T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1660.1 | rare WSJ pun | SAUTER::SAUTER | John Sauter | Tue Nov 05 1991 12:29 | 2 |
| re: .0---``...a risky transition ...''
John Sauter
|
1660.2 | re .1 Yes, but they DID spell it wrong, at least... :-) | RDVAX::KALIKOW | Partially Sage, and Rarely On Time | Tue Nov 05 1991 12:46 | 1 |
|
|
1660.3 | More Comments fFrom the Peanut Gallery... | SUBWAY::JAHMAN::ELLIS | Peter S. Ellis Jr. - FDDI LEDS Get BUSY!! | Fri Nov 08 1991 13:42 | 31 |
| It's so-oo easy for "stockholders" - that highly elevated, largely ignorant, opportunistic, short-sighted,
and moneyed class of people, and the financial press - the omniscient instigators who
earnestly quarterback from the sidelines after the plays, to agitate for a perceived good on
behalf of a company; they speculate as to motives and bellyache over short-term performance.
>"Ken has a fundamental aversion to letting anyone else become a leader. He sees them as a threat."
Who, in their right minds, after having built a $14 billion company over 30 years, wouldn't have "an
aversion" to letting just anyone become its leader? I THINK WE'D ALL BE IDIOTS IF WE BELIEVED THAT
KEN HAS NOT AGONIZED OVER THE ISSUE OF SUCCESSION.
Where were these people when K.O. was building his "dream" of a company? Where were these people
when he was misjudging (like so many others) the import of the PC market?
Yes, it is attributable to human nature that discussions will abound over issues of common concern,
particularly when the common concern is invested capital. Shareholders do have the right to voice opinions
about how their investments are used. And this IS the U.S.A., land of democracy.
But, just maybe, we could be getting our butts kicked by the Pacific-Rim nations just because of our
dogged concern for the short term. It's a problem endemic to every facet of our society, but
most evident in reviews of the quarterly financials.
When you're going on a long journey, you may step in something along the way that's very smelly;
but the journey's direction and goal are what's important; and if you're fortunate, you'll have
some companions along with you who'll enjoy the experience and share your long-term
goal.
Ken Olsen has clearly made his share of misjudgments; but he has been, and continues to be
A leader with a LONG-TERM focus - something America sorely needs.
In fact, America calls men like him VISIONARIES.
|
1660.4 | .3 rewrapped so it's readable | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | Fri Nov 08 1991 13:55 | 48 |
| Here's .3 rewrapped to fit 80 columns so the rest of us can read it (I'll
bet the author uses DECwindows Notes).
<<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
-< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1660.3 WSJ: Digital Inching Forward 3 of 3
SUBWAY::JAHMAN::ELLIS "Peter S. Ellis Jr. - FDDI LE" 31 lines 8-NOV-1991 11:42
-< More Comments fFrom the Peanut Gallery... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's so-oo easy for "stockholders" - that highly elevated, largely ignorant,
opportunistic, short-sighted, and moneyed class of people, and the financial
press - the omniscient instigators who earnestly quarterback from the sidelines
after the plays, to agitate for a perceived good on behalf of a company; they
speculate as to motives and bellyache over short-term performance.
>"Ken has a fundamental aversion to letting anyone else become a leader. He
sees them as a threat."
Who, in their right minds, after having built a $14 billion company over 30
years, wouldn't have "an aversion" to letting just anyone become its leader? I
THINK WE'D ALL BE IDIOTS IF WE BELIEVED THAT KEN HAS NOT AGONIZED OVER THE ISSUE
OF SUCCESSION.
Where were these people when K.O. was building his "dream" of a company? Where
were these people when he was misjudging (like so many others) the import of the
PC market?
Yes, it is attributable to human nature that discussions will abound over issues
of common concern, particularly when the common concern is invested capital.
Shareholders do have the right to voice opinions about how their investments are
used. And this IS the U.S.A., land of democracy.
But, just maybe, we could be getting our butts kicked by the Pacific-Rim nations
just because of our dogged concern for the short term. It's a problem endemic
to every facet of our society, but most evident in reviews of the quarterly
financials.
When you're going on a long journey, you may step in something along the way
that's very smelly; but the journey's direction and goal are what's important;
and if you're fortunate, you'll have some companions along with you who'll enjoy
the experience and share your long-term goal.
Ken Olsen has clearly made his share of misjudgments; but he has been, and
continues to be A leader with a LONG-TERM focus - something America sorely
needs.
In fact, America calls men like him VISIONARIES.
|
1660.5 | No, maybe they're right | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Fri Nov 08 1991 15:14 | 11 |
| One must draw a distinction between agonizing over a successor and
avoiding the issue, and I think the question is whether Ken is doing
the former or the latter. Succession planning is important for any
organization, both in the short term (who will take over if the head is
struck down?) and in the long term (who are we developing to take over
in, say, five years?).
Stockholders and analysts may not be familiar with the peculiarities of
any one business, but by the same token they're familiar with a broad
range of companies and their situations, and they can see parallels
that we perhaps cannot.
|
1660.6 | keep it quiet | BUZON::BELDIN_R | Pull us together, not apart | Fri Nov 08 1991 17:32 | 5 |
| But I don't think that succession planning is wisely done in full view
of interested bystanders. Whatever is being planned, it should be
confidential, not material for WSJ or HUMANE::DIGITAL rumor mills.
Dick
|
1660.7 | Succession Plans | SONATA::TROY | | Mon Nov 11 1991 14:48 | 16 |
| Succession planning at all levels of an organization is simply good
management practice - separate from the discussion on an heir apparent
to KO. While many companies absolutely are clear on who the next in
line is for the CEO, many do not. DIGITAL, however, seems to go to a
great deal of trouble to not succession plan at any level. It
certainly leaves us vulnerable to disruptions if, for example, a plane
crashes as happend about 5 or 6 years ago to the IBM management team
that ran their PC business. Thus while who replaces KO is certainly
interesting to discuss, the real question is: Is there a person who
will be running the company in case something happens to KO, until the Board
can decide on a successor. Perhaps there is already that level of
understanding, and we are just not privy to who that might be.
It is important to remember that a KO successor would not necessarily
come from inside DIGITAL (a la Scully at Apple) - so why would we
name someone if that is a real possbility?
|