Conference 7.286::digital

    Oh, I don't think it's unique to this company.  If I may elucidate,
    I think it has more to do with the difference between grunts like you
    and me and with lawyers and upper-managers.  The table below summarizes
    some of the differences:
    
    	       		Grunts:			Upper-level managers/lawyers:
    
    Job is to:		do smart things         avoid doing stupid things
    
    When in doubt:	do something		do nothing
    
    "Okay" if you do:	something dumb		something smart
    
    
    Now, knowing this, how do you think your boss and those above him will
    react when you send a message to the top indicating that upper-level
    management has done something stupid?
    
    Normally, upper-level management will jump if you can show them that
    they are ABOUT to do something stupid.  This is easy for folks at the
    lower levels to do because they know what is going on in the trenches.
    This is a way for folks in the trenches to manipulate upper-level
    management and lawyers and to "do the right thing".  It is the 
    responsibility of those in the trenches to do what they can to send the 
    message up the chain/stovepipe so that management can react.
    
    BUT, to send the message after the fact, when it's too late to react,
    is not useful to upper-management/lawyers.  Instead of helping, it
    creates a problem, from upper-management/lawyer points of view.  My guess
    is that this is the perception of those in the chain/stovepipe.
    
    When it comes to upper-management/lawyer errors as detected in the
    field, timing is everything.  It is far better to send a message
    pointing out that something stupid is about to happen that can be
    avoided rather than that something stupid has happened.  The former can
    be acted upon.  The latter calls for a witch hunt or bird cage action,
    which often does nothing good for anybody.
    
    Steve

    First of all, Bob Schmidt is not a Vice President - his title is
    something like Manager, US Sales Support.
    
    Second, why are you so suprised that you got an emotional response from
    someone as the direct result of an action which was calculated to
    provoke nothing but?  "Forwarding" a bunch of memos from frustrated
    sales people to Ken Olsen is simply the grown-up version of "tattling"
    on someone.  There is a certain amount of arrogance inherent in a)
    assuming you are the ONLY one who clearly saw this problem (believe me, 
    it had a PAINFUL amount of visibility) and that b) you are just the guy to
    "fix" it by skipping over all those responsible for it and going right
    to the man whose response was most likely "What's this all about?".  
    The question you should ask yourself is "exactly what value did I add to 
    the process?"
    
    No one should be punished for articulating the truth.  Period.  But
    it's incumbent upon you to use that right sensibly.  Sales generally 
    should drive issues like the one you describe, but assuming that you 
    really needed to be involved (my philosophy is that the words "It's 
    not my job" shouldn't be in our vocabulary so I'll give you the benefit 
    of the doubt) you really should have worked the Open Door with the 
    organizations responsible for the problem BEFORE escalating it all the
    way to KO.
    
    Al
    

    	I concur with .3

    	I've been growing uneasy lately with the number of memos that
    	have been sent to Jack Smith from bottom level employees.  What
    	bothers me the most is that they are then posted for public
    	comment.  It is bad enough that guys like Jack Smith and Ken
    	Olsen have to wade through these things, but it is very unfair
    	to post them in here and have everybody second-guess these
    	guys.  DIGITAL notesfile has turned into a pity-party lately.
    	People come here to gripe and complain.  (More like whine,
    	frankly.)  They enter base notes with loaded questions hoping
    	to stir up yet another hornet nest so that they can commiserate
    	with other dissatisfied employees.

    	Morale is a state of mind that you can choose if you want.
    	If you go looking for trouble, you are apt to find it, as the
    	base noter experienced.

    	There is a proper channel to get information to top-level
    	managers.  You might consider going to your manager first.
    	If it dies with him/her, well your manager has a manager.  You	
    	can take it there.  That person has a manager too.  Ken Olsen
    	doesn't have to know about petty complaints.  That is why there
    	is a management structure in place.  If Ken were going to micro-
    	manage all issues in this company, we wouldn't need any other
    	managers.  You took it to the wrong person.  That's why you
    	got stung instead of getting honey.

    	Joe Oppelt

	... something "petty"!  There was multi-MILLIONS of $$$$
of product and services business dependent on that deal being
cleanly closed, and I personally had to watch the Salesperson I
was working with take the customer's business to Anderson
Consulting when the situation was as David Silvers described it.
My sale could stayed within DEC's control if we hadn't been led
down the garden path for so many weeks.

