Conference 7.286::digital

    Would those lucky enough to view the DVN care to give us your
    impressions? 
    
    Thanks in advance ...
    

    I was very disappointed in the questions. Here is one that I wanted to
    ask! Zereski stated that his primary role was to coach. How does he
    implement coaching? I say that Digital management's idea of coaching is
    sitting in the ivory tower, reading New Management System results and
    plans, and determining if it will fly or not. Their action results from 
    reading these reports. Sales is a people skills intensive job. To
    understand effectiveness COACHING face to face is the only way to
    discover corrective actions. I don't see this at Digital!

    re: -1: You misunderstood KO. His comment as to what would be sold had
    nothing to do with profitability. It had to do with the linkage between
    customer needs/Sales emphasis/Marketing/Engineering. Engineering wants
    KO to make Sales sell it's particular product. KO wants Engr/Mkt to make
    their messages simple and understandable and their products priced
    right so Sales will want to sell and customers will want to buy. If a
    product doesn't get sold the group will go away. And profitability only
    enters when someone mistakenly lets unprofitability get in the way of
    their sale. At least this is how I interpreted it......
     

    I also felt like most of the field questions were avoided rather than
    addressed.  The Dick Joseph memo in particular was ducked.  It takes
    more than a couple upper managers on TV to help morale - it takes
    answers, and there weren't any today.  'Downsizing' instead of layoffs,
    and the total denial of any early plans for the October layoff are
    quite frustrating.  I mean, they're not just going to pull names from a
    hat on Halloween, now are they?  They just refused to be informative,
    and seemed to place full responsibility on the U.S. Field for
    everything.
    
    Our products are out of date, functionally insufficient and inferior,
    poor quality and over priced.  Other than that, it's all just a matter
    of sales.  BTW, if you'd like examples of these, just call any field
    office - the ones with line salespeople in them, not one of the
    regional headquarters or staff offices...  we're getting our butts kicked 
    on a regular basis by other vendors with better products - that's a fact.
    
    As for systems integration, the idea that we could possibly hope to
    compete with third parties, like the Big Eight or the
    Industry-specific, established experts, is assinine and always has
    been.  The fact that we want to charge the customer an arm and a leg
    for it, and tack on 'uplifts' for third party components that we're not
    even going to TOUCH, adds insult to injury.  That probably explains why
    it seems the only significant SI contracts we win are either grossly
    discounted to the point of our losing all profitability, or involve the
    federal government, who are famous for buying $900 toilets anyway.
    
    That's ok, though.  Under the New Management System, these problems
    will go away, as one by one, all of our products and services go out of
    business.  No wonder they can't predict the size of the layoff.
    
    Funny, but none of these things came up.  For a company whose working 
    philosophy is based on honesty, there's a surprizing and sudden lack of 
    it lately.  Sigh.
    
    So, where ARE the leaders, anyway?
    
    tim
    

    Re. .5 - Ken's comment about 'sell it all' was related to several
    comments about not necessarily making every part of a deal maximally
    profitable but to "run a business" and sometimes take a loss to gain
    share and then look for profits.  I think there is a fear that some
    products will not be sold because of the low margins when they might be
    just the items to gain share for profits later.  This was also the
    section where there was talk about 'doing the right thing for the
    company' vs. working toward an interpretation of the profitability
    metric.
    
    Re. .6 - Ken was talking about the need to come up with a simple and
    easily understood message about a product or service.  He then made the
    observation that women seem to be better at this than men.
    
    Re. .7 - I have seen Digital beat when we obviously had the best
    product/solution.  While it helps to have the 'best' products that is
    not necessarily going to do it for you.
    
    I have personally been involved with system integration deals where we
    have beat other vendors including the Big 8.  PS - we also made very
    nice profits.
    
    
    Peter Dillard

I keep telling myself that I've got to stop writing things in this Notes
file or I am going to get myself in trouble.

