Conference 7.286::digital

    It is an ever changing situation that is not cut and dry across
    DEC. Every organization is different, every group is different
    and every manager is different. I've always found it best to ask
    my manager face to face. I've been lucky because I've always gotten
    an answer, so far. I know others aren't so lucky.
    
    Good luck,
    
    Jim C.
     

    80 % is correct 
    
    but it's 80 % will  NOT get a raise
    
    
    
    buzz

    Easy....If you are rated a "2"  Now you're a "3"  At least
    I'm hearing that there's alot of that going on.  
    
    Anybody else confirm this?
    
    Mark

    
    What's the average raise amount anyway, as dollars not as a percent
    figure?
    
    

         As it was told to me, we had an unsatisfactory distribution of
    ratings.  It was something like: Ones - 15%, Twos - 55%, Threes - 30%.
    What they want to achieve is: Ones - 20%, Twos - 30% and Threes 50%.
    So, there will be more ones and threes, but fewer twos.
    
         Unfortunately, this will result in people getting ratings other
    than what the manager thinks they deserve.
    
         You are right about the 80% participation rate.  20% of the people
    will not get any raises within a particular year.  What this does is 
    to force an average of about 15 months betwixt "happy day's".
    
                                        Greg
                                                                        

    Here's what happened to me on my last review. BTW, my last review was
    the resultof, as explained to me by my manager, A directive from top
    sales management to re-review everyone. 
    
    On tuesday I was told to have a performance review ready on the next
    day. The next day I asked my manager if he was under pressure or
    quotoas or anything like that. In other words were the results of my
    impromtu review going to be affected by non-performance related issues.
    Of course he said no. Then he promptly took my review papers, which he
    had never seen, flipped to the back page and dropped me a notch. 
    
    He NEVER EVEN READ IT. No explanation other than he was in a hurry! Did
    I have any questions? I was mad as #%$%$#, but just decided it wasn't
    worth fighting. I was tired of the craziness going on last summer. I
    went on a 3 week vacation a couple of days later. 

Re: last few, adjusting numbers of your performance

This is akin to using a knife on the foot to make the shoe fit.

Re: distribution of 1's, 2's, 3's

It has been cited before that if individual contributors (aka IC's) are
doing what is assigned to them and are working hard then they should be
receiving PA's with 3's, 2's and 1's.

If Digital is floundering then the problem is not (mainly) with IC
performance but with management that is setting direction.

I know of a number of IC's that have had to work harder in the
past 12-18 months than ever before (in their career at DEC) due to their
peers being transitioned. To simply 'shift the scale' so that more IC's
have lower performance numbers is poor practice indeed. Skewing numbers
seems to be a well-developed skill.

Lee

Re: <<< Note 1677.9 by HAAG::HAAG >>>

.9>On tuesday I was told to have a performance review ready on the next
.9>day. The next day I asked my manager if he was under pressure or
.9>quotoas or anything like that. In other words were the results of my
.9>impromtu review going to be affected by non-performance related issues.
.9>Of course he said no. Then he promptly took my review papers, which he
.9>had never seen, flipped to the back page and dropped me a notch. 
.9>
.9>He NEVER EVEN READ IT. No explanation other than he was in a hurry! Did
.9>I have any questions? I was mad as #%$%$#, but just decided it wasn't
.9>worth fighting. I was tired of the craziness going on last summer. I
.9>went on a 3 week vacation a couple of days later. 

Did you sign the review *before* a number was put onto it?

Although it may do little good I would write a letter to personnel
detailing the above events (be sure to include the manager name and all
applicable dates) and ask that your letter be put into your personnel
file. Then, in the future it could become important to note that your
performance figure was degraded in an arbitrary fashion.

Lee

Re: Dropping performance numbers (per .9)

This is another nail in Digital's coffin. Sorry to be so pessimistic in
an otherwise upbeat notesfile [insert half-hearted smiley here] but if
employees cannot get a fair and honest performance evaluation then there
are some *SERIOUS* problems going on.

