of the lighthearted notes in the 
replies here and am glad that those folks obviously have not faced rude 
people day after day. I manage a group of folks on a Helpdesk and we have 
about 9000 customers that might call us at any given moment. Questions 
range from network problems to application questions to ones where the user 
is not sure of the problem except that they cannot get their work done.

My engineers take the calls, and either answer the question immediately if 
possible, or log the call into a database for an application specialist to 
answer. That answer might take anywhere from a short time to be fixed to 
several hours later. We have no direct control over the people doing the 
fixes. 

My problem comes in when a user is abusive enough about a problem to 
totally frustrate my people. I have had one engineer in tears when she had 
taken enough abuse from a fellow DECcie without answering back in kind. She 
tried to help him, but he refused to listen, dumped his bucket of abuse on 
her, and hung up without giving her his name. Nice guy...real sweetheart.
That is one of our professional sales force for you. (I assume it was a 
salesperson because of the problem he had). 

You would not believe the language my people have had to tolerate, the 
degrading comments and accusations, and other offenses. I have a standing 
offer to my folks to either 1)calm them down if possible, 2)turn them over 
to me and I will take the abuse, or 3) hang up on them without further ado.
If they call back, transfer them to me. I can talk to anyone and will be 
happy to discuss their problem. If I get a name and they are abusive, I 
will elevate the problem to their manager. Needless  to say, most of them 
are of the spineless obscene phone caller type who will verbally abuse my 
folks and run.

For you who think abuse in Digital is acceptable, I invite you to sit at 
our phone consoles for a few days and see if you have achange of heart.

I would hope that we would not have to abuse each other to get a job done, 
but obviously some don't see it that way....

    Vic H

    
    Re: .10
    
    Vic,
    
    Sorry to hear how your folks have to put up with such crap.
    There are totaly idiots out there who actually believe that
    such behavior is their badge of honor.
    
    When I was a product manager I would occasionally get calls
    from sales reps who would behave that way expecting me to jump
    to doing what they wanted.  I simply hung up.  When they called
    back they generally had a big change in attitude since they almost
    always were calling because they needed something.  (I'm not 
    suggesting that all sales reps behave this way or that it's only
    sales reps who do.  This was just my experience.)
    
    Steve
    

    In 15 years at Digital throughout the West, I've noticed that rudeness
    is both a result and a tool.  Where I once thought it was just part of
    the DECculture (when I worked in Santa Clara), I find it less so in the
    hinterlands, where it's practiced only by the socially retarded.
    
    Perhaps much of what we see stems from the more recent pressures.  Many
    folks who see their jobs in jeopardy are scrambling to justify their
    existance, especially if they know they've been perpetrating a scam for
    the last X years.  I do believe, however, that what we see in the
    corporation is rooted in what is locally acceptable.  Born and raised
    in New York, but having been away for MANY years, I still occasionally
    find I have to stifle a more abrupt approach (not always successful) to
    the solution a problem or in a conversation.
    
    Rudeness is also an attempt to express power from someone who is too
    ignorant to know that power is conveyed (is history that poor a
    teacher?).  I've seen 'em come and I've seen 'em go, and I'm here to
    tell ya, the ones who get to stay DO win popularity contests. 
    Leadership doesn't include rudeness.  
    
    'nuff for now, I'm starting to sweat and pant heavily.
    
    Fred

I remember when I was in the field, Software Services in particular and:

1)  My manuals were constantly being "loaned" to customers (I wasn't in the
    office to stop the outflow) by salespersons without asking

2) A piece of prototype hardware (on a PRO-380) was loaned to a customer.
   The hardeare was never sold by DIGITAL.

The answer to both types of complaints:

	"<VERY elevated person> has said we can have anything we want to
	 make the sale"

	It did make it a little harder to get my job, delivering consulting
	services to customers, a little harder to do when my resources kept
	unexpectedly disappearing.

I am sorry to see that the this type of personality seems
to to be expanding.

It was mostly good, though.  It was only two out of an office of many, that
didn't ask first.  Most would ask, accept no as an answer AND guarantee when
the loaned materials would be returned or replace them out of their budgets.

    	My manager used an expression the other day that he voiced
    as an ideal, and I think applies to this discussion.
    
