Conference 7.286::digital

    The Colorado Springs morning paper says 800!! sales and sale support
    personnel got the axe yesterday......and the death spiral accelerates!!
    
    You have to remember that our mini-minded-management has been brought
    up to think only in terms of survival, anus-protectus, and "budgets".
    They are deep in their bunkers now hoping to ride this one out.
    
    Even K.O. appears to be thoroughly disgusted with the way in which
    management has already prostituted the New Management System.
    
    I share your digust.

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






No one has mentioned that laying off little people who work in the trenches
is going to turn DEC around.  The upper managements are the ones that made
mistakes, wrong decisions, which include the GRAND idea of CDO and then
after spending millions, laid the relocated people off.  Why are these mangers
got reviewed like everyone else and why are these people still here?  Are these 
fat cats willing to crawl to the trenches to do the dirty work that the lower 
echelon have left behind?  Pretty soon, they will be hiring new people to fill 
these positions.  DEC not only does not know how to handle lay off, it also
does not know who are the targets.
All the other computer companies before lay-off takes effect, or 
simultaneously during lay-off period, offered early-retirement package to their
employees. More people have asked the question "Why can't DEC do it?".
If DEC wants to have a turn around ASAP, all these lay-off methods are the 
fastest avenue to channel it not to happen.

   Digital is like an animal which has its foot caught in a trap...

   ... and is gnawing off the wrong leg to get free.

    re: .1 - You mention that Ken is disgusted with the NMS rollout to
    date. Could you provide a quote, reference, etc., of where he said so?
    I'm sure many would be interested. Thanks.

    I believe that DEC is following the only course available as far as
    layoffs go. I'm speaking of the disproportionate number of worker bees
    being let go as opposed to the number of managers getting the axe.
    Think about it: Who would the survivors work for? You can't have a
    group with no manager. To quote a long forgotten shipping company
    owner: "Even a bad captain is better than no captain" or something like
    that. (of course,I'll bet the victims of floggings and those forced to
    "walk the plank" would disagree)
    
    Ken

	I don't think the problem is how to fire of all the managers, 
	its how to fire the bad ones, and replace them with new ones?  
	How do you "axe" a bad manager who is for one reason or another 
	"unaxable"?  You know, the ones who are so politically tied-in 
	that they will only be given another job somewhere to flounder 
	in.  Until managers' performance is decided (at least in part) 
	by their subordinates this is unlikely to happen.

 	> "Even a bad captain is better than no captain" 

	Not so.  Ever hear of self-management?  I bet most good people
	in DEC have been doing that for years due to poor management.
	Professionals don't often need management per se, they need
	leadership!  I'd think we could work up some creative ways
	to form self-managing teams, if we put our minds to it.  Its
	been done elsewhere.

	Mike H.

    RE: .9
    
    > Not so.  Ever hear of self-management?  I bet most good people
    > in DEC have been doing that for years due to poor management.
    
    That's certainly been the case for me for the bulk of my 8 years at
    Digital. Typically, I'll see my "manager" once every couple of months in
    the hallway.  If it wasn't for the list of activities that I'd provide
    at review time, I don't think they'd have the vaguest idea of what
    I do. And of the managers that required status reports, I honestly
    don't believe that they ever read them.
    
    
    Dave
    

	I tend to agree to a certain extent.  I think we could get by with
	fewer managers.  I have been with Digital for over 11 years.  I have
	written my own performance evaluation for 10 of those eleven years.  Even
	gave myself my own ratings.  If the manager disagreed, they had me change
	them.

	However, I also agree that we do need some level of management.  I am in
	sales support (oops, system sales specialist) and many people are vying
	for my time.  I prefer to have the managers make the decisions on who
	gets my time when too many are asking for it.  I have a hard time saying
	`no' to anyone.  That way I don't have to.

tgc

    The problem IMHO is that DEC should have offered the first package
    to the whole Company (except critical areas). It seems that they
    allowed the various sites to determine the fate of there employees.
    They also should have waited until the dust settled before hire
    outside people(let go off 800 hire 300 in the process).
    The other problem is that not all Managers can manage!!!!! DEC feels
    that just because your at a certain level you can suddenly manage...
    WRONG.......There is no way anyone can justify to me for having
    a manager over 1 or 2 people???????  Give me a break......I was
    with this company for only 5 months and was in charge of aprox.16
    people including contract workers......I was paid under $10.00 and
    hour..........
    
