Conference 7.286::digital

Several people have asked me by mail if my letter has elicited any response
from Ron Glover.

Ron called me at lunchtime today.  He said he wanted to confirm receipt of
my letter, and to let me know that he expected preparation of a response
to take a day or two.

The conversation was friendly, if a little fast-paced (it's clear Ron's a
pretty busy fellow), and he expressed gratitude that I'd taken time to write.

I'll post an update as soon as I hear further.

    Glad we're so consistent! They're taking down the campaign literature
    in Mass. but here at cxo3 they're not. (the "real choices" stuff is on
    at least two bulletin boards.)
    
    Ken

	Well, Bill, I think I have Ron's answer. Not directly, but in
	the form of a mail message from someone lower in the chain, which
	I of course can't post here, but would be happy to forward to you 
	or anyone else that cares to see it.

	It is, to my eyes, an odd message. It states that Ron, the author, 
	and another person have determined that the only places in the Spit 
	Brook facility that are not work areas are the cafeteria and attached 
	smoking room, and that any other area in the facility is a work area. 

	Which means then, that the lavatories, wellness center, DEFCU ATM,
	etc are all work areas. Which seems very strange to me because
	I often see folks working in the cafe, but can't remember
	ever seeing anyone working in the john.

	Why Ron would assist in such a determination, and what end is served 
	by such an unlikely application of logic I cannot fathom. But then, 
	ketchup *is* a vegetable.

					Tom_K

                <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 501.19                Nominating Committee Report                  19 of 19
XCUSME::LEVY                                         37 lines   7-APR-1992 12:41
                        -< Who is violating P&P here? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note 501.4 has been set hidden by the moderator, Steve Sherman. He
    has done this in a proactive way, not because any direct complaint
    has been sent to him. Today, I did send Steve a memo indicating that
    Mr. Ron Glover has objected to 501.4 in a memo to Tom_K's manager and
    personnel representative.
    
    Tom does not believe that the P&P has been violated. Nor do I, and
    the moderator has given me permission to quote this agreement with us.
    
    It is my opinion that Mr. Glover is trying to put pressure on Tom_K
    because of Tom's recent efforts at ZKO to fully understand the P&P
    in regards to "work areas". Reference Digital note 1831.3. I also
    have seen the memo that Tom references in that note, and I came to
    the conclusion that Ron Glover considers the toilet areas work areas,
    and other incongruities.
    
    I do not understand why Mr. Glover can not issue a public statement
    regarding this P&P interpretation issue, rather than privately
    attacking individuals.
    
    This is all my personal opinion. I can see no reason for him
    to have gone to someone's manager.
    
    Is there a precedent for this? Do people of Ron Glover's status
    usually write to a person's manager when they don't like a note?
    Has anyone else out there gotten into trouble with their manager
    over a note? Is there a "normal procedure" for a "bad" note? What
    would one ususally do if they objected to, or found, a note that
    they thought violated the P&P? Is the procedure to go to the
    moderator? Have the moderator hide it? Give the writer a chance
    to delete, clarify, or change it?
    
    
    JMHO,
    
    Janet
    

From: SCONCE "Bill Sconce"	Date: 07-Apr-92 06:11 PM
To: MYTVAX::MRGATE::"MLOMTS::CORA::A1::SMITH.JACK"
cc: MYTVAX::MRGATE::"MLOMTS::CORA::A1::OLSEN.KEN",CORA::SIMS,ICS::GLOVER,::KRUPINSKI,WECARE::FITZPATRICK,VIA::REALMUTO
Subject: Digital, management, and employee morale

Dear Jack--

On 31 March I wrote to Ron Glover concerning certain questions employees
"out in the trenches" have been asking about relationships between the
Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union and Digital management, and about
puzzling management actions with respect to P&P which in my opinion have
been leading to corrosion of faith in management.  I was deeply disturbed
that management would apparently be willing to squander its prestige in
service of narrow ends;  I ended my letter to Ron with "Please stop the
destruction".

In that memo (of which I will attach a copy) I asked Ron Glover to clarify
management's positions, and most importantly, to reaffirm that P&P mean what
they say, for everyone at Digital.

Ron phoned me on 1 April, said that he'd received my letter, and indicated
that it would be a few days before he would be able to prepare a response.
That sounded reasonable to me, since I'd asked him to be clear about difficult
issues, and to publish the official Digital posture on them to put the ongoing
speculation to rest.