Those of you who know me know that I am quite a cynic.  However, I
thought that todays DVN was a very positive event.  I hope that this
will be repeated on a regular basis.  When the management structure is a
nebulous as our is, it is exciting to see the folks at the top sit down
and answer questions.  It has been implied in previous notes that the
participants; answers were vague.  I would say just the opposite that
they was a straightforward as one can be in their positions.  I'd say
that the questions were more vague than the answers.

I too would have loved to have found out when Digital is going to stop
pouring away millions of $$$$$ on industry products that have produced
nothing of value because the engineers are out of control.  Or when I am
going to stop getting Phase 0 announcements for products that have such
limited markets that they will never make a profit.  Or when marketing
groups are going to be able to write function specification that meet
market requirements and engineering is going to follow them.  That way
we'd have something to sell. 

However, it's not all going to come at once.  If we have enough of those
meetings maybe these questions and more will be answered.  Maybe they
will inspire the invisible layers of management to become more visibile. 

I hope that they will get together and do this again soon.

RE: .2  Zereski and coaching

It would be very instructive if he could put together a written document
on what he means by "coaching".  I heard him explain it a meeting two
weeks ago and he made sense.  I would try to explain here but something
like this should come straight from the top.

P.S. A video of the session will be available through VTX.

    I can't agree with .9 .  Maybe the responses were not vague, but they
    did not address the questions.  When asked why a recent issue of
    Scientific American devoted to the pervasive impact of computers on
    business, Ken answered that we should write the articles.  The question
    point was why isn't DIGITAL on the lips of everyone in the business. 
    And, so it went with almost all of the responses.  We'll laugh and joke
    and give out the answers we want - now if the peons will only ask the
    right questions.  My time could have been spent more wisely.  (I am not
    a cynic).
    
    Big Mac

    
    The question about "Who are the leaders?" should have been asked as:
    "Who are the entrepreneurs?".
    
    The only flaw (perhaps fatal one) of the New Management System is
    that it expects people who have followed orders for their 20 some odd
    years at DEC to suddenly become entrepreneurs.
    
    This scares me.  Is it even possible for these people to miraculously 
    change their behavior because they were told to?  I suspect not.  
    I know that the entrepreneurial spirit is supposedly a part of DEC
    culture, but I wonder just how much of it is just talk.
    
    BTW, Ken's comment was about women doing a better job marketing.
    
    

re .10

I agree.  Perhaps someone should have asked which business unit is in 
charge of getting those articles in Gardening and Fishing and Golf.  
We on the frontline can only do so much.  We can talk on and on to 
our customers about the open advantage.  Yet, if when open advantage
is discussed in the trade rags and digital is no where in sight, the
customers believe that we aren't really serious or believe
we aren't being taken seriously.  We need to have the messages delivered 
in the trenches be reinforced from the top, be reinforced by major 
advertising blitz.   We have some good products but our marketing 
strategy is poor. No ones knows about our good products.  Word of 
mouth isn't going to spread the word fast enough.

_karen

    As usual, KO puts out good information but doesn't communicate his
    point effectively. His snake oil comment on UNIX was the best example;
    he was absolutely accurate but absolutely misunderstod, and it caused
    the Corporation much PR damage! The references to articles in special 
    interest magazines (gardening, golf, etc.), while sounding strange, had
    some excellent logic. The business magazines, which he panned, tend to
    appeal to a limited audience which scans them and discards them and
    quickly discards them once they've gotten the overview they need. And
    few of them will buy our products on what a market or management
    analyst says in one of the bus mags. But special interest mags DO get
    read cover to cover, including the adverts, just like he said. And then
    they get filed and re-read many times; otherwise they wouldn't sell
    those filing monogramed filing systems..! And the people that read them
    tend to internalize them, and hence messages there have a much better
    chance of influencing a sale if they're credible and relate to what the
    reader understands. But it takes a far different author to do an
    article for a golfing mag than it does a business mag, and we probably
    made all of the writers with those skills redundent long ago. So who's
    going to write the articles KO says we ought to be doing. Surely not
    the Field! But his idea has a lot of truth, regardless!
    