                                          Just my few pennies worth
                                                          Bob

    I deleted .6 at the author's request.
    
    		Steve

>>    I deleted .6 at the author's request.
>>  
>>    		Steve

And I have deleted .7, my reply to .6, as it would kind'a hang there
looking silly without .6.

John I.

Given what has been written in this and other notes in this conference,
I asked myself: 

Could management have handled the layoffs any *worse* if they had tried?

I really couldn't think how. Can anyone help me out??

Regards
Neil

>Could management have handled the layoffs any *worse* if they had tried?
>
>I really couldn't think how. Can anyone help me out??
    
    Well, they could have given everyone only 2 weeks pay.
    Other than that, can't think of anything else.
    -pk

re Note 1523.18 by WLDWST::KING:

> >Could management have handled the layoffs any *worse* if they had tried?
> >
> >I really couldn't think how. Can anyone help me out??
>     
>     Well, they could have given everyone only 2 weeks pay.
>     Other than that, can't think of anything else.

        Agreed;  especially since, if they did that, then they would
        get far fewer people signing away their right to sue Digital
        in exchange for the package!

        Bob

    Ignoring issues around package contents, etc., I wholeheartedly agree
    that the lay-offs could hardly have been handled worse.  Part of it I
    suppose is inexperience.......but to tie a person's livelihood to some
    ill-understood budgeting process is just plain cruel.
    
    Also, it is clear now that really good performers are being let go,
    while many of our Corporate sloths have found safe haven in budgeted
    organizations.
    
    What ever happened to the big Zereski effort to have the whole field
    re-evaluated in order to identify poor performers?  I think that at
    one point people actually thought if they were good performers, they
    would be relatively isolated.  Live and learn I guess.

>               <<< Note 1523.17 by JAMBOS::NEIL "Gorgie Wave" >>>
>                      -< Could they have done it worse?? >-

>I really couldn't think how. Can anyone help me out??
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is NOT a phrase one should use openly at Digital these days :-) :-) :-)

-Joe

    re: .20
    
    I was going to keep out of this, but I can't resist.
    
    Maybe they found out who the poor performers _really_ are!

	It could have been worse if there had been absolutely no coordination
    at all and everything were decided on the basis of personalities.  It 
    would have been hard for it to have been more chaotic, but it could 
    definetely have been worse.

    re: .20
    
    As far as I have been able to determine from discussions with people in
    the field organizations, the whole field WAS re-evaluated, by the end
    of April, as I recall.
    
    However, it'd surprise me if nearly all weren't at least a 2 or a 1,
    which, of course, would ruin the "curve" he was looking for.
    
    (this last comment offered with a certain cynicism)
    
    tony

    At the risk of repeating myself, i.e. "maybe the poor performers
    were identified".......again, I know personally 2 people....200%
    of budget.....2 performers for many, many PA's....consistent DEC
    100 and DECathalon winners escorted to the door.  People who weren't
    even close to making budget for last fiscal year still here.
    
    Anyone who has been with DEC for a few years has probably run into
    or had to suffer through the poor performance of a co-worker....doing
    your own job and carrying someone else on your back.  Again, I saw
    employees of such ilk given the earlier, more lucrative packages.....
    instead of being fired!!
    
    The down-sizing or whatever it's being called this week *has* to
    happen......most of us have accepted that......just be fair about it!
    What happens when all the reps who have proven they know how to sell
    are gone....where does that leave the rest of us?
    
    It won't matter a tinker's toot if we make the best products in the
    world.....if there is no one left who knows how to sell them.  I
    *know* we do a lot of business through DEC DIRECT....but somehow I
    doubt total catalog sales will cut it.
    
    
    Karen
    

Hypothetical situation:

I'm a SUM who has been told that I must downsize my unit by n people. Another
tale that I've been told is that the process of ridding my unit of poor
performers is going to be streamlined in the near future since in the past it
has taken inordinate amounts of time and energy to fire someone for
non-performance. I also know of folks who were "let go" in the first few rounds
that were performance problems and Digital paid good money to get rid of them. 
Knowing that I must make hard decisions regarding both good and bad performers
I opt to give some good ones a chance at a package that is only going to get
leaner at each successive round. I figure even if the "firing for cause" process
isn't streamlined, those poor performers will get a less attractive package
down the road anyway.