    	Tough-minded and soft-hearted.
    
    	He felt, and I agree, that both are needed.  
    
    	My elaboration:  We need to deal with business issues as 
    business issues, and people as people.
    
    	We may need to be tough-minded about business issues which
    deal with people, but we need to remember that they ARE people.
    I think that in difficult times such as these, people forget
    that being tough-minded DOES NOT mean being "tough".  
    
    	Confusing the two leads to all kinds of problems.  (It might
    even be that our business problems are due to being soft-minded
    and hard-hearted???  Interesting thought.)

This is a cross-posting that applies here I think ...

================================================================================
Note 8.9                       Continuous Teamwork                        9 of 9
RICKS::SHERMAN "ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326"  85 lines   8-APR-1991 15:16
                         -< Article on Group Dynamics >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got a very kind letter from Catherine A. Warren, news editor for the
University of Illinois Office of Public Affairs, News Bureau, Room 131, 
807 South Wright Street, Champaign, Illinois, 61820.  The article that is
attached was with the letter, is written by her and is published in the 
university's U of Ideas in Business and Economics, March 1991.  It is this 
article that was the basis for the broadcast on NPR's "Marketplace" on the 
evening of March 29.  The work that this report describes is by Keith 
Murnighan who can be reached at (217) 333-4504, Business Administration, 
College of Commerce, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, 
Illinois, 61820.  They are pleased that news of what they are doing reached
us and indicated a willingness to provide further details should we have
interest.  Questions about the article can be directed to Catherine Warren or
Carl Caldwell at (217) 333-1085.  

This article is important because it sheds tangible evidence to theories about
what it may take for the many small teams within Digital to work together
successfully.  This is posted as a reply to note 8 of CAPNET::DELTA_TEAMS
entitiled, "Continuous Teamwork".  My impression is that the authors of the 
article would not object to postings so long as due credit is rendered.  They 
seem quite enthusiastic to share their results and to establish correspondence 
with interested parties.

Steve


GROUP DYNAMICS

	Small Groups Can Learn Harmony from Successful String Quartets

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - When it comes to making beautiful music together, business
teams and other small groups should take a cue from successful string quartets,
researchers say.

The dynamics of the successful professional string quartet - from the lead
violin to the "second fiddle" - are a masterpiece of small-group effectiveness,
a recent study shows.  Such quartets:

	o Had leaders that espoused democracy, but quietly took charge.

	o Walked a fine line between confrontation and excessive compromise.

	o Were homogeneous in such traits as age, education and gender, and
	  formed internal friendships.

University of Illinois professor J. Keith Murninhan, who teaches courses in
organizational behavior and in negotiations, and University of Delaware
business professor Donald Conlon studied 20 string quartets in Great Britain.
The U. of I. Bureau of Economic and Business Research recently published a
working paper of their results.

Murnigham and Conlon identified a number of "paradoxes" within work groups,
which have possible applications to several work environments.

"The most direct and simple application is that supervisors and leaders have to
not aknowledge their power," Murnigham said.  "It's essential for the leader to
sincerely espouse democracy while simultaneously acting like a leader and
taking active responsibility for the group's work behavior."

In the successful string quartets, the first violinist took the lead, Murnighan
said.  In the less successful quartets, the leader was simply too democratic.

However, the study suggested that a light touch, rather than heavy-handed
assertion of leadership, is desireable.

One of the most difficult roles in the quartet fell to the second fiddle, who
must have consummate ability, but rarely has the chance to shine or take the
lead, the study said.

"The general issue of talented but subordinate professionals, people like
second violinists, has received almost no study," Murnighan said.

The most successful second violinists, however, were those who were content and
even proud of their position.

Conflict within a group is unavoidable, but Murnigham and Conlon found that
"walking a fine line" between active confrontation and complete compromise was
key to a group's success.

They also found that the more quartet members shared similarities in education,
age - even gender - the more successful they were.  Unlike stereotypes that
quartet members barely tolerate one another, members of the most successful
groups tended to form friendships among themselves.

				-caw-

Re .15:  As for forming groups where members "shared similarities" in age and
gender (and race? religion?), I hope Digital does *not* try to adopt that 
approach. For one thing, it's wrong (i.e., making or denying work
assignments based on age or sex) - and I imagine illegal in many countries.
For another thing, it would (in my view) result in less interesting, 
creative, and productive work groups.