If DEC can't find enough poor performers to layoff then they will just have
to layoff the average ones.... but to make more average/sub-average
performers by summarily de-rating employees is abysmal business practice.

I hope this isn't an example of DEC's new 'road-to-recovery' style... if
so, we're STILL in a lot of trouble.

Lee

	I just got my review yesterday. Nothing got knocked down, everything
went well. I don't get any money until January, so I don't know how that's
going. Hopefully that will go as well as the review.


Glen

    
    
    Question:
    
    If inflation is running at 6%, can we expect RAISES and not just 
    COLAs?
    
    -Ed
    

    RE:  .14
    
    SOME OF US WOULD BE THRILLED IF WE GOT A 6% RAISE.
    

    
    
      If inflation is 6%,  you really need 9%  so you still have the 
    6% after the Feds take their bite...   
    
    

    Does anyone know what the actual inflation rate was for last year?  I
    believe that it was less than 6%.

  >    If inflation is 6%,  you really need 9%  so you still have the 
  >    6% after the Feds take their bite...   
    
        And if you only get a raise every 18 months then you will need 12%
    just to cover the cost of living.
    
    

    anyone at DEC whos salary is keeping up or ahead of inflation for the
    last 20 years has either not been here long or is not reading this file
    because they are at a very high level.

    re. .11
    
    Never. I don't sign stuff like that. Most people in positions of
    authority were reacting to a directive for a one time shot deal. Those
    kinds of things are ridiculous. They don't solve anything other than
    let someone somewhere say "yep, I got a bunch of overated people and I
    got them in line". Just so they could look good to someone else. And
    the grunts suffer and suffer. I asked my manager if he thought about
    the long term consequences of his action on my career at DEC. It never
    even dawned on him. He acknowledged anything long term wasn't on
    anybodies agenda. Just tomorrow, or today, or this morning, or the last
    20 mins.
    
    Uh oh. Time to get off.
    
    Gene.

>           <<< Note 1677.16 by MUDHWK::LAWLER "Not turning 39..." >>>
>    
>      If inflation is 6%,  you really need 9%  so you still have the 
>    6% after the Feds take their bite...   

It's not quite that bad.
At $1000 per week gross, a four-deduction wage earner has $131 withheld
for a net (before other deductions) of $869.
After a 6% raise, that earner would have $148 withheld, for a net of $912
(out of the new $1060 gross).
That's about a 5% increase in net.   A 7% increase in gross will get you
about a 6% increase in net.

For a $500 per week gross, current net (4 deductions) is $459.
For a $530 gross, net is $485.  Here the 6% gross gets you 5.7% net.

- tom]

    Some people are not worried if they get a raise or not.  They would be
    happy if they miss TFSO 5.  Noone should be starving to death at
    digital.  I think they are quite generous with salaries especially when
    you consider the education that some have and their pay scale.  Believe
    me when I say that it is hard to find a comparable paying job
    elsewhere.  All you have to do is watch the newspapers.  SO who cares
    about a raise.  I just hope I dont have to start seriously reading the
    want ads.
    
    Rick
    

    re .22
    
    AMEN!

FWIW Department:

As of a year ago, the range of annual salaries for salaried employees (WC4)
in NH was $32,223.00 to $263,846.96.  I got this from note 1352.258.

Who cares about a raise?

I don't know.  Right now, I'm caring about a COLA (cost of living adjustment).
Let's face it:  The message we're getting is that they want the same amount of
work (or more, if you were planning on advancement) every year for less money.
That looks good for corporate employee productivity figures, but not so good
for household budgeting.  For this privilege of giving away free productivity, 
we MIGHT get to keep our jobs, except that there's really no such relationship
(unless you really believe that good people haven't been laid off).

There's always an excuse:  When times are good, they tell us the raises are
low because "Well, we are paying industry competitve rates".  When times are
bad they say "Well, be glad you're not being given the package."  The net 
result in both cases are a salary that MIGHT keep up with inflation if you
either work your butt off or luck into a boss that likes you.