What do think?

-Terry

    RE .25
    
     I AGREE !!  If we're in such bad shape,and really need all the
    revenue we can get,,why not keep the 160-200% sales reps and get
    rid of the non-performers??
     It seems assinine to lay off a GOOD rep just because his/her account
    doesn't justify a rep,,while we keep a less effective rep *who-happens-
    to-have-an-account-that-somehow-qualifies* for a rep.
     
     Why can't we (wellll,it's a bit late for *that*) assign the performers
    to the active/existing slots and give the package to the NON-performers?
    
      Doug

    Measuring performance in sales has many variances. I am aware of a
    situation where a sales rep did 200% of budget. However, that customer
    insisted on a having a different DEC rep. They did millions with DEC
    despite the fact that they considered the rep incompetent, unavailable
    and insensitive. The rep was changed. In another instance, there was
    a rep whose budget was heavily dependent on their customer (prime 
    contractor) to win the business and also on the DOD not cutting
    budgets. In those sales the reps time could be very easily consumed 
    without winning an award. They win some and the lose more. To be
    a '3' performer you have to at least make your budget. I do not
    know of many 200% who are rated less than '2'. 
    
    Be careful on how you view a rep who is out there trying to make budget
    and might not be having a good year. Hopefully for them, what they 
    worked hard for will pay off!

	... is it my imagination, or has Jerry Beeler not responded in
here since the "big day"?  Lordy, if he got it, our worst fears are con-
firmed!

	Just taking a quick look at the Southeast District Sales certs
results from FY90, it appears that the bulk of our Sales transitions
came the lower half, maybe 1/3, of the certs performers.  I saw a couple
of 100+ pre-centers that got it, too.  Guess we saved some money on free
trips to DEC-100 and Decathalon, too.

	Then, let's not forget that after the managers do their job, Per-
sonnel has to bless things based on their criteria, and they DO have the
final nod!

    re: a few back
    
    ... there was a note that tried putting someone in a manager's shoes.
    Got me to thinking.  If I were a manager that was told I had to lay off
    a bunch of folks in my group, what would I do?  I'm going to assume
    that everyone in my group performs equally well, adds equal value and is 
    comparably talented.  I might ask myself which of them would be able to
    find gainful employment outside of Digital and which have talents that
    could only be used within Digital.  The former would have talents
    desired outside and, during good times, could probably be hired off the
    street.  In other words, I might choose to down-size by letting go
    folks in my group that had outside-marketable skills, retaining those who 
    do not have such skills.
    
    Now, after doing this, what happens when our customers want support
    that can also be obtained from our competitors?  ... Glad I'm not a
    manager ...
                           
    Steve

>	... is it my imagination, or has Jerry Beeler not responded in
>here since the "big day"?  Lordy, if he got it, our worst fears are con-
>firmed!

    Have no fear. Jerry is still in the salary continuation plan. He's been
    busy teaching though and I suspect that's why he hasn't said much. Or
    he just may not have anything he wants to say.

    			Alfred

re:<<< Note 1523.30 by RICKS::SHERMAN "ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326" >>>
    
.30>I might ask myself which of them would be able to
.30>find gainful employment outside of Digital and which have talents that
.30>could only be used within Digital.  The former would have talents
.30>desired outside and, during good times, could probably be hired off the
.30>street.  In other words, I might choose to down-size by letting go
.30>folks in my group that had outside-marketable skills, retaining those who 
.30>do not have such skills.
    
I'm intrigued by the notion that such tenderness is being employed during
the layoff process.

Could you give examples of sales skills that 'could only be used within
Digital' and how it would be good business for DEC to show the others
(with more marketable skills) the door?

Lee

    re: -.1 
    
    Nope.  This is a pretend situation and I don't know much about sales.
    But, from a technical point of view, I know that there are some, for
    example, software tools that are mostly only used within the company 
    and are considered critical to Digital's success (such as simulation
    tools and perhaps some tools found in the toolshed).  If a person is a
    developer of such tools or an expert user that might be a skill that is
    valuable mostly within the company but maybe not outside the company.
    
    Or, a person might have a skill in getting things done at Digital
    because they know all kinds of contacts.  But, outside the company
    this person might not be able to use those contacts.  Maybe this person
    is a sales support person.
    