    KO continues to speak in parables (which I really enjoy, because
    they're thought-provoking) but to people that are really looking for
    something not so abstract or obtuse; something concrete that they
    can quickly grab on to and do something with. Hughes trys to get people
    excited about what's going on and to see the positive side of it; he
    tries to communicate. The others are just sharing information and
    hoping it excites people. Somebody said if Digital sold sushi we'd
    describe it as raw dead fish, and that's what I think we're doing about
    most of what's happening these days. Hughes is trying to get us to
    think sushi and the rest are talking about raw dead fish. I just hope
    Hughes doesn't get sidelined; he's the only one that has a hope of
    raising morale.
      

RE: .9 (and to a lesser extent .10)

When we have these get togethers we have to remember that the senior
managers may not agree with what we have to say.  I disagree with many
if not most of the things the managers said.  If I ever had the
opportunity to have a one on one lunch with K.O. we'd probably have a
heated discussion (assuming I was not too intimidated).  I come away
from this knowing how K.O. B.H. and D.Z. stand.  I also see that these
folks are a little too far removed from the trenches but at least they
are making the effort.

As to this particular question, I think that K.O. interpreted it more
narrowly than we are intrepreting it here.

Maybe it should ahve been phrased like:

"Ken I feel that Digital is perceived quite a bit differently than it is
outside of GMA and I think that people in Mass. have a hard time
understanding the image problem we have in the field.  Do you believe
that Digital has an image problem outside of New England?"

Follow up  "What is Digital going to do to make itself known in other
areas of the country?"

I think the answers to the questions were a lot clearer than the questions
themselves.  

I'll be perfrectly happy to to say in another topic why K.O. et. al. were
completely wrong and why I'd run the company a whole lot better.
However, it's not a waste of time to find out straight from the horses
mouth what they think is wrong.

P.S. I just as strongly disagreed with several of the points some of the
callers made.

    Well, I thought I also could resist posting anything here these days,
    but this "communication" vehicle today merits some further comments.

    First, I'm happy that these top managers were willing to invest the
    time to communicate with the field (ala Sales Focus).  The format of
    10 min intro by BH, 10 min comments by DZ and KO, and 40 mins of Q&A
    (actually turned out closer to 70 min) was nice.  They didn't have to
    take the time out.

    I'm also happy that they are trying to clarify and help everyone
    understand what NMS is -- it *is* a drastic change in the way we've
    done business in the past; and I think that it is worthy of a dedicated
    response by the Digital employee community.  The evolution to account
    selling teams is also appropriate.  There is a *lot* of goodness in the
    direction they are taking the company.  And I believe that if the
    company can survive the next 12-18 months, Digital can again be on a
    roll.

    That said, I am completely and totally dismayed at the levity with
    which this event was conducted, down to and including the black masks
    on KO and DZ.  I have to assume/believe that they were trying to
    "lighten up" morale in this difficult period.  However, I think the
    reception in my own audience (about 100 people at our site) was stilted
    chuckles and general resignation that this was inappropriate, given the
    situation so many Digital employees find themselves.  I spoke to a
    number of people, including managers one and two levels up, and without
    exception, they felt that "inappropriate" was a good description of the
    levity in the presentation.

    They did confirm that downsizing will hit in October, altho one
    caller's figure of 10,000 was disputed by DZ (I believe) along the
    lines of (paraphrasing) "I don't think there will be 10,000 in the
    field" ... one might question the "in the field" portion to indicate
    the number might not be invalid, just the scope of the area.

    They did comment, as reported earlier, that "I'm not worried, are you?" 
    which struck me as most insensitive to the situation most employees are
    in  (who are not as well compensated and who are not able to sell $Ms
    in stock).  After all, there is *no* reason for the three panel members
    to worry about paying their mortgages or utilities this Christmas
    season.  However, I think it's fair to assume that many *former*
    Digital employees will have to worry about such concerns.
    
    A few years back, I recall KO, when asked about our no layoff
    tradition, stating something along the lines "if we ever find ourselves
    in such a situation, it will be because we as managers have failed" (my
    paraphrasing again).  Well, last week's annual report cover letter,
    which many of us received via mail (you can read it via VTX
    ANNUAL_REPORTS) was interesting.  Read the last paragraph of KO's
    letter:
        
    "It is painful to downsize, but this is the result of the technology we
    have worked hard to develop.  At no time in Digital's history have the
    productivity, the enthusiasm, the thrill of new products, and new ways
    to help the customer been so strong."
    