I know it's probably the same deal you'd cut with any other employer, but there
isn't any good reason why we have to be happy about it.

.20>    And the grunts suffer and suffer. I asked my manager if he thought about
.20>    the long term consequences of his action on my career at DEC. It never
.20>    even dawned on him. He acknowledged anything long term wasn't on
.20>    anybodies agenda. Just tomorrow, or today, or this morning, or the last
.20>    20 mins.
    
    More important questions to ask him would be if he thought about the
    consequences on your trust in him and his honesty with and support of
    you, or on your loyalty to and motivation for him and the corporation?
    
    Nothing long term on the agenda may just be why we have such a mess. 
    It is certainly not clear that such an approach will solve the mess.
    
    BTW, I note that the manager who downgraded the performance appraisal
    appears likely to be associated with the same part of the organization
    that may have some critical project coming up (as posted in another
    topic, by the same author).  Is this the sort of motivational technique
    that is expected to staff that project with high-calibre productive
    individual contributors?  If so, no thanks, I'll take TFSO5 instead.
    
    --bruce
    

    re. -1
    
    No the manager to dropped me a notch last review got the package
    shortly after that. Further proof that thier is a god in heaven. He was
    a genuinely nice guy, but a lousy manager. Just wasn't cut out for it.
    
    As for that big project I mentioned. We are putting together some ideas
    on how it needs to work. Those ideas are a "little" different than the
    way some people are used to running things. We'll see. If we win, I
    expect all kinds of political bickering. ...no I'm not going to start
    on THAT one.
    
    All this talk about raises and COLAs and the like is OK. However,
    personnnally I usually don't say much about that stuff:
    
          AS LONG AS I FEEL I AM BEING TREATED FAIRLY AND HONESTLY
    
    And I wasn't. And either were a lot of other people. Witch hunts seldom
    find the witches. I'm willing to share the pain/gain right along with
    everybody else. However, I haven't seen any equal sharing of the pain
    or gain for some time now. And that's almost as bad as the layoffs in
    terms of affecting morale.
    
    Gene.

    	re "don't like my raise"
    
    	You're welcome to check for more competitive raises elsewhere.
    	If the industry as a whole does not pay employees well, you're
    	welcome to go into business for yourself.
    
    	Free market and all that.
    
    	DEC is doing nothing more than playing the economics of the
    	market.  In good times when jobs are plentiful elsewhere,
    	employers must give good raises if they want to retain good
    	personnel.  In tough times, there is no law (short of min wage
    	laws) that requires an employer to pay any specified level.
    
    	Wait.  I take that back.  There is the law of supply and demand.
    
    	DEC is not in the business of providing for your family.  You are.
    	And the vehicle you chose to fulfill that task is a salaried
    	position at DEC.  Same with me.  If I thought I could do better
    	elsewhere to provide for my family, I'd go there.  
    
    	My continued presence at DEC speaks to my belief as to where I
    	can best provide for my family.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    re industry competitive salaries. Yeah right.
    
    I can think of at least a dozwen associates who have left salaries of
    around $50,000 at DEC, to around $90,000 to $110,000 at DEC customer
    sites. And this isn't contracting. Straight salaried jobs, company
    cars, etc etc...
    
    
    q
    

    re:.29
    
    Many times,a DEC employee will be lured away by a high salary( such as
    when several field service types got stolen away by a major third party
    service outfit while I was in Ca.) then get laid off when the current
    need is gone (and they've only collected a couple months of that big
    salary) These people will often come back to DEC looking for their old
    jobs back. I definitely wouldn't try that scheme now!
    
    Ken

    	So if a customer offers 2x your salary, take it!  (If you
    	think it's worth it.)
    
    	Free market and all that.