    Or, maybe someone knows how to service old and obsolete equipment that
    is only used by a few key Digital customers.  Outside maybe this is a
    skill that has no market.
    
    Now, let's see, what can I imagine for sales ...  Perhaps sales skills
    that could only be used within Digital might have to do with knowing
    where people and resources are to satisfy customer needs and requests.
    Maybe it's an uncanny ability to be aware of, to find and to furnish 
    software solutions from within the company in response to customer 
    problems.  
    
    Maybe I'm a manager of a CSC and I only have a few of these kinds of 
    people. And, maybe I also have a bunch of new folks that don't have these 
    skills but have just recently been given lots of training in Ultrix, Rdb 
    and other things valuable to the outside market.  Does that help any?
    
    Steve

    
.30>In other words, I might choose to down-size by letting go
.30>folks in my group that had outside-marketable skills, retaining those who 
.30>do not have such skills.
    
    Totally bogus.  Hypothetical, but bogus.
    
       What you're saying then is that you'll do the good performers a
    favor by giving them an early package, knowing that they should be able
    to find another position elsewhere. You also assume that the company
    will continue to downsize, allowing you the opportunity to get rid of
    the poor performers at a later date, and at a lower cost to the company
    since the later package will be less lucrative.
    
       What's wrong with this picture...
    
    	1) Let's say for arguments sake that after the early rounds of
    	layoffs, the company decides it has reached its downsize goals and
    	no more people are let go. This is what everybody's waiting for,
    	and since you let go the good performers (theoretically higher
    	paid than the poor performers) you've helped the company reach
    	this stage sooner.
    
    	  So now you've got a bunch of poor performers working for you and
    	you're going to try and make budget. How likely? Let's say it
    	doesn't happen, and the company sees reason to resume the layoffs
    	trying to establish profitability. The cycle of letting go the good
    	people starts again.
    
    	   If you watch this continue, you'll see that eventually there's
    	the risk of putting the company out of business because it's made
    	up of a bunch of poor performers who couldn't sell air conditioning
    	in hell. Not to mention that you've got a bunch of managers running
    	around trying to help the good performers at the expense of the	
    	company.
    
    	2) The good performers who you let go are now on the street looking
    	for a job. You say this should be easy because they're the cream of
    	the crop. But they carry with them the fact that they were layed
    	off. Other hiring managers whose logic says "get rid of dead wood"
    	will not be so quick to see their value, and therefore may either
    	a) not be willing to take a chance on them, or b) not be willing to
    	hire them with salary/benefits comparable to what they had at
    	Digital.
    
    	   And you did them a favor by letting them go early?
    
       On the other hand, if you do the "right" thing and let go of the
    poor performers before the good ones, after the layoffs are done with
    you've got an organization of top people, and are more likely to
    benefit the company and sustain profitability. If you're concerned that
    the poor performers will be out on the street unable to find a job,
    well, tough noogies for them. Life happens. They will have to realize
    the reasons for being layed off were performance/skill related and they
    will have to decide to a) get trained, or b) get their butts in gear
    when they do find another position.
    
    
    Frank
    

    Any manager who puts the interests of "soon-to-be-ex-employees" before
    that of his/her company deserves to be fired, not laid-off, with _no_
    package!
    
    A manager has been entrusted with making decisions in the interest of
    the company.  Even those decisions which appear to be in the interest
    of employees are justified as being in the long-term interest of the
    company.  Sabotaging the interest of the company for any reason is
    unethical and immoral (as in biting the hand that feeds you)!
    
    I grant you that many managers get away with decisions which benefit
    them personally more than the company, but that is no more and no less
    unethical than decisions which benefit employees at the expense of the
    company.  
    
    I am disturbed by the number of people who seem to think that the
    world, the company, or their manager is responsible for their lives. 
    No person can evade the responsibility of his/her own life.  There may
    be a lot of obstacles in this world, becoming successful may not be
    easy or painless, but each of us has greater motivation to solve our
    own problems than anyone else does.  
    
    Where has the pride of self-sufficiency gone?
    
    Not only is this not the Digital I joined, apparently the U.S. is no
    longer the country I was born in!  Has everyone been contaminated by
    the welfare-state philosophy?
    
    dismayed,
    
    Dick

    re: .34 and .35
    
    I agree that the situation I describe could be bogus, but not for the
    reasons listed in .34.  When I presented the situation I stated
    something along the lines that all of the employees in the group were
    of comparable skill levels.  That is, there are no poor performers.
    