    I have to regard this as yet another effort to place the blame for a
    bloated, overgrown organizational structure anywhere but where it
    belongs ... on the LEADERS who chose to build it over the past 4-7
    years.
    
    And as for "enthusiasm" being so strong, well I suggest that there is a
    serious dichotomy between the reality of the typical Digital employee
    facing downsizing and the top management of the company who don't
    appear to share the "worry."
    
    We should all be seriously concerned about building Digital back up. 
    We should all work as if our jobs are at risk.  Because most of ours
    are.
    
    However, the message implicit in the tone of the DVN was that our
    concerns are not shared by top management.  Yes, they are concerned
    about business, but if this DVN is any indication, they don't share our
    level of concern.
    
    Also, the explanation for the recent high level VP departures by
    saying that "they all couldn't get promoted" or "have the top job"
    seems misleading at best.  I don't doubt that some managers leave
    because their career is blocked.  But they left no allowance for the
    reality that there have reportedly have been major disagreements in how
    to "fix" Digital.  I think that the "honesty" that a previous reply
    mentioned was not applied in addressing this issue.
    
    Again, I think that the destination where Digital is headed via NMS and
    AST is good.  But getting us from Point A (where we are now) to Point
    B (where these programs are implemented fully and smoothly operating)
    seems to be tearing up the fabric of whatever we used to call "Digital
    culture" and costing irreplacable human resources along the way.  And
    that is what makes me so sad.
    
    Steve
    (who wants to see Digital successful and full of motivated and content
    employees again)

    I thought the responses to the elevator question were quite
    interesting.  The question was to each of them: "If you found yourself
    in an elevator with the president of a large corporation, what would
    you tell them that Digital's message is in the two minutes you had with
    them."  (loosely quoted)  I thought that the question was not answered
    very well by any of the participants.  I see this as a large problem
    with the corporation, noone knows our message anymore.  We have
    vehicles riding around with "Digital has it now" on them.  This was a
    great message for the time and it was no doubt true.  What is the
    message now?
    
    Not being in sales, I thought that the broadcast should have been for
    all the employees in the corporation not just sales.  Everyone makes a
    contribution to the corpoation and everyone has a vested interest and
    many of us non-sales types are interested in what is going on in the
    corporation as well.
    
    Mike

     <<< Note 1606.5 by ODIXIE::GEORGE "Do as I say do, not as I do do." >>>
>    Not meaning to start a rathole here...  I think I was distracted by
>    Ken's comment that for the last 30 years we've been a marketing
>    company...
    
    
    He said WHAT? Ah, ha ha ha hee hee hee ha ha ha....<falls off chair>
    
    
    	- andy

re .6
    
> 4: When asked about layoffs and the tension people were working under
>   he said "I'm not worried. (Looking at Don Z and Bob H) Are you
>   worried?"
    
    This is beyond insensitive.  This is revolting.
    
    Mark
    

    Re: the "Zorro" masks
    
    I have to admit that at the beginning of the broadcast, when the panel
    was sitting in the dark (no pun intended?) before the lights came up,
    and two of the top managers could be seen wearing masks that appeared
    to completely obstruct their vision (no pun intended?), the thought did
    cross my mind that "they really are in the dark" ... the blind leading
    the blind.
    
    Again, I presume this was an attempt to boost morale with levity ...

    
    I don't think the statement was that DEC was a marketing company
    for the last 30 years, but that it started out as one, and then
    evolved into something different.  The push was to "get back to
    our roots."  But I'm not 100% positive of this, and I didn't see
    the whole thing... will a transcript of this, or a VHS tape, be
    made available?
    
    	Dave

<<<from .13:>>>
    Somebody said if Digital sold sushi we'd describe it as raw dead fish.


        Actually, I don't agree.  We'd just put it in the price list,
        describe prerequisites, issue size etc. specifications,  put out
        a brochure that talked about the benefits of fish in general,
        and advertise about our Open Fish strategy.  