Developments
------------

Unfortunately, other actions have overtaken Ron's reply to my letter, and
I now find it necessary to write to you.

Before I wrote to Ron, an engineer here at Spit Brook had become involved in a
specific question about how P&P should be applied to the Employees' Credit
Union election.  The engineer, Tom Krupinski, had been active in distributing
election literature.  Tom has stated that he felt employee activity had been
specifically encouraged by John Sims's letter.  (You are probably aware of
this letter, in which John Sims urges members of the credit union to
familiarize themselves with the credentials of those standing for elections,
and recommending thoughtful and responsible participation in the election.
He specifically refers to the credit union as an important employee benefit.
Tom has stated that he felt the Sims letter specifically encouraged employee
activity such as the literature distribution he undertook.)


Tom's Experience
----------------

What happened to Tom should have been comical.  He discovered that election
literature was being removed and destroyed by Security.  Because Tom had been
conscientious from the start about following P&P and getting every appropriate
approval, he went to talk with the ZKO Security people, who told him that
Ron Glover claimed that "Real Choices" material violates P&P.

Ultimately, Tom received a memo from ZKO Security which stated that after
verbal consultation with Ron Glover, they were identifying the ZKO Cafeteria
and the adjacent smoking room as non-working areas, and that all other areas
throughout Spit Brook were to be considered working areas.  Therefore, under
P&P 6.19, election material could not be displayed anywhere other than the
cafeteria and smoking room -- specifically, not on the many bulletin boards
which commonly contain solicitations for all kinds of things employees might
be interested in, from babysitting to roof repair.

This seemed ludicrous to Tom (as it does to me).  Tom agreed to comply, of
course, but wrote a note to let others know of the ruling.  He observed,
perhaps a little irreverently, that Security had in effect ruled that rest
rooms are working areas at Spit Brook.

Admittedly, this is not really funny.  On the contrary, it's a manifestation
of the problem that I wrote to Ron about:  that P&P is being distorted by
chains of verbal re-interpretation, that the stature of Policy is eroding
under pursuit of ad-hoc expediency, and that management is destroying itself
in the eyes of employees.  It's not about restrooms, or even about the
Employees' Credit Union election.  Management is presenting an appearance
of being out of touch.


Harrassment
-----------

But the real problem is that this morning, Tom's cost center manager received
a memo from Ron Glover accusing Tom of posting a note which violated P&P.
Although it may have contained a questionable word, this note, posted almost
a month ago, had caused no comment (to my knowledge) from anyone -- until now.
And Ron went directly to Tom's boss's boss's boss, requesting appropriate
actions under Digital's Personnel Policy.  This is pretty severe, considering
that no mention is made of what in the note violated P&P.  (And in fact,
the conference moderators have, after initially hiding Tom's note, re-posted
it, saying

      "I have read and reread note 501.4, and I can't find anything wrong
      with it either.  It is absolutely clear it is a hypothetical statement
      that a hypothetical candidate might write, and it is part of a
      discussion of what motives the DCU nominating committee might
      reasonably approve of."

Tom feels that such a request to his manager is a result of his questioning
earlier interpretations of P&P, that he is being harrassed.  He has gotten
a number of mail messages from other employees who see this request as
intimidation.  (I will make the ones I've seen available to you upon request,
although I cannot reproduce them here in an open letter because of P&P.)


There's a lot of this going on
------------------------------

And that's why I'm writing to you:  because I continue to see and hear
employees who increasingly feel that management is out of touch and
damaging the spirit of the Company.  Every new effort seems to be making
matters worse -- and this at THE time when management and employees need
to be pulling together.

I'm strongly loyal to Digital, and believe in the esprit de corps which
we've always had, and which we need now more than ever.  Even (or especially)
at a time when something seems to be going wrong, a strong statement of
leadership can pull people back together.  Everyone out here wants to
believe in Digital.  Even a messy situation like this one presents an
opportunity!  If Digital management can step forward, proclaim that the
old values still obtain, and that we still believe in "do the right thing",
the Company will reap a groundswell of renewed enthusiasm.

I have made today a vacation day to put this letter together, and I'd like to
call your office early next week to see if you'll meet with me.  I want you to
know the kind of things that are being said out in the employee community, and
to see how widespread they are.  What's going on out here isn't Digital.

Sincerely,
Bill Sconce
ZKO


(attachment to follow)

The "attachment to follow" refers, of course, to my original letter to
Ron Glover.