    This may seem like a bad assumption at first.  But, consider that by
    now the poor performers are supposed to be gone.  And, I am not much of
    a manager if I have let go of good performers so that I could retain
    poor performers.
    
    As to the decision to let go of those who are marketable outside, this
    is not a decision that would be made out of any charity for my group.
    It might just make good business sense because if the talents are
    marketable outside, it means that I might be able to hire in the talent
    when things get good.  I would retain those who have skills that are
    mostly limited to Digital because those are, by definition, not
    available outside and probably not marketable.
    
    For example, let's say I have one high performer and "all he or she
    knows" is Unix, PCs and C.  This person is very good and let's say
    these are marketable outside.  When things get good at Digital, I can
    hire that kind of talent back.  I have another high performer that is
    the developer and supporter of a very complex software tool that is widely 
    used within my cost center but is not available outside of Digital.  I can 
    hire another expert on Unix, PCs and C from outside later.  But, this 
    latter person I can't replace easily from outside because there is nobody 
    else that can do this function.  He or she is the only one in the world
    that is expert in this field.  But, nobody outside Digital cares.
    
    So, I let the Unix/PC/C expert go.  Now, if we have a customer that
    needs this talent I have to go hire it in from outside.  I am now
    competing with the market to provide this customer with support.
    
    If you don't like the skill sets of these two "experts", then fill in
    the blanks with something else.  The bottom line is that by forcing
    cuts I can see some managers letting people go because they are
    marketable and then having to compete with the market in the future to
    provide customer support when things turn around.
    
    Steve

    re .36
    
    Ok, I accept that argument as plausible, but try this on for size.
    
    If we have an application that no one else has, is that goodness? 
    Perhaps its just NIH that we haven't eliminated yet.  A highly
    specialized skill with an internal application that brings in no
    revenue might better be replaced by a comparable industry-standard
    application for which talent is readily available.  
    
    So then, what is the business decision?  For my money, it is eliminate
    the skill for the internal application, keep the person with potential
    for revenue generation for a trial period to see if s/he does generate
    enough revenue to pay for costs and profits.
    
    Dick

    re: .37
    
    Yup.  It sounds like we're boiling down to a proprietary versus
    commodity issue.  I have heard it argued that you have to go with, for
    example, Unix because that's what everybody is doing.  I have also
    heard it lamented that Unix-based companies are folding.  The reason?
    Everybody is doing Unix!  Seems it's awfully hard to make money doing
    what everybody else does.  A lesson from life.
    
    So, another approach is to do what everybody is doing, but do it
    differently than everybody else does.  For example, let's make an
    OSF-compliant windows environment.  BUT, our implementation will be
    proprietary and our version will run faster, take less memory, run on
    more platforms, be cheaper and so forth.  So, the trend is now to
    introduce proprietary elements into industry standards.  Now, we can
    make money.
                                          
    Unfortunately, the standards are so complex that it is nearly
    impossible for someone to be, for example, an expert in how to design
    with an OSF Motif interface AND be an expert on developing widgets to
    support the interface.  We may well have a cost center that has experts
    to help customers with designing for the interface (outside-marketable
    and available skills) AND we may have folks who know the Digital
    proprietary inner workings of those interfaces.  Who to let go?
    
    Depends on whether or not you think you can compete in a commodity market 
    or a proprietary market.  If you let go those with marketable skills,
    you will compete in a proprietary market but will be able to compete
    later in the commodity market by hiring back commodity skills.  If you let 
    go those folks with the proprietary and less-marketable skills, you will 
    compete in a commodity market with virtually no chance of returning to
    the proprietary market.
    
    It's an enigma.  Everybody is moving to the commodity market to make
    money and are bringing in commodity skills to avoid the NIH syndrome.  
    But, you won't make money doing what everybody else does.  Digital and OSF
    maintain that they can compete in a commodity market by providing
    proprietary in-house solutions that are commodity-compatible.  So, my 
    guess is that they will attempt to retain those who have proprietary skills
    and will purchase commodity skills as needed.  That means letting go of
    good people who have commodity skills.
    
    Steve

    Unfortunately, .33 typifies the tortuous, "outguess-the-system"
    thinking exhibited by many of Digital's managers.  If more managers
    had put their efforts into running the business rather then working the
    system, we might not be in this mess.
    