	We need to give DEC the "cachet" that it used to have; maybe
	by off-beat over-truthful marketing or something
	equally imaginative and *different*.  Calling sushi raw
	dead fish is actually on the right track if it were done
	tongue in cheek and followed a general thrust, but we would 
	never do that kind of thing.  (How about an Ultrix campaign
	featuring our 'new improved OSF snake oil', and give away
	bottles of Digital Snake Oil.)
 

    Re: caller's question on the late departure of high-level VPs/mgrs
    
    KO's last word on these people (the ones who left because we can't
    promote them all ...) was that "almost all who have left .... were
    unhappy afterwards" (reference to Gordon Bell, Dave Cutler, Shue, etc.
    perhaps?).

    re .16
    
    Bob Hughes is the US VP for Sales and he does DVNs monthly to
    communicate with the sales force.  I don't believe the DVNs are
    restricted.
    
    Peter Dillard

             <<< Note 1606.23 by DENVER::DAVISGB "Jag Mechanic" >>>
>    later, he identified a Notes conference as a way to communicate
>    directly to the top.  He called it the "US Sales and Service Vaxnotes
>    conference".   Anyone know where this conference is?
    
    He may be referring to HAMSTR::US_SALES_SERVICE....
    
    	- andy

    I understand that Peter, but the whole corporation needs to, and wants
    to hear the info and having the broadcast geared towards sales can make
    other contributors feel as though they are not significant in the
    contributions which they make.
    
    
    Mike

    
    re: .23
    
    The conference can be found at
    
    		GERBIL::US_SALES_SERVICE
    
    Bob is a regular reader there and has even been known to post notes
    and/or replies from time to time.
    
    -Joe
    

    Re. .27
    
    I think I'm missing something:
                 
    If a manager wants to communicate with his staff regularly but doesn't
    want to incur the expense of flying everone to a meeting site, does
    this mean that the meeting must then be geared to everyone in the
    corporation and not just to that manager's area of responsibility?
    
    The monthly DVNs were set up as a cost effective way to keep an open
    line of communications in SALES.  That is why it is geared to sales.  I
    don't know if sales is the only organization to use the DVN in this
    fashion (teleconferencing) but I would doubt it.
    
    If you went to a sales meeting would you expect it to NOT be geared to
    sales?
    
    Peter Dillard

    What I am saying is that there is a need to have a "state of the
    company" DVN which is a Digital employees meeting.  The broadcast as I
    saw it contained information which was not sales specific, but
    contained information that any employee who cared about the company
    would want to hear.  I think the idea of the DVN was a good idea, but
    should have been a company DVN instead of just a sales DVN.  Is that
    clearer?
    
    Mike

       They had it here in the MRO Cafeteria. There were posters all over
    the place inviting everybody who wished to attend.
                               Denny

    RE: .2
    
    If you were disappointed with the questions, why didn't YOU pick up the
    phone and call in???, and stop complaining!  You could have called in
    anonymously.
    
    
    RE: .30
    
    I used to be in Corporate Finance back East, and went DVN's on many
    different subjects.  I never waited for an invitation, if I thought it
    was interesting and could fit it into my schedule, I just went to see
    it.

    Re. .30 -
    
    I see now.  I agree a state of the company DVN would not be a bad idea.
    
    A quick background on this one:
    
    	As of two weeks ago this was just Bob Hughes adressing the sales force
    	A week ago word went out that Zereski would join on the DVN
    	On thursday word went out that KO would join
    
    It would be a good idea to get this same group and more on a similar
    DVN to discuss issues for all groups.  Or maybe the heads of the
    different groups should get their respective management chains on DVNs
    to adress the issues that that group would raise.
    
    Peter Dillard

    A state of the company address on DVN for everone sounds like good idea.
    But only if they are willing to actually say something that isn't readily 
    available through the widely distributed memos and newsletters.  At least 
    have the guts to really address the questions, instead of just avoiding 
    any variance from the published party line.
    