    .25 ditto
    
    I wrote the same here seven years ago.  When times are good,
    compensation policy is "industry average", when times are bad,
    compensation policy "relects Digital's hard times"

The way I see it, we're all still here because:

    we think we're being paid what we're worth, or
    we think we can't do any better anywhere else, or
    we think we're being under paid, but we like the "toys" (or the work,
	or the people, or the challenge), or
    we think we're being under paid, but like where we live and don't want
	to move, or
    we think we're under paid, but we're holding out for a golden handshake
	and then we'll jump the fence to a greener pasture, or
    some combination of the above, or
    any other set of things we can think of.

But the bottom line is that we're here - not somewhere else.  Therefore,
I'll argue that we're being paid either what we're worth or what we
want (adding up ALL the tangibles and intangibles).  We may not think
that's the case, but if it's not, then why are we still here?

regards,
Rick

    The problem I have with the review process is that it is not
    consistently implemented and provides no constructive information.        
    
    I have recieved 5 good performance appraisals in as many years.
    I have written all of them, with little or no adjustment to the text by
    my management.
    
    I KNOW I am not perfect, so, how can I grow with no feedback?
    
    Paula

    From my fairly lengthy experience I would say that the feedback you
    would probably get would not be much help.
    
    ken

    I think that having to write your own review is absurd.
    
    I hope I'm never asked to do it.
    
    Mark
    

re: .36

>    I think that having to write your own review is absurd.
>    
>    I hope I'm never asked to do it.


Seems like a good way for your manager to find out what you think you
accomplished and how well you did it.

Now, if your manager doesn't read it and/or just signs it, then there is a
problem.

Bob

>    I think that having to write your own review is absurd.
>    
>    I hope I'm never asked to do it.

I'm a bit surprised you haven't had to so far, even if you're fairly new
to the company.
A PA ought to be give-and-take between reviewer and reviewee.
Given that, somebody has to write the first draft, then the other person
has to  fill in the blanks and correct errant impressions.

Some sections HAVE to be written by the reviewee, like career goals.
Other sections can go either way, such as "assignments."
Others are probably reviewer-drafted, like "performance against assignments."

Who knows his work better than the person who did it?
Why shouldn't a reviewee get first licks in?

- tom]

    ok-ok...I'm speaking more to writing your own, and having it
    "rubber-stamped" by your supervisor.  Granted I have a job plan
    which states what I'm supposed to do, what my career goals are, 
    and in the end I should meet this.  I do have inputs to my review.
    
    What's absurd is sitting and writing about myself in the third
    person about things that my supervisor should be writing...e.g.  
    
    COOPERATION (Works Well With and For Others)
    
    Mark is extremely cooperative, He is cheerful, kind, generous, 
    and entirely selfless in working with others...
    
    Blech...
    
    I'm sure it happens though.
    
    Mark
     

    Per my last note....
    
    5 reviews, all written by myself.  1, maybe 2 were SLIGHTLY revised by
    my management.  My last one did not have 1 word altered by management.
    
    As far as personnel is concerned, they received a signed copy.  Zero
    involvement.
    
    It is a crime that Digital does not value mentorship or development of
    their people.  I take the time to evaluate my career, where it is
    going, and try to push my management to work these issues WITH me.  I
    have yet to see management's or personnel's PROACTIVE involvement.
    
    Paula

Re:                   <<< Note 1677.40 by SAHQ::HUNTER >>>

>    It is a crime that Digital does not value mentorship or development of
>    their people.  

Fortunately there are a few places that do (where I now work, for example). 
Though we still write the *first* draft of our own reviews. 

But I agree it's a crime that it's not a corporate-wide attitude.

-  David

    
    	Interesting topic...I have been with DEC for a little over 5 years
    now and have more than doubled my salery and have been promoted 5
    levels. Now granted, I started at the bottom and worked my ^#@ off. BUT
    I noticed very early that to get ahead you must do more than "just what
    is expected from your job". You must make sacrifices (personal and
    professional) to get that BIG raise. On my own time I have discovered
    and developed many processes and tools that have saved the corporation
    lots of bucks in the area of field service. I have fought tooth and
    nail with my management to accept these ideas and do the right thing.
    And yes, every 18 months I go into my managers office with a PA, job
    plan and salary plan that I have written and prove to him/her that I
    deserve a descent evaluation and raise.
    