    -dave

    Re: .37
    
>    If we have an application that no one else has, is that goodness? 
    
    	How about CHAMP and SMART?  How about CSR?  These are applications
    that nobody else has, yet they require mountains of support.  And they
    are the hubs of our Customer Services business.
    
    Steve

    re: .39
    
    Now you're getting at the heart of why I'm interested in the example.
    I'm trying to understand how management in this corporation is thinking
    in an effort to make things a bit more predictable for bottom-rung
    troopers like me.  Should I position myself mostly with skills that are 
    needed and used only at Digital?  Or, should I position myself mostly 
    with skills that are compatible with the outside market?
    
    I resent management that thinks "everybody is doing this, so I can get
    away with this".  When everybody does it intending to take advantage of
    the, hopefully, majority that is trying to do the "right thing" a
    malaise results, defeating the good intentions at program conception.
    
    I wondered about the current situation at Digital when we have
    supposedly already eliminated the less efficient from the workforce and
    then managers are told to "right-size" even further.  What I wonder is
    what criteria will then be used by thoughtful managers?  
    
    In the situation I proposed I had thought in terms of a manager trying
    to do the "right thing" and how he or she might try to cope.  I have
    not considered a manager that would try to take advantage by outguessing 
    what other managers would be doing.  
    
    Steve               

    >ew 1523.40 by ODIXIE::GEORGE 

>    Re: .37
    
>>    If we have an application that no one else has, is that goodness? 
    
>    	How about CHAMP and SMART?  How about CSR?  These are applications
>    that nobody else has, yet they require mountains of support.  And they
>    are the hubs of our Customer Services business.
    
>    Steve
    
    That's my point.  We should be building our internal support systems
    using the same tools we want to sell to customers, practicing the same
    kinds of internal consulting we are trying to sell, and analyzing our
    business with the same kinds of thought processes we claim are so
    useful to businesses.  
    
    Today, we have a portfolio of applications that require "mountains of
    support" and therefore, "support people" who are destined to be
    "overhead" forever.  Goodness would be that our internal support
    systems were supportable with the same people who go out to integrate a
    system for American Airlines or whoever.  Then, we could use the lean
    times to rebuild or expand our internal systems without jerking people
    around.
    
    We are dependent on _both_ the generic expert and the internal expert
    today and will continue to be so, but the latter should be used to work
    him/herself out of a job by replacing the high overhead system (and
    becoming retrained) ASAP.
    
    Of course, this is all utopian thinking which is too sensible for much
    of our management.
    
    Dick

    I thought that our internal support was one of the main things that made 
    Digital unique.  If we give up that which makes Digital unique, what 
    advantages do we have over our competitors?  Size?  Name recognition?
    Cash?  Structure?  I think it's very difficult for us right now to draw 
    the line between using commodity resources versus proprietary resources.
    
    Steve

    You're right, but its the results of that support, not the tools that
    count.  If we can get the same results with simpler tools, we can
    reduce overhead and maintain the service level.  We have to keep the
    part of Digital that the customer sees and change what goes on in the
    background.
    
    Dick

    re: 2 previous notes on "uniqueness <> goodness"
    
    .44> but its the results of that support, not the tools that count.
    
    Truer words were never said.  A lot of us in DEC get caught up in the
    internal gobbledegook without thinking about the real world.  Case in
    point (I pick on SPS a lot, but sometimes they really deserve it):
    
    I fondly recall a customer call where I listened to an admin person
    extoll the virtues of our "new" software order numbering system, and
    how it would make life so much easier for everyone than the "old" way.
    The admin person proceeded to plunk down three or four yellow-pages
    sized catalogs, and launch into a description of how to cross-reference
    SPD numbers with Order numbers with licenses, and so forth.  Our red-
    faced customer takes it for about two minutes, and then calls the sales
    rep out into the hall.  The message is short and sweet:  "Get me a C
    compiler for my workstations and tell me how much it's going to cost.
    And take those books with you when you leave.  If you bother me with
    this garbage again, I'll go down to Entre' and buy a bunch of boxes
    that say MICROSOFT C on them."
    
    It seems that the message must be hammered in once again:  the customer
    wants a reliable computer and useful software to do his work.  Just
    because we might have the most expensive and complicated methods of
    providing that computer and software doesn't constitute "Added Value".
    