BTW, permission to extract or forward according to P&P is granted.

    As an onlooker, I find this situation very sad in two ways, one is that
    such stuff should happen in the first place and second is that it neds
    to be made 'public' in a conference such as this, presumably in order
    to put pressure upon Ron, Jack and others to somehow change the course
    that has been decided upon within certain parts of the company.
    
    I'm pretty sure that such tactics won't work, although I'll also say
    that I don't know of anything better to try, other than TomK picking
    up his own cudgels (always wise) and visiting Ron Glover personally to
    find out what is going on.
    
    I'm a 'verbal communicator'. Lots of nuances can be lost in the shuffle
    of notes and mail, which is why I have tried to resolve conflict in
    the past by personal conversation.
    
    Whatever should happen, this is damaging to the company and as such, I
    deplore this end to innocence in so many ways.
    
    /andy

Thanks for your comments, Andy.  I'm heartbroken, too, and although I'm not
enthusiastic about such tactics, in the end I just couldn't think of anything
else to do.

There is one point, though:  management is management, and is inescapably
responsible for setting direction and creating the tone of leadership in the
Company.  IF management isn't aware of what's going on out in the trenches,
they can't do that.  Ron Glover has stated to me on the phone, and again in
writing, that management finds parts of what's going really puzzling.
Although I don't fully understand them either, I felt many people would
think it important to know that management has at least been advised that
they ARE going on.  (What puzzles me, frankly, is why management hasn't
been proactive in trying to find out.)

I can't tell you how depressing I've found threads such as the "metrics"
discussion in this conference.  Negativism builds upon negativism as we
employees complain to one another about management's actions, but for the
most part we confine our complaints to exchanges unavailable to the levels
of management responsible for employee morale.  (I'm not for one minute
picking on those who share their feelings here!  Genuine feelings are the
truth from which morale is forged.)

So that's why I wrote.

That leaves the question of making the letters open, of posting them here.
Andy writes that this exposure is damaging to the Company.  I respect his
concern for the Company.  I share it.  It is my hope that making the
communication visible would offer management an opportunity to respond to
important issues clearly, and turn employees' genuine feelings and concerns
into renewed motivation.  For I'm confident that every employee who takes
time to worry about the Company is eager to put their energy to work, to
undertake positive efforts to make things better.  I believe the kind of
energy made available by employees sharing their thoughts and concern are
a unique resource, a competitive advantage which this Company can enjoy
unmatched in the history of organizations.  On the other hand, because of
the pressures associated with these admittedly tough times, it is a human
temptation for anyone in a management position to regard employee concern
as at least a nuisance, perhaps even a threat to survival.

Therefore we all have a unique opportunity, made possible by our unmatched
communications facilities.  We can all pull together and solve any of the
problems we've been writing about -- if all such communications are widely
shared.

Finally, I can't see that innocence is lost by trying to tell management
directly about something we have all been telling each other.  What has been
made more public by an open letter to those who may be able to do something?
The things I wrote are the things I hear in the hallway every day, in the
lunchroom every noon, in correspondence.  It was the Employees' Credit
Union election which triggered my letter to Ron Glover, but it was only
the trigger.  A friend whom I've known for fifteen years wrote,

    "Great note. I've been thinking for a long time that the DCU flap
    is being looked at inside-out.  The anger with DCU is being driven
    by anger with Digital's clumsy, foundering management, and not the
    other way around."

I know, and you know, that this feeling is widespread.  Is it a service to
the Company that no one should speak of it?  I don't know whether others may
have written private letters to management, but to me it seemed that making
the letter open offers management a ready-made facility with which to move
immediately to make things better.  Such was my hope, anyway.

And I do not want a response to me.  I'm not writing for any concern which is
uniquely mine.  Management's actions, management's perceived motivations,
and management's leadership message are of indispensable interest to us all.

A word about verbal communications.  As I wrote to Ron, I believe that verbal
communications are explicitly PART of the problem.  They are inevitably
distorted when repeated, and they are inevitably diluted when remembered.
I believe that well-meaning folks at all levels have been compromised and
damaged by (well-meaning) attempts to handle things verbally.  It is precisely
because of the unreliability of verbal communications that written Policies
and Procedures exist in the first place, and why they must take precedence
over ad hoc responses to sensitive situations.  It's the same with the U.S.
Constitution -- it's indispensable because it's written, and we allow it to
be re-interpreted only pursuant to the gravest deliberations.