    	I think DEC is a exciting company to work for and I learned very
    early that it is up to me to drive MY career at DEC. I think Seymore
    Cray said it best, "...parity is for farmers...".
    
    	Mark_who_still_believes_in_DEC

    re. .36 .40, and especially .42
    
    Your career is in your hands. No question about it. However, many
    managers at DEC have taken it to far. An excuse to ignore your
    subordinates and spend the whole time working the system. It stinks.
    And it's hurting the company big time. When this company sets up a
    metric system that rewards managers for developing their subordinates
    maybe then, and only then, will the grunts be treated with respect.
    
    I have been an engineer, a bad manager, and a good manager.  I was a
    bad manager before I was a good one. And I was rated by my peers and
    subordinates. Never before have I been with a company that had so many
    1st line manager entirely out of touch with their people or customers.
    Its amazing.

re: .43

>    ...Never before have I been with a company that had so many
>    1st line manager entirely out of touch with their people or customers.

They're only emulating the behavior of the people who put them in place.
In DEC, "people management" is uniformly looked upon as a contemptible and
thoroughly old-fashioned idea.  Being an individual contributor who does
"special projects" for your manager (also known as "managing up") is what's
rewarded by the managers of line supervisors and managers.  The boring stuff
such as setting priorities for your direct reports (AND following up on them),
helping them to grow in skills that will be needed by the company, expediting
or removing obstacles that your reports get stymied by, and doing routine
administrative tasks (like: performance reviews that are ON TIME and written
FAIRLY AND CAREFULLY, training plans, career plans, succession plans, etc.)--
all that stuff is never rewarded--at best it's treated as an afterthought.

So why do it?  A lot of new managers at DEC must wonder about this.  For a
short while, until they've assimilated the rules of the game, that is...

								- paul

    This is bliss to my ears! At last the truth is being talked about in
    Digital. I am in England and experiencing similar issues myself as
    previously mentioned. Over the last few years I have lobbied various
    people to try and persuade them to change things in DEC but to no
    avail.
    
    The irony now, is that DEC UK at least are pushing for a Government
    backed scheme, called Investors in People. This award if received
    will give great credibility to the company and could be used on
    letter heads etc. The government department will send in teams
    of people to interview employees and find out if Digital truly
    is commited to developing its staff. This I believe will totally
    transform the company. The metrics for managers to develop their
    employees will undoubtedly be put into place. This information
    was taken from the latest edition of Digital Today. The Board of
    Management have supported the initiative. I look forward to it
    being implemented asap.
    
    	Richard.

    re: .42
    
    As I pointed out in my earlier notes, I have received positive
    reviews.  I personnally feel that I have taken control of my career,
    and have enjoyed fairly decent raises.
    
    HOWEVER, as I also pointed out, I KNOW that I am not perfect, and it
    often takes someone else to tell me how I may be perceived by others,
    if I have skills that need sharpening, and what my strengths are.  I
    enjoy and benefit from this type of feedback.  I DO NOT get it unless I
    demand it, it has not been written into my reviews, and only 1 of the
    many managers I have discussed this with actually took the time to
    think about my request and offer constructive feedback.
    
    I am a 1 and/or 2 performer consistently.  If I am having difficulty
    getting this information upon request,  what about the 3's that may be
    experiencing problems and not understand why?  Maybe they are dense,
    but more likely they are in the wrong job given their skills, or not
    focused on the appropriate goals/activities.
    
    I cannot believe for one minute that we can pull ourselves out of this
    slump if management does not want to take the time to re-assess their
    staff's skills and development needs.
    
    Paula
                                                                         

    I spent the better part of this afternoon discussing this topic with
    peers of mine in the office. They came to me. I did not go to them.
    Many have tried to discuss it with personnel or their manager and left
    even more confused. I get the sense that either those in charge either
    don't know themselves (a real possibility for some) or are hiding
    something. In either case something is wrong.
    