As for leadership, "democracy," and the roles of "first" and "second fiddles,"
these are indeed tricky issues. I'm in the midst of reading "The Mythical
Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering." One of its recommendations is
that a software development team be like a surgical team -- i.e., there is
one "boss" or technical leader of the project who makes and is responsible
for all important decisions, and every other member is a supporting player
("second fiddle," if you will) in some carefully defined capacity (like the
anesthesiologist, nurse, etc. in the operating room). While the approach works
for open-heart surgery and while it sounds appealing for software projects,
I have my doubts whether it would be workable in our software engineering
environment (where we have a lot of well-educated and skilled people who
are, or think they are, capable of being "first fiddles," and where the DEC
culture emphasizes individual initiative and "empowerment").

In fact, elsewhere in the book are recommendations that project team members
be cross-trained and develop diverse skills, so I'm sure that the successful
management of a large software project is more complex than any simple analogy
might imply.

    Hi, Chuck!
    
    I think the point about sharing similarities was emphasizing the need
    for team members to share something that can help with friendship
    between team members.  They found that such simple things as gender and
    education helped form such friendships.  I appreciate the need to value
    differences.  But, if the team that's formed has no basis for friendship 
    the team may not work well together.  People tend to form friendships with 
    people that they have something in common with.  We can either work with 
    this and expoit it or we can expend resources working against this.
    
    The other thing I found interesting was the need to have good "second
    fiddles" in successful teams.  This reminded me very much of
    "skunkworks" where being a contributing member was an honor.  This
    approach conflicts with what I have experienced at Digital where I have
    been reminded that because I come from a support organization, I am an
    outsider and not really part of the team that I'm assigned to.  Just
    being officially part of the team was barely recognized.  I wonder if
    attitudes would be different if there were team-oriented "second
    fiddles" that reflected pride just in being a supporting member of the
    team and setting inspiring examples for the other members.  This makes the
    other team members emphasize status a little less and team membership a
    little more so that even the new members of the team can feel welcome
    and take pride in belonging.
    
    Steve
                              

RE: .16

>As for leadership, "democracy," and the roles of "first" and "second fiddles,"
>these are indeed tricky issues. I'm in the midst of reading "The Mythical
>Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering." One of its recommendations is
>that a software development team be like a surgical team -- i.e., there is
>one "boss" or technical leader of the project who makes and is responsible
>for all important decisions, and every other member is a supporting player
>("second fiddle," if you will) in some carefully defined capacity (like the
>anesthesiologist, nurse, etc. in the operating room). While the approach works
>for open-heart surgery and while it sounds appealing for software projects,
>I have my doubts whether it would be workable in our software engineering
>environment (where we have a lot of well-educated and skilled people who
>are, or think they are, capable of being "first fiddles," and where the DEC
>culture emphasizes individual initiative and "empowerment").

I disagree.  In my experience, one of the chief things that distinguishes
those software projects that have succeeded at DEC from those that have been
failures is the strength of the technical project leader as "first among
equals".  Brooks is right when he states that there must be a single person with
overall responsibility for the entire project and who is empowered to make final
decisions.  Now, a good project leader will usually subdivide this
responsibility and authority and assign technical leadership for particular
pieces of the project to some of the individual contributors.  However, when
conflicts arise between different subprojects, or when consensus cannot be
reached among the team members concerning what direction things should go,
there must be one individual with the authority to say, "we will do it this
way".

--PSW

re .18:
    
>>>    there must be one individual with the authority to say, "we will do
>>>    it this way".
    
    	We seriously need people like this in the field, too, with the
    	additional qualification (which I think is implied by Paul) that
    	they must also be technically competent.
    
    	Often a sales account team will meet to prepare a sales
        presentation or proposal, and it becomes depressingly clear
    	that nobody has the "big picture" from a technical point of
    	view, *and* that nobody has the confidence and authority to
    	make committal decisions. To me, it seems likely that the
    	second condition arises from the first. Who's going to stick
    	his neck out and make a decision, knowing that he doesn't
    	grasp the problem, the elements of the solution, and how they
    	relate together?
    
    	/Tom