Again, thank you, Andy.  My feelings are as yours -- I find this situation
very sad.  But I also see in this situation the possible seeds of a new
beginning.  I want to believe in management, and so does everyone who writes
here.  It's hard to imagine a greater resource being placed in any manager's
hands than the spirit and concern for the Company I see employees everywhere
expressing.  I hope management can realize their great good fortune, and turn
that resource to good use.

From: MLTVAX::ICS::ICS::MRGATE::"A1::GLOVER.RON"	Date: 08-Apr-92 12:52 PM
To: MLTVAX::SCONCE,CORA::SIMS,KRUPINSKI,WECARE::FITZPATRICK,VIA::REALMUTO
Subject: RE: DCU campaign, Digital, and management 1

From:	NAME: RON GLOVER                    
	FUNC: Corporate Employee Relations    
	TEL: 508-493-9569                     <GLOVER.RON AT A1 at ICS at PKO>
To:	NAME: VMSMail User SCONCE <SCONCE@MLTVAX@MRGATE>
CC:	SIMS@CORA@MRGATE,
	KRUPINSKI@@MRGATE,
	FITZPATRICK@WECARE@MRGATE,
	REALMUTO@VIA@MRGATE


    
    First, I want to thank you for taking the time to write to me.  I 
    found your memo well written and thoughtful.  
    
    Like you I have spent a significant amount of time trying to find 
    ways to enable all of the candidates to get their information out to 
    the members of the Digital community in efficient and non-disruptive 
    ways.  My efforts focused on working with some of the candidates from 
    both slates to develop a mutually agreeable process for distributing 
    information.  It was my hope that we could develop some common ground 
    between the different slates so that they could learn to speak to, 
    and work with one another.  Unfortunately those efforts were not 
    successful.  Some of the candidates decided that they would prefer 
    for me to strictly enforce policy on all parties involved.
    
    My second, and equally critical reason for attempting to define a 
    reasonable information distribution process is my belief that the 
    language in the current Solicitation Policy (which was written in 
    1982) does not provide sufficient detail to guide employees and their 
    managers in conducting this kind of nation wide, "electronic" 
    campaign.  As a consequence I, and my colleagues in Personnel have 
    been required to provide ongoing and repeated interpretation of the 
    policy in response to the myriad of questions presented by this 
    situation.   In order to avoid any further confusion about the policy 
    and what it requires, I will shortly post an interpretation on 
    LiveWire.  
    
    Your memo also indicates that some employees are speculating about 
    whether the Company is "administering" the DCU or campaigning in the 
    DCU election.  Neither speculation is true.  John Sims' memo was not 
    intended to campaign.  I have spoken with John.  He tells me that his 
    purposes in sending the memo were simple.  
    
    	o  To alert DCU members that an important election was about to 
           take place,
    	
    	o  to urge them to read all of the material (including the report 
           of the nominating committee, and the statements that the 
           candidates themselves provided), 
    
    	o to make a wise choice and 
    	
    	o most importantly to vote.  
    
    On its face, the letter neither says, nor does more than that.  It is 
    not clear to me why some employees read more than this into the 
    letter.  
    
    Given the facts that this credit union carries Digital's name, that 
    it got much of its initial funding from Digital, that it continues to 
    occupy space at Digital facilities, and most critically provides an 
    important service to a large number of Digital's U.S. employees, I 
    can not honestly say that John's decision to notify members of this 
    unique election was irresponsible or inappropriate.  
    
    I hope this is responsive to the concerns raised in your memo.  
    Please fell free to distribute it as you see fit.  The next time I'm 
    in ZKO I'll stop by for lunch so that we can continue our discussion.

I am not happy with Ron's reply.  I'll write to him directly.

Comments from others, however, would be welcome and appropriate, especially
from those who may disagree with me.


Also:  I forgot again.  Permission to forward or re-post anything I've
written in this thread, according to P&P, is granted.

First, a confession: I'm the person who wrote Bill Sconce with the observation
that the DCU anger is really a metaphor (if that's the right word) for anger
over mis-management. I'm one of a generation of engineers who stayed in
the stable Dec environment in spite of tempting offers from start-ups because
I enjoyed what I did, and enjoyed the stability of a well-run, responsible
company.