    And the troops are getting mighty tired of it and are becoming a wee
    bit restless. Personnaly I think this whole process is a very immature
    part of the company. And it's costing us some of our very best people.
    And THAT really hurts.
    
    Gene.

    re .47
    
    Confused is the word.
    
    Has anyone ever suggested that managers be reviewed, in part, by their
    subordinates? If so, how was the suggestion received?
    
    Karen

    I once asked one of my previous managers (I've had 7 in 6 years), how
    he was measured. He thought and thought and thought and said "so long
    as the group has changed for the better over the period of his reign,
    he has done his job" or words to that effect. Very ambiguous, very
    generalised. No mention of being measured against any standard.
    
    I am doing a business studies Diploma which in the main is based on
    American studies. I have used the theory to compare with Digital's
    philosophies, there aren't many similarities. What I do notice however,
    is the amount of times Digital management ideas and theories are quoted
    in text books, as a Fortune 500 company, unfortunately it doesn't apply
    in all areas of Digital.
    
    	Richard

    You seem to be applying generalizations to all organizations at DEC, in
    fact there is no policy that forces you to be reviewed the way you are.
    Practice is a different matter.
    
    I know of several organizations where peer and management review are in
    existence.  In fact in my own organization we did group salary planning
    this year based on what the group felt comfortable with.  We do group
    reviews and certainly review our management.
    
    All it takes is someone to say let's try it and it becomes very easy!

    My manager sent notices around asking for input to his performance
    review (the comments to go to *his* manager).  When there wasn't enough
    response, he asked again.
    
    This in Storage Subsystems in Colorado Springs.

    re: .50 
    
    "let's try it" may not work when it is a subordinate
    requesting that the manager be reviewed by their staff...
    
    re: .51
    
    providing input to your manager's review directly to your manager can
    be extremely sensitive when your manager is not doing his/her job...
    
    re: .49?
    
    I thought Digital's review process was planned and documented in order
    to ensure that employees were given the best chance of being treated
    farily.  If that is the case, it is not working.  If it hasn't been
    documented, it should.  I have not been through management training
    courses, but I would think that would be one of the first places mgmt
    would be familiarized with a review "process".
   
    Paula

    Re: .52
    
	>> re: .51
	>> providing input to your manager's review directly to your
    	>> manager can be extremely sensitive when your manager is not
    	>> doing his/her job...
    
    Agreed.  But if you will re-read .51, you will see that my manager
    requested the comments go to his manager, not to himself.

    re .52
    I agree that it is difficult when a subordinate makes the request. 
    However in a team environment it is a team decision and the manager
    gets one vote just like everyone else.
    
    I feel very strongly that as a team leader, the rest of the members of
    the team are just as much my customers as my real customers.  If they
    are not satisified with my performance then I better do something
    about it.  A vote of "no confidence" should mean something.
    
    As managers - what are we so afraid of??  This is a serious question.
    

re: .48
    
>    Has anyone ever suggested that managers be reviewed, in part, by their
>    subordinates? If so, how was the suggestion received?
    
I submitted a DELTA suggestion that included this (it dealt with making the
whole performance review more standard and consistent in terms of what you
are measured on).

Don't remember the exact response just now but it was favorable (something
to the effect that this would be implemented over the next year or so in
some form).
								paul

re .54

It shouldn't be anymore sensitive to provide input to your manager's review 
when he/she isn't doing his/her job than it is for your manager to provide 
input in your review when you aren't doing your job.  The point of a review is 
to provide feedback.  If everything is done above the table, then there
shouldn't be a problem.  Right? 

But there is a problem and the new and improved open door policy is suppose 
to fix. There is suppose to be explicit anti-retaliation language written
into the policy.  Jack Smith says there will be no retaliation  for
using the open door policy.  Jack has the best of intentions. 