	Post-its, per-day meal allowances, etc are petty.  Losing
chances to get our customers' money isn't!  Personally, I've
never TOTALLY bought into David Carnell's "empowerment" notes, but
in this case, KO needed to hear the fields' frustration - wasted
time, no sale, and seeming chaos in the product group.

re: .4, Joe Oppelt

I've got mixed emotions about some of what you're saying, Joe. The reason I'm
not uneasy with the number of memos being sent to Jack Smith is that, last
time I checked, Jack had extended an open invitation for people to do just
that. He asked for suggestions to cut costs (DELTA) and he asked for people
to let him know if they had problems which they didn't feel were being
properly addressed. I don't think he's rescinded the invitation. There may be
plenty for him to wade through, but until he requests that the tap be shut off,
I'd guess people are doing as they ought to. Certainly the petty stuff doesn't
belong in a message to him, but he's not bad at ferreting that out.

Messages to Ken are different, I guess. I don't recall Ken extending the same
invitation. (Ever. 'Smatter of fact, I haven't heard much from Ken at _all_
in ages, it seems. Ever see "Weekend at Bernies'"? :^)  )

Cross posting messages in here - I agree that's unfair. If you send a message
to Jack, or anyone else for that matter, give them a chance to deal with it.
You're not going to endear anyone by publicizing your communications with them
before they've had an opportunity to respond. As a matter of fact, thinking
about it a bit more, it's not only unfair, it's downright stupid if you expect
anything to come of the originally sent message.

As far as people coming here to gripe, complain and whine is concerned, sure -
it happens. It's always happened. That's largely part of what this conference
is all about. Just look back at some of the strings Didier started years ago.
The big difference is that there's a lot more whining now. Some people have
removed the conference from their notebooks because the whining level reached
too many decibels. But there's a lot to whine about today, too. There's a lot
of uncertainty in the company and the economy. This file is like a corporate
thermometer. That's a good thing, though! Because when people can come over
here and let off some steam they get a chance to see some other views of the
situation which the rest of us might share with them. I don't want to see
this conference change in that respect. It's healthy!

And you're most certainly right about traveling the correct ladder on ODP
escalation issues. Just because Jack Smith said to send him mail on issues
not being properly handled, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone
should abuse the privilege by bypassing the appropriate channels for trying
to work the issue to begin with, as Al said. I wouldn't deign to presume
to know enough about the basenoter's case to be able to comment on whether
or not it was such a case.

-Jack

    As 'the basenoter' I was not intending to whine, b***h, or moan - the
    point of sending the memo to Ken was to call attention to a situation
    which is causing us to lose money - In my opinion, needlessly. 
    
    As a result of the impending 'fallout' from me having the temerity to
    ask the big guy for help (have y'all noticed that I have NOT included
    the original communication, nor will I..) - as far as I'm concerned, 
    anyone above my manager does not exist - I'm going to crawl under a
    rock, convince customers to buy our products, and hope that the powers
    that be will leave me alone...
    
    

If I were a sales rep that had seen millions of sales $$$ slip through my
fingers as a result of Digital's internal problems then I too might
(in the heat of my lather) forget 'proper protocol' and fire off some
information to KO.

These are desparate times.... desparate people do desparate things- all
in hopes of salvaging bad situations or rectifying problems.

I'd really worry if .0 just shrugged and did nothing...

Lee

I have a theory on why people send messages directly to the top men in
this company.  Ask yourself these questions:

o When was the last time your direct supervisor dropped in on you to see
what was going on/how things are doing? (Unit Manager)

o When was the last time his supervisor did the same? (District Manager)

o When was the last time his supervisor did the same? (Region Manager)

o When was the last time his supervisor did the same? 
.
.
. And so on and so forth.

I bet that there are is a large percentage of Digital employees whose
second level manager has know idea what they do.

In comparison with the other to companies I have worked for (Both much
larger than Digital) that you don't have to very high up the food chain
in Digital before the people become just names on memos.  In the other
companies I worked for I used to get regular visits in my office from
the entire chain of command with the exeception of the President and his
direct report.  The frequency and length of the visits was of course
related to how high the person was on the totem pole.  However, the
visits did take place.

How can you follow a chain of command where most of the people are names
with no faces?  How many people even know what the chain of command is?
So if you have a problem in Digital people go to the managers that they
know personally first (usually one or 2) then they bypass the names on
memos and go directly to the people who they know what they do (Mr.
Olsen and Mr. Smith).  At least that is what my natural inclination
would be.

John

    Seems to me the best reason for going to higher levels is that you feel
    that the message you are sending to your boss is getting filtered and
    not making it to the top.  As I recall, the "open door" policy involves
    letting your boss know that you feel you should communicate to his/her
    superior.  Then, proceed to do so.  If you don't get satisfaction, then
    you continue working the way up the ladder.  My recollection is that
    the folks at the top are pushing for "open door" and if you go through
    the process and don't get satisfaction anywhere along the way you may
    find yourself eventually talking to someone at the top.  But, "open
    door" does not mean that you start at the top.
    