Ron Glover's memo, posted as .9 above, reminded me of something else that
is key to understanding Digital: that you cannot look at the surface of
anything, but must understand the inner message. Ron's memo notes
    
    Your memo also indicates that some employees are speculating about 
    whether the Company is "administering" the DCU or campaigning in the 
    DCU election.  Neither speculation is true.  John Sims' memo was not 
    intended to campaign.  I have spoken with John.  He tells me that his 
    purposes in sending the memo were simple.  
    
    ...
    
    On its face, the letter neither says, nor does more than that.  It is 
    not clear to me why some employees read more than this into the 
    letter.  

Pardon me Ron, but this is a lawyers's response. I rather doubt that anyone
reads the letter solely "on it's face." You ask, "why did John send this.
What is he *really* telling me." The same is true for anything connected
to upper management communications: what are they saying, what are they
*not* saying. Remember, this is the company whose president once killed
a major product line with a memo about garden tools.

Martin.

    
.9>  "... My efforts focused on working with some of the candidates from 
.9>  both slates to develop a mutually agreeable process for distributing 
.9>  information.
    
    I believe the cornerstone of this process was a "quiet time", or
    "cease and desist" if you will, where neither side would distribute
    anything, period. This was rejected by a number of petition candidates
    on the grounds that a simple consistency in enforcement of PP&P would
    alleviate the known problems while allowing the flow of information to
    DCU members to continue.
    

	Andy, I'm glad you are a 'verbal communicator'. I find that
	I am much better with the written word than the spoken. Which
	is fine for each of us. I have indeed picked up my cudgels,
	in the form of the use of the Open Door Policy.

	If Ron and I were to meet for the purposes of generating PDP-11
	assembler code, I would go confident in my abilities. But to
	go to a meeting with him on personnel matters would simply reveal
	what we all know - In that situation I am the amateur, 	and Ron 
	is the professional. Add to that his position in the management of 
	the company and my position as a worker-bee, and you then see precisely 
	why things like the Open Door Policy exist, to provide some sort
	of a balance to those differences.
	
						Tom_K

    
    Tom, Bill, et al. I agree with Martin Minow, finding this situation
    redolent of the state of the company. The lack of straight talking, the
    internal politics, the wrangling over meanings of the way a sentence is
    worded all lead me to believe that DEC is in crisis and that this
    matter is merely a symptom of what is going on all around us.
    
    Good luck to us all.
    
    /andy

Re: .11
>> the DCU anger is really a metaphor (...) for anger over mis-management

I agree with what you mean, but I don't know the right word either.
Perhaps "lightning rod" more closely fits the bill.
We didn't start out (the DCU activity) this way.
The situation has deteriorated to this because of the decision of DEC's
management to become "overly-involved" in the DCU situation. One has
to ask why is management so intensely interested in this election?
I wish I knew.

I absolutely do not agree with Ron's assertion that John Sims had only
innocent intentions (as previous replies explained quite well).

I think it is also sad and interesting that *everybody* I have talked with
or who has commented to me about the Sims memo had one of two reactions:

	1) They just ignored the memo - thought it was more DCU junk mail
	2) They were angry at his spending the company money on the memo
		given our financial situation.

I, too, am quite sad that this epsiode has uncovered such negative
politics in the company - the standard "old politics" paradigm.
I really don't know what I can do to positively affect the situation.
There are not many people in the company high enough to do anything even
if they were to become convinced that there is a problem. I wonder if
Jack Smith is aware of what's going on.

    i'm not located in the GMA or CO Springs areas, where, i assume most
    DCU members are located, but live and work in Maryland.  we have a DCU
    branch here.
    
    my impressions of the John Sims' mailing is:
    
    1.  electioneering on the part of Digital management, despite the
    "bland"  language.  i felt that pressure was being put on me to vote
    for "sanctioned" candidates to the board.
    
    2.  i don't remember, in past DCU elections, Digital management sending
    out mailings regarding the upcoming elections.  am i wrong here?
    
    3.  for a company complaining about expenses, and where i can only take
    local training and not do any business traveling unless it directly
    relates to revenue producing activities (a policy i agree with in these
    times), to send such a mailing was inappropriate.
    
    so, if the point of the mailing was to encourage DCU members to vote
    for the "sanctioned" nominees, the mailing failed in my case.
    
    after reading all the nominees "bios", i voted exclusively (word used
    intentionally) for REAL CHOICES candidates.
    
    so the mailing was all for naught and a big waste of money.
    
    that's how i see it from the field.
    
    sue

.10>  I am not happy with Ron's reply.  I'll write to him directly.