    Geoff Unland
    

    
    	re Steve Sherman
    
    	What about this: you explain to your hypothethical group the same
    	way you explained it in here, and then you make the TFSO voluntary
    	and first-come-first-served. Give people the opportunity to make
    	something positive out of a potential disaster, as well as give
    	them the opportunity to choose.
    
    	John 

    Hey, I'd go for that because I'd expect those that could easily get
    jobs outside to volunteer first.  Those who had expertise unique to
    Digital would have a more difficult time and would probably already
    have the golden handcuffs on.  We wouldn't have a problem with keeping
    "deadwood".  Remember, supposedly the deadwood has already been
    removed.
    
    Steve

    re .47
    
    >Remember, supposedly the deadwood has already been removed.
    
    Not necessarily a realistic assumption, given KO's reaction to how we
    have distorted the NMS!
    
    Just to pose a more difficult question:
    
    You are a manager of managers.  You have 4 and each of them has 5
    managers reporting in.  The average group size underneath each manager
    at either level  is 6 exempts.  Your boss tells you that your
    organization is top-heavy.  What do you do?
    
    Dick
    
    

    Hmmm ...  I think the traditional way to handle something like this is
    to reorganize such that some managers have less than one or two people
    to manage.  Call this Phase 1 and announce that another reorganization
    will occur later, called Phase 2.  The managers that have become ICs or
    who have little to do will take the hint and look for employment
    elsewhere.  Phase 2 involves phasing out the little organizations
    altogether.  Note that this still involves "right-sizing" (that is the
    politically correct newspeak, du jour, isn't it?) those who are managed by
    the managers whose positions will be eliminated with Phase 2.  I think
    that there is some sort of idiom that says that it's difficult to hang a
    manager until you've kicked the chair out from under his feet.  Hence, the 
    need by some to do pyramid building because it's harder to kick out a
    pyramid than a chair.
    
    Once while working at TI I knew of a PhD that messed up badly and was 
    laterally moved to become the manager and soul contributor of his own 
    department.  Don't remember if he was smart enough to get the hint or not.
    I have a friend who was made an IC before eventually getting "down-sized". 
    He was smart enough to scout out other opportunities in Digital and had
    an offer when he got the "tap".  Another was among the many managers that 
    probably shouldn't have been let go.  He was "transitioned", took the 
    package and was snapped up as a regional manager for a small electronics 
    firm.  Another that I know of took COD to the field and was "transitioned"
    recently.  Don't know what he'll do yet.
    
    Steve

    re .48
    
    The group would analyze carefully the interactions among them and
    reform into teams based on the work they do.  If I was lucky I would 
    end up with 12 teams of 12 people each, and I would have them all direct 
    line to me. 
    
    Was this a trick question??

    re .50
    
    Not a trick, but I'll bet there a lot of both good and bad answers
    available.
    
    Dick

 >   You are a manager of managers.  You have 4 and each of them has 5
 >   managers reporting in.  The average group size underneath each manager
 >   at either level  is 6 exempts.  Your boss tells you that your
 >   organization is top-heavy.  What do you do?
    
     1) Make them VPs   
    
     2) Buy DEC stock 'cause this change in behavior is just what 
        DEC needs. 
    
     3) Temporarily hire more indians to justify the chiefs until
        things calm down then lay them off. 
    
    

    
    RE: .52
    
    Reality check - the typical DEC response will be to 
    
    	A) reorganize 
    
    	B) update resume
    
    

>                 <<< Note 1523.54 by TENAYA::RAH "Robert Holt" >>>
> 
>     
>     well, we just hit the reef.
>     
>     its just been announced that we (UCO) are history.
>     
>     if anyone cares about the DECstation biz, now's the
>     time to speak up.
> 
 

Are they closing all eight sites?

JK
 
              --==++    "CARPE DIEM - Sieze the Day!!"    ++==--                

    
    
    
    	Where's ATD and WSE ? They're not in the DEC phone book.
    
    	UCO is Palo Alto.
    
    					Mike
    					----				
    	

    wse = workstation engineering?
    
    atd = ?

>    wse = workstation engineering?
    
>    atd = ?

atd = Advanced Technology Development ????????

  Doesn't Palo Alto contain....

  wrl	western research labs
  src	systems research centre
  wsl	western software labs
  nsl	network software labs
  wse	work systems engineering
  atd	advanced technology development

  ???