    Also, timing is still the most critical issue.  Working the way up the
    ladder only works when there is time and opportunity to make a difference.
    Going straight to the top with an issue that's over and with damage
    already done loses the advantage of timing and is not compliant with
    "open door" policy.
    
    At this point, after the damage has been done, perhaps a good strategy
    would be to come up with ideas about how to avoid having this happen 
    again.  Then, discuss this with your boss and start with the "open
    door" policy.  If there is anyone along the chain that tries to "keep
    it quiet" then remember that that is probably one reason for the "open
    door" policy - to make sure that important information can make it up
    to people that need to hear it and can do something about it.  This is
    all my opinion, free advice and worth every cent.  Usual disclaimers
    apply.
    
    Steve

Re .6:

At the first week of Network University, KO gave the opening address and 
encouraged the audience of ~400 Field folk to copy him on memos that were 
attempting to fix problems felt in the Field.

KO's comment about this strategy was:

"The people who receive the memo won't know if I read it or not"

    .4  I have just read your reply to the base note, and I can only feel 
    	that you are siting in an ivory tower somewhere.  The base noter
    	was doing his job wooing customers. Unfortunately management were
    	not doing the same they showed total indecision which is nothing
        new. 
    	
    	If we all put our heads in the sand and said nothing eventually the
        badness in the system will catch us out. It is easy to manage an
        expanding company, but it takes a high calibre of management to
        manage in a cost competitive market which we are now in. 
    
        Maybe if more people expressed what is wrong in DIGITAL, not
        accepting mediocrity and indecision the company will last and grow
        to even newer heights. There is a lot more that is good than bad in 
        this company, let's not sweep the bad under the carpet. Let us look
        at what it is that is bad an change it! 
    
    	-0 Don't worry about the flack for every manager who you made feel
    	   uncomfortable there is one who will respect your sense of
           urgency. Come out from under the rock!!!!!!!
    
        Albert

    Isn't the implication from 1441.11 that Ken Olsen will receive so many
    memos that he won't have time to read them?
    
    You got to wonder what he thinks about accountability...

    
    Re .0
    I did a similar thing recently.
    Having become tied up on a MAJOR piece of business, I tried to get
    hold of my manager, and his - both of whom were unavailable for
    a few days.
    
    So I called my Regional Sales Manager to ask for a five minute
    appointment to ask his advice on whether my Region wanted to
    take this customer on.
    Within ten minutes of my placing that call I had his second in
    command at my desk - for the first time in two years.
    
    RE. invisibility in the chain of command.
    Round here it is commonly acknowledged that unless you go out and
    publicise yourself no-one in the chain will know you. The onus
    is firmly on you to "get known". Some sales reps I know have
    a complete job description based around this....using their
    customers to create "projects" that will get them in front of
    "the right people" as a key, if not sole, objective.
    We also have a "board" for sales promotion - this is composed of
    all the sales unit managers plus regional management. If you
    go to your board, and one of them doesn't know you, you're
    likely to have a little difficulty....
    
    Consequently, the reaction I got to my escalation was "She's
    trying for visibility" rather than "she's trying for the customer".
    
    What is even more frustrating is that I know that the Regional
    manager is a reasonable, approachable individual who would not
    be greviously offended if I walked through his door. It's
    the intervening managers who are paranoid. That comment
    about not pointing out that middle management are doing something
    stupid (or not responding) hit it on the head.
    
    I absolutely support the action you took.
    If Ken issued that invite, I believe you were in order doing what you 
    did.
    
    'gail
    
    
    

re 1441.12 MEALA::A_BYRNE                                       
                 -< With my head in the sand I see only sand? >-
    
    	>If we all put our heads in the sand and said nothing eventually the
        >badness in the system will catch us out. 
        
    	>Maybe if more people expressed what is wrong in DIGITAL, not
        >accepting mediocrity and indecision the company will last and grow
    
    	Nowhere did I advocate sticking our heads in the sand.  In fact,
    	I suggested following the chain of command with problems.
    
    	Running directly to KO is not the way to go.  Problems with
    	sales forces are not Ken Olsen's direct responsibility or
    	concern.  He has a management structure in place to handle
    	that.
    
    re .14
    
    	You did not do exactly what .0 did.  If you did what .0 did you
    	would have gone to Ken Olsen and asked what we should to with
    	a particular customer.
    
    	No, instead you did the sensible thing and walked the chain of
    	command until you found a manager who could answer what you
    	needed.
    
    	Joe Oppelt
    

    Alright, I guess I should have followed the chain of command...
    And yes, timing is everything....
    