It took some time, but I've sent a response to Ron.  (To his letter in .9,
which in turn was a response to my .0).  I don't want to give the appearance
of desiring a back-and-forth argument with management in NOTES, so I'm not
going to post my letter here, since it tries to respond to Ron Glover's
letter point-by-point.  I will forward to a copy to anyone who requests one.
(I will NOT keep names, or any kind of distro list.)

A couple of things, though, not part of my point-by-point, I do think are
worth posting here.

------------------------------------------
     [...]
Digital employees care deeply for the Company, and a powerful esprit de corps
waits to be tapped by any gesture of real leadership.  It is precisely because
of this deep loyalty that morale suffers so much when management loses touch
with how it's coming across to employees.

Yesterday I received Delta Briefing #12, which John Sims introduces with,

    "Our belief in employee involvement is based on respect for the
    knowledge and skills our people have and how that knowledge and
    those skills translate into Digital's success.

    "When we say we're committed to employee involvement, we're not
    talking about a program or a department, we're talking about a way
    of doing business, about teamwork."

John's introduction, and the Q&A with Jack Smith which followed, are full of
healthy encouragement for Digital as a team.  

  [...observations that what we're seeing is the opposite of that spirit...]

[I told Ron that I couldn't begin to tell him] how many similar observations
are made in hallways, in lunchrooms, and at coffee stations.  But [Ron] should
know about one particular employee who stopped by my office yesterday.  So
should John Sims, and so should Jack Smith.

I don't even know this employee's name;  although I've seen him around ZKO, I
wouldn't have guessed that he knew mine.  Nevertheless, he found my office
to thank me for writing to you.  He said that he wanted me to know that "a lot
of people feel the same way, but they're afraid to say anything".  The really
poignant thing was that HE WAS WORRIED THAT HIS VOTE IN THE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT
UNION ELECTION WOULD BE USED AGAINST HIM!  He had agonized over sending in his
ballot, because he saw that his badge number was printed on it.  He said that
he didn't expect an instant reprisal, but he was going to worry that some
future job action, or lack of a job action, might result.  He is afraid that
his vote is going to be recorded and tracked!

That such fears can exist at Digital is a sad commentary, and one which would
once have unthinkable.

This morale and management-image problem cannot be adequately addressed by
statements which, in effect, say "trust us".  Lack of trust has BECOME the
problem.

I've heard back from Jack Smith's office.  I spoke with a very nice lady
by the name of Carol Gault, who was friendly and helpful -- although she
recommended that I contact the geographical Open Door Policy person here.

I said that I was happy to follow channels, reiterated that Jack Smith is,
in my opinion, the only one who can fix the problem, and that I'd contact
local ODP.  I've sent the first message to do that, including an observation
that I recognize potential delicacy in his position, as it's Ron Glover's
office which administers ODP.

In the meantime, thanks to all who have written and phoned to offer
encouragement.  I appreciate it more than you know.

Stay tuned.

-Bill

It's hard to believe that 3 1/2 months have gone by.  Unfortunately,
there's essentially nothing further to report on my ODP request.  As noted
in .18, I followed Carol Gault's recommendation to pursue ODP "channels"
and contacted my specified geographical ODP "resource".

He called me on the phone a few days later (still late April), and we
discussed why I was asking to see Jack Smith.  Following that I sent him
copies of my request and its background via E-mail.

Time went by.  Nothing heard.  On the 22nd of May I sent a follow-up, asking
about progress.  My ODP person responded that he hadn't understood that I'd
requested him to do anything, that he understood me to be pursuing things on
my own, and that he was merely monitoring.

I immediately wrote back to him, apologizing for any confusion, and
reiterating that I was "asking you for your help in getting an ODP meeting
with Jack Smith to happen".  (Exact words.)

More time went by, all of June and all of July.  Nothing heard.  From anyone.
Last week, on 30 July, I wrote again to my geographical person, asking about
the status of my ODP request.  Now it's early August, still NOTHING heard.
Not even a "got your message".

At this point I've essentially given up.  The only thing left would evidently
be to write to Bob Palmer -- he DID say he expected to improve communications.
But I don't think I'll do that:  I'm weary;  the Company has changed and is
changing;  people I care about are gone;  my health has become a factor;  the
original situation (DCU) is old news now;  finally, the ODP was Jack Smith's
own creation.