Karen

    re: .53  totally understood, I was broadening the example for the sake
    of making some generalizations (which I should use with caution)
    
    re: .54 what group are you in?  I have not seen this type of
    collaboration... lucky you!
    
    re: .56 the reason why it is more sensitive to provide feedback
    regarding your manager's performance is obvious.  Your manager does
    your review and salary plan.  If you provide negative feedback, you
    certainly run the risk of SUBTLE retaliation that no open-door policy
    can rectify.  I know of endless cases where an employee is held back,
    given poor reviews and raises because he/she do not get along with
    their manager.  I know of a recent case where 5 people went to
    personnel to complain about the same manager and nothing happened!
    
    Perhaps the new open door policy will help, but some of
    the names on the list of Geography Open Door Managers are 
    rather scary (if you get my drift). 

    As for providing input to your manager's review, I guess I am overly
    sensitive because my previous manager golfed with his manager every
    Saturday.  It was amazing the stuff you got hit with on Monday
    mornings!
    
    I think it is a great idea, and would welcome the opportunity, and
    suffer through any consequences in hopes that some of my feedback would
    be taken as constructive not spiteful.
    
    Paula

    re .57
    
    You ask what group I am in - DELTA Employee Involvement Program - we
    practice what we preach!!!
    
    Giving input to your manager's review is much less of an issue when
    they are not the SOLE source of your review!   Think Teams!!
    

    re .57
    
    You are quite right about the possiblity of retaliation.  I agree with
    .59. Our reviews should not be written by one person.  Our reviews
    should have our managers' input as well as our peers and our
    subordinate where applicable.  
    
    Salary planning shouldn't be the top secret it is today.  I don't
    really want to know what the person in the next cubicle makes.  The
    process could be open without violating anyone's privacy. 
    
    As for the new and improved open door policy, Jack Smith responded to
    feedback he received from employees who expressed a fear of retaliation
    from management when making complaints, comments, suggestions, etc.. 
    Jack tried to remove this fear. He appointed a number of people to the
    position of Open Door Manager.  I looked at the list. The ODMs all seem
    to be part and parcel of the establishment, the same establishment
    employees were fearful of. I would have felt more comfortable if it
    were more representative of Joe Six-pack Digit.
    
    I did an elf on Jack.  I wanted to give him my feedback. I wanted to
    tell him that if I were scared before his letter, the only thing
    different today is that now I know he knows I'm scared. His nodename
    wasn't on elf. :-) 
    
    Karen

    >I did an elf on Jack.  I wanted to give him my feedback. I wanted to
    >tell him that if I were scared before his letter, the only thing
    >different today is that now I know he knows I'm scared. His nodename
    >wasn't on elf. :-) 
    
    	You know his name and his location - use MTS.
    	
        Non-tech types don't generally use MAIL-11.
    

re: .59
    
>    Giving input to your manager's review is much less of an issue when
>    they are not the SOLE source of your review!   Think Teams!!
    
Coincidentally, in the DELTA suggestion i sent you folks was the idea that
a performance review should be broken up into several discrete factors, and
that some of those factors might require input from different people (e.g.,
your manager, your peers, peers of your manager, people in other groups
that you work closely with, etc.).  I don't recall all the details now...

To me the salary planning process is one of the few opportunities managers
have to act responsibly.  It's about the only time someone above the level
of your manager will hear your name and how your performance (and *value to
the company*, that mystical concept) compares to any of the hundred or so
peers you have across the wider organization.  My experience as a manager
was that most managers took this fairly seriously and did their best to be
fair.  It was the other eleven months out of the year that were the problem!

								paul

    re . 62
    
    Paul - I went back and read your idea (which can be read and
    discussed by all employees in our CAPNET::DELTA_IDEAS notesfile.
    See note 547).  You are right on and the response you got should
    have given you a lot of hope that things are going to change.
    
    We, as employees, are being heard and notice is being taken.
    

    The organization I belong to (TOPS/SHR) has the system of subordinates
    having input into supervisor's review.  So far it has worked well.  
    Also, part of the managers' reviews includes whether they have done
    reviews of their reports on time.
    
    Linda