    As for fallout, I've yet to hear what it'll be (maybe nothing?), I've
    just been assured that there will be some....
    
    Back to work - Ds.

    Gack!  Fallout ...  Hope they don't shoot the messenger.  Please
    understand that I/we are sympathetic to your situation and hope that the
    folks involved do the right thing(s).
    
    Steve

    re .14:
    
>>>     the reaction I got to my escalation was "She's
>>>	trying for visibility" rather than "she's trying for the customer".
    
    This is totally unbelievable. What appalling nonsense! Apparently
    there are two sets of people here, engaged in completely separate
    activities. One set of people are trying to reach customers, sell
    products, and generally keep Digital in business. The other set
    are playing Byzantine courtiers' games. Unfortunately, someone has
    inadvertently put the game-players in charge of the workers.
    
    To point out the most blatant outrage to common sense and good business
    practice in the story of .14, it should not be the duty of an employee
    to "try for visibility". It should be the duty of a manager to know
    employees and to know what they do.
    
    /Tom

    For those of us who work with actual customers, a K.O. call is nothing
    unusual. We've all been on the receiving end of a call from K.O.'s
    office, asking "what are you doing to fix this customer's problem".
    And those at DEC who cause us problems shouldn't be exempt. 
    
    I think Bob Schmidt should be offered an invitation to come to Mobile
    to walk around in the shoes of one of the top-of-class sales support
    guys in the U.S., David Silvers. 
    
    His message to David could be that, as a practice, elevating such
    issues can take the following forms:
    
    	1) a K.O. call is certainly a choice
    
    	2) a call/memo to the ACT HELP DESK might work
    
    	3) a flashing red 911 to Lynn Busing, Al Hall, Jim Morrin would work
    
    	4) a call/memo to the MRC 1-508-496-6477 is probably the best
    way to go, since the Management Response Center addresses critical
    cross-functional business issues with an established process for issue
    identification, communication, and resolution. Field Management uses
    the MRC to resolve critical issues that cannot be resolved locally. 
    

    Thanx for the commercial, Rick....

Re: 13

	Don't you think that "Ken Olsen will receive so many memos that he
won't have time to read them" in and of itself is indicative of a problem?

    I find this whole discussion rather interesting, in light of other
    discussions which are or were going in this conf. as well.
    
    Open Door policy - I, as an employee, have a right to contact any
    appropriate person in this corp. to address an issue.  That is what the
    ODP policy says.  Now, I will agree that the policy does not work, but
    that is no reason not to send a memo to Ken, or anyone else.
    
    Stovepipes - If I believe Ken, or anyone else in this Corp. does not
    have an accurate picture of what is happening, it might be a good idea
    to send a memo of my own, explaining things, 'from my point of view'. 
    Maybe my point of view has no value, but atleast I've tried to
    contribute to the solution (by sending a memo), rather then standing by 
    and watching mistakes made (and complainig about them all the way).
    
    Public postings of memos - I sense a great degree of frustration these
    days.  If those of us who can sum up those feelings, and make them
    known to upper mgmt (and anyone else who reads this conf.), all the
    better.  And maybe those memos might get discussion going to start 
    fixing and/or correcting 'things'.
    
    
    My advise, though, is if you contact 'the Mill', expect "visibility". 
    So, before initiating contact, deterine what actions you expect, and what
    actions you will not accept (i.e. are you willing to go back to the
    mill, if you get stomped on after the first time?).
    
    Who am I to give advise?  Just someone who tried to follow proper
    channels, eventually writing Jack when he asked to hear from us.  The
    outcome of that contact for very acceptable to me.  I was visited for
    an extended discussion regarding my concerns (by a third party) and I
    received a follow-up phone call (from another party) explaining that 
    information was being compiled to be presented to Jack.  The end result, 
    in my view, was the revised ODP (which has yet to be discussed yet in 
    this conf., maybe because I'm not yet convinced the revised ODP exists 
    yet!).  At any rate, my memo to Jack was NOT ignored, and I feel like I
    was listened to.
    
    Mark
    
    P.S.  Just because the ODP does not work is no reason not to use it. 
    Though it might be the right thing to do (ignoring usage of policy), 
    from the perspective of your own career, others ignoring your right,
    and dare I say obligation, to use the policy is the real problem, and
    dare I say, threat!

re .22

Open Door.

I think that you will find that what the Open Door policy says or should say,
is that you should address issues through the appropriate chain of
organization. In the event that this does not  work, you can elevate "around"
the person with whom you are unable to reach a mutuala agreement to their
superior.

If this weren't the case, then why shouldn't I log all of my field service
calls with Ken's Office..


q