In restrospect, it seems to me that "new" ODP was stillborn, especially in
light of the horror stories reported by others in 3.33 and 3.51.  A real
ODP serves the broadest good of an organization by ensuring that bureaucracy
will not prevent essential news from travelling upward.  I interpret the
new ODP's elaborate set-up of geographical "resources" and its creation of
yet another bureaucracy as in fact ensuring that exceptional communications
will NOT happen.

Process once again victorious over policy.  Proclamations of The Right Thing
emasculated:  "RESTORING TRUST";  "OUR COMMITMENT:  YOU WILL BE HEARD".

One does get cynical about Right Thing proclamations, doesn't one?


/a_disappointed_and_sorry_to_add_to_the_pessimism_Bill

    Don't stop now, follow the procedure...
    
    Since you can't get a meeting with Jack Smith (via ODP), and your ODP
    resource can't help you, it's now time to go to the next level.
    So, simply write Jack Smith (since, as you say, he created the ODP
    resource and the new and improved ODP process), and alert Jack that
    your ODP resource has not been of assistance in seting up a meeting in
    the spirit of ODP.
    
    Specifically, your request to Jack should be that he encourage your ODP
    resource to assist you in setting up a meeting with jack Smith.  I
    might also suggest you set up a meeting with Jack, to discuss this. 
    Now, that means you better coordinate and request that meeting via
    your ODP resource, that is, if you want to follow proper procedure. 
    Quite simple really, just follow procedures.  And, if you have any
    questions, just call Personnel, I am sure they are ready and willing to
    help.
    
    Good luck,
    
    Mark

.20>    Specifically, your request to Jack should be that he encourage your ODP
.20>    resource to assist you in setting up a meeting with jack Smith.  I
.20>    might also suggest you set up a meeting with Jack, to discuss this. 
    
    er, didn't you forget something?
    
    like  ":-)" 	???

>    er, didn't you forget something?    
>    like  ":-)" 	???

        I'm not the original author, but I think .20 is a good
        suggestion and should be followed.  It may seem humorous,
        but almost any attempt to deal with a bureaucracy will
        seem humorous to a sane person (unless they breakdown
        and become angry--but that is counterproductive).

        					B.J.

.22>  >    er, didn't you forget something?    
.22>  >    like  ":-)" 	???
.22>
.22>          I'm not the original author, but I think .20 is a good
.22>          suggestion and should be followed.  It may seem humorous,
.22>          but almost any attempt to deal with a bureaucracy will
.22>          seem humorous to a sane person (unless they breakdown
.22>          and become angry--but that is counterproductive).


I (the original author) did take .20 to be humorous.  (Either that, or .20's
author may not have been familiar with the original request.  The original
request WAS to Jack Smith.)

It was tough enough writing to Jack about the morale problems.  I do not have
the personal resources to take on a new crusade to fix a non-functional or
dysfunctional Open Door Policy.  

.19>  The only thing left would evidently be to write 
.19>  to Bob Palmer -- he DID say he expected to improve communications.
    
    Another alternative might be to contact KO, he's still CEO until 1-Oct.
    Until then Palmer is heir-designate, not yet ascended to the throne.

    I'm not sure if I meant .20 (I am the author) to be humorous, or simply
    a sad commentary on the 'Open Door Proceedure' (new or old).

.25>                    -< humorous or sad, you decide >-


I thought so.  Thanks, Mark.

-Bill

I just got a mail message from my ODP geography "resource".  It apologizes
for my issue falling through the cracks, and suggests the name of a person
in Personnel whom I should contact next.  I'll do that.

Dunno if the discussion here caused my issue to be "found" again.

    >> Dunno if the discussion here caused my issue to be "found" again.
    
    I wouldn't be surprised ... I know that one of my previous entries in
    here got forwarded to my managers ... several times.
    
    I'm coming to the conclusion that this particular Notes conference is
    more closely monitored than most.
    
    ... Bob
    

.28>    I'm coming to the conclusion that this particular Notes conference is
.28>    more closely monitored than most.


May be.  See the following...

The Personnel person whom my ODP geography "resource" asked me to contact
(see .27) was John Murphy, who if I understand things correctly works with
Ron Glover.  Here's what I wrote:



From: SCONCE "Bill Sconce"	Date: 13-Aug-92 09:10 AM
To: ICS::MURPHY
Subject: Open Door request for a meeting with Jack Smith

Good morning, John.