    Otherwise it's just a waste of time.  Like yesterday.  It's time
    management started living up to its humanist rhetoric and treated us
    like people.  If we really are the company's greatest asset, as
    management has proudly proclaimed over recent years, then we deserve
    some straight talk, and straight answers.
    
    tim
    
    P.S. It would be nice to drop the buzzwords and call it a layoff. 
    

    Typical of the way this company organizes things.  Whatamess!
    I, for one am glad I didn't know of this "display" in time to watch.
    Not very confidence-inspiring.  
    It's sad.
    
    Which way to the beach?  

    Re: 30 and 31
    
    Ah! Sales was the focus group! That's why it was unavailable at ZKO. I
    wanted very much to witness it and ask questions.

    
>   I see now.  I agree a state of the company DVN would not be a bad idea.
    
           I THOUGHT THEY HAD THE STATE OF THE COMPANY MESSAGES ON DVN
           ANNUALLY.
           
>   It would be a good idea to get this same group and more on a similar
>   DVN to discuss issues for all groups.  Or maybe the heads of the
>   different groups should get their respective management chains on DVNs
>   to adress the issues that that group would raise.


           AGAIN, I BELIEVE THEY'VE HAD VARIOUS VP'S IN THE PAST.
           
           I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING (RHETORIC OR NOT).  JUST THINK OF
           WHAT THERE WAS BEFORE DVN OR VAXNOTES OR VTX, ETC.
           COMMUNICATION WAS PROBABLY EASIER THEN, BUT THEN AGAIN THE
           COMPANY WAS SMALLER, TOO.
           
           Steve
                      

    My father works for a company that sends a quarterly "what's going on
    with the company" video to each and every employee (tens of thousands
    of employees).  They are both informative and keeps those interested
    abreast of what is going on.  I'm not suggesting that Digital does
    this, but a quarterly broadcast (I think) would do a lot for the
    corporation.  One caveat though, the broadcasts would have to be open
    and honest.
    
    Mike

    I don't understand all the fuss about "state of the company" DVNs. 
    Unless these have been discontinued, we ALREADY have these.  During
    FY91, I believe they were quarterly.
    
    Steve

Excuse me, this (the DVN broadcast) is too much; I can't take any more.  
I am going to take a leaf out of KO's book and not waste any more 
energy being worried that I am demoralized and anxious for my future.  
I'm going to take myself off to the gardens of Versailles, to that nice 
little summer house so beloved by Marie Antoinette, eat cake and wait 
for the unwashed hordes to storm the walls.
    

    
    
    
        Alfred E. Newman masks may have been more appropriate!

    
                              Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE

            Ken Olsen discusses account management in DVN broadcast 

  Ken Olsen, president, focused on the roles and responsibilities of account 
  managers in remarks broadcast over the Digital Video Network today.  He and 
  Don Zereski, vice president, U.S. Area, appeared as a guest on the sixth 
  Sales Focus program, moderated by Bob Hughes, vice president, U.S. Sales.  
  All three fielded questions phoned from offices across the country.

  Ken explained the reasons behind the current changes in the company.  The 
  following is a brief summary of his remarks:

  "Years ago we were really a marketing company.  We had product lines that 
  were close to customers and close to the sales department, expert in 
  customers' needs and the applications.  We introduced computers to 
  industries that didn't have them before, and we grew immensely.  About ten 
  years ago we had to make changes in the way we were organized to take full 
  advantage of technology.  We did that and were remarkably successful.  But 
  over time, we put too much emphasis on technology and lost sight of the 
  customer.  Now we are back to emphasizing the customer and supporting the 
  accounts.  We do technology to support the customer, through the account 
  manager.  Today, each account must be run like a business.  

  "We need to emphasize business management rather than just arbitrary 
  measurements.  Our New Management System (NMS) isn't a measurement.  It is 
  designed to provide information for managing.  It is intended to help the 
  account manager.  We want to optimize the way we sell.  Managers should not 
  manage strictly on the basis of profitability.  There are cases where that 
  may not be what's right for the company.  The accounting is designed to help 
  the business unit recognize the real issues, to do what is right and to 
  learn from that.

  "In general, we are doing very well in changing how we work.  But some 
  managers above the account managers are having a hard time leaving things 
  alone.  Old habits are hard to break, but they are now in the role of 
  'coach' rather than boss.  Their job is to be helpful, facilitate and make 
  the NMS work.

  "The account team has to feel it is their budget, and they are responsible 
  for it.  If something goes wrong, they learn.  If the economy drops off and 
  they don't sell or their customer loses out, they have to cut back their 
  expenses.  They run their account like a business.  If someone else tells 
  them what to do, they've lost all responsibility and they learn nothing.

  "We had a great experience in Europe about ten years ago," Ken observed.  
  "Europe used to have all of the individual country budgets go through 
  Geneva.  Geneva redid them and sent them back.  And we weren't doing well.  
  We changed that.  We said the budgets do not get reworked by Geneva.  Now in 
  Europe, every country is run like a business.  As of the day we made that 
  change, the growth curve for Europe went up a different steeper slope.  
  Europe is now bigger than the U.S. and growing faster than the U.S. 

  "Some people ask why some top managers have recently left the company.  They 
  are leaving in part because our competitors need expertise and are buying it 
  by making generous offers to Digital people.  Jay Forrester, a former 
  Digital board member, once said, 'Either you generate too few leaders and 
  you're in trouble, or too many and you lose some.'  We should be glad we 
  generate so many.

  "Leadership now comes from the business unit managers.  There is nobody 
  higher.  People without responsibility don't make decisions anymore.  We 
  have to trust them to make commitments and manage and budget."

    re: .39 (Steve R)
    
>    I don't understand all the fuss about "state of the company" DVNs. 
>    Unless these have been discontinued, we ALREADY have these.  During
>    FY91, I believe they were quarterly.
    
    My records indicate the last two state-of-the-company DVNs that were
    publicized here (MD/DC/VA) were May 91 and December 90.  We had a flock
    of them in '90, with many editions of the Digital Quarterly Report.
    
    To my knowledge, there hasn't been a broadcast going under the DQR
    banner during this calendar year (the May broadcast is not listed in my
    notes as a DQR).  The DQR DVN seems to have vanished with Jack Smith's
    "fireside chats" (haven't seen him host a DVN this year).
    
    Considering how volatile things are these days (NMS, dowsizing, etc.),
    I would hope we would have MORE FREQUENT DQRs.  Instead, it looks like
    DQR is dead.  If this was meant to be a DQR-type broadcast, it was VERY
    poorly advertised!
    
    -- Russ (who was recovering from a virus on Monday, unfortunately)

    .42 - There is an interesting comment in the KO discussion in this
    note.
    
    It says something like,  When we let the countries in Europe run like 
    individual businesses, (vs. going through Geneva) they grew and were 
    (are) very successful.  In other words this is what the US should do.
    
    First of all, I thought the US was a country.?  Why does it work
    in Europe and not here? Or in other words, Where is the "Geneva" in the 
    US that we need to get rid of?  ANyone care to explain?
    
    Just an observation.
    Mike
    
    
    
     

    
    The US is a *BIG* country.  Maybe KO was referring to individual account
    groups.
    
    -Ed
    

    re. 44
    I think he was referring to management in general, or maybe "CORPORATE"
    
    ?????
    

    Re .44
    
    US is a country, but ten years ago it was probably the size or
    organizational equivilant of our current US regions or perhaps a large
    US district.
    
    It would appear that the parable (see .42) shows that when decisions in
    profitability can be made closer to the customer those decisions can be
    more realistic and more successful.
    
    It would seem then that the role of the corperation would be to provide
    overall direction, coordination, and resources to assist the customers'
    contacts (i.e. their "business partners" -- the local Digital
    representatives). With our plethora of products and services that role
    requires significant overhead, but we have the tools and we should have
    the business volume to support such needed overhead in order to suport
    the customers requirements.
           
    The hardest part is to keep up with the broad range of available
    products and services so that we may offer to the customers that which
    best suits their individual needs and wants.
    
    Best,
    Richard