I appreciate your help in getting a meeting set up for me with Jack Smith.
Dick Loveland wrote to me yesterday and handed me off to you.

I presume he will have copied you on the correspondence up to this point.
As I wrote to Dick, I believe that getting my message through to Jack Smith
is essential.  His office appears to be "the lowest level of management within
the organization that is removed from actual involvement in the issue/problem
yet is capable of resolving it", as the ODP specifies.  I did write to Jack's
office to begin with, but his secretary asked that I work through channels.
and gave me Dick's name.  

I am not unaware of some delicacy in this situation, as my ODP request
concerned actions taken by your office, if I understand the organization
correctly.  Thank you in advance for your assistance in getting the
meeting to happen.

-Bill Sconce
GSF

About a week goes by:  on the 21st I get a message from our secretary that
I'm to call Marilyn, in John Murphy's office.  I call her back on the
following Tuesday, and a somewhat strange conversation ensues.  She asks
me when I want to meet with John Murphy;  I explain that I had not requested
a meeting, but was only pursuing the ODP chain I had been directed to, and
that it was a meeting with Jack Smith that I needed.  I explain that the
ODP issue concerns Ron's and John's organization, and that therefore it's
Jack Smith whom I need to see.

Marilyn tells me that:

   o  Jack (or KO) cannot possibly answer all of the requests directed
      to them

   o  That's what John Murphy does

   o  John handles all ODP issues which can't be solved at a lower level

   o  That includes Bob Palmer, now that he's CEO Designate

We talk a little further, and Marilyn indicates that she hasn't actually
seen the memo I'd sent to John Murphy.  He's "ICS::MURPHYJ", not
"ICS::MURPHY".  I apologize for the error, and promise to re-send my memo.
And immediately do so.

The next day (the 26th of August), I receive an e-mail message from John
Murphy.  He says that Dick Farrahar, who is the VP of Personnel under John
Sims, has requested him to meet with me.  He says that as far as my request
to meet with Jack Smith is concerned, it is Jack Smith himself who must
agree to meet with me.  [So why was I directed to the ODP chain of command
by Jack Smith's office in the first place, I wonder?]

He says he (John Murphy) is prepared to meet me with as Dick has requested,
and asks me to let him know if and when I want to meet.

[I find this painful, as all of these people, John Sims, Dick Farrahar,
Ron Glover, and John Murphy, represent the organization I tried to
talk to Jack Smith about, and it's clear from John's message that
higher-ups ARE aware of my reqest.  And all of this is now 11th hour, as
I'm a very short-timer -- having been selected for TFSO.]

Nevertheless, I write back to John, so that the ball isn't left in my
court.  (See .+1).  The TFSO policies do say that ODP matters can carry
on after separation.  (Lucky me?)

From: BSCONCE "Bill Sconce"	Date: 26-Aug-92 02:09 PM
To: ICS::MURPHYJ
Subject: re: YOUR RECENT MEMO

!
!  [ ... his memo to me quoted at this point ... ]
!


Thank you very much, John.  I wasn't aware of Dick Farrahar's involvement,
and I appreciate your being willing to meet with me.  I did not set out to
put you in any kind of sensitive situation -- I only contacted you because
Dick Loveland said I should do so.  My only goal has been to get to see
Jack Smith, and I have been doing what people in the structure have told
me was the right thing to do.  With respect to Jack Smith, it was his office
whom I contacted to begin with, and it was his office which directed me to
contact my local ODP resource, which was to be (as I understood it) the
mechanism for getting a meeting with Jack Smith to happen.

I still think a meeting with Jack Smith was, and is, the right thing.
However, I feel badly that you've been inconvenienced, as I don't think
you should have been asked to meet with me.  I had thought the handoff from
resource to resource was the way the meeting with Jack Smith had to be
arranged;  evidently the system has holes.  

At this point, my time as an employee is now very short, as I'm in transition
(TFSO).  That notwithstanding, I would still make the trip on my own time to
meet with Jack Smith, as initiating an ODP request implies a responsibility to
see it through.  For an employee, or for the company, to leave an ODP request
unresolved compromises the atmosphere of clear commitment to an audience that
an effective ODP must have.  And the process itself should be straightforward,
to ensure that issues are treated promptly.  It appears that my request went
astray at some point, although I can't see what I should have done
differently.