Conference 7.286::digital

    "And what," he asked disingenuously, "does .0 have to do with The
    Digital Way of Working?"
    
Curious_in_Vermont    
    

    We're in the throes of our own SERP today. I saw several parallels
    in the basenote to the way Digital is heading.
    
    I believe that much of the talent that is now being "TFSO'd" or "SERP'd"
    away from the major corporations of today will be the innovative
    drive of new and younger companies tomorrow.
    
    It would behoove the TFSOing and SERPing company to ensure friendly
    leave-taking because the employee leaving today will be tomorrow's
    customer.
    
    Just MHO.
    
    Janet
    

    .0 is really interesting...but there's a continuing typo.  Everytime
    it should say "DEC", he writes "IBM".  People should really be more
    careful.

    
    re:1837.3
    
    Dick,
    
    	You hit the nail right on the head.
    
    	... .0 could be used to accurately describe most of the companies
    	in America today.
    
    

>			IBM's new performance appraisal system actually 
>    determines which employees are most expendable by rating them, along a 
>    curve, according to their usefulness to the business and how well they 
>    do their job.  The 5 to 10 percent with the lowest rating every year 
>    are put on 30 days' notice.  Improve or be dismissed.

What is wrong with this (other than that 5-10% is probably too high a number
if this is done on a yearly basis)?  Don't we complain that there's no rhyme
or reason to DEC's layoffs and that the "deadwood" stay well-protected?  It
sounds as if IBM is at least trying to face up to the problem.

>    	For many, this presents a Catch 22.  IBM's full employment policy 
>    means some departments are underutilized, leaving many employees 
>    without meaningful work that would allow them to earn a high ranking.  
>    Meanwhile, other workers are doomed by overwork.

This makes it sound like IBM must discourage people transferring on their own
initiative within the company.  Otherwise those two problems SHOULD cancel
out, no?
								paul

RE .0

>    	As a semiconductor design engineer, I was too specialized to 
>    qualify for many jobs outside of IBM, and too long in the corporate 
>    cloister to be seen as a desirable recruit.  But retirement was a more 


What a cop-out !

These three line beautifully illustrate this individual's problem ... not with
IBM, but with him/herself. Everyone owns their own career path ... and to
recognize when personal technical or business obsolescence creeps in (as
clearly stated above). Re-educate, retrain, find that next position before the
current job is gone. 

I fully recognize that even individuals who are leading edge are caught in
re-organizations, down-sizings, etc. However, it's just THOSE individuals
who rebound to the next pursuit.

This person was betting on mother BLUE for protection, not on his/her
own responsibilities towards continuous personal improvement.


-Bob

    re .6
    	At the almost inevitable risk of getting beat to death by
    compassionate souls like yourself, I would submit that job hunting and
    life is not always so simple.
    
    John Alston

      I find myself agreeing with both the base note and .6. Me thinks that
    part of the problem is they both need each other and have forgotton the
    fact. We need ambitious, self serving, self motivating people to move
    ahead and talented, loyal, protected, people to work for, with and
    finally produce the product that will make both sucessful. 
      If .6 had his or her way the following could happen and maybe it
    should:
    
      Company ABC is making computer XYZ. The team that makes XYZ started
    it in 86, raised it to a fine mature line and finished product in 2 
    years and has been making money for ABC and of course themselves. But
    ABC has been planning the next generation known as the NOP. ABC takes 
    a few XYZ people to start NOP but they can,t afford to dilute their
    experienced mature line so they start hiring for NOP to be trained by
    the few people from XYZ who have also been to trainning.  
    
      Now if .6 has his/her way all the people in running XYZ would see the
    hand writing on the wall for end of life XYZ and quit, retrain and get
    on with self and to hell with ABC and XYZ. But the fact is they are
    loyal, like what they do  and have done. They are ready
    to do their best to the end. But they have been out flanked by a
    changing market with less protection and NOP is the future...for now!
    
    I,ll admit to being an old timer like the base note and have many of 
    the same feelings. I would like to understand many of the changes
    that have taken place. One that stands out more than most is peoples
    "Motives" in what and why they do things. We have always needed 
    "all for one and one for me" we just have alot more of it now. 
    
    Dennis
    
    

    re-6. Sounds like BS coming from a typical "manager type" who has lost
    all perceptions of reality and what real life is all about. Is this a
    blast from the "IVORY TOWER" boys?? Either crap or get off the pot
    EHH!! If re-6 gave out PAs everyone in his eyes must be a 4.
    IMHO
    	John

    Well it's a bit like working for the government really, you get a job
    for life. If you are not used to selling yourself at interviews than
    you may well lose all self confidence and end up like the author of the
    basenote convinced that there is nothing else that you can do.

    Not that long ago I was watching a chat show on TV. They were
    interviewing a managerial type who had been fired (I dislike the
    euphemism "lay off") and was moaning on about how could someone of
    his age find work.

    Next on was a fairly well known actor who was well into his sixties. He
    really tore into the guy, pointing out that when ever a show closed or a
    film ended he was out of work and had to go out and find a job. He said
    that the longest job he had ever had lasted six months. 

    So I suppose that working for IBM has sort of institutionalized the guy
    and he is now incapable of an independent existence.

    Jamie.

  
  Re .6 & co
  
  So that means that the people who flit from job to job (and are thus very
  familiar with job-spotting, interview technique, training unrelated to the
  work in hand) are the only ones worthy of sympathy if they get chopped while
  the people who work 100% on their current job (exhibiting what used to be
  called "loyalty" and "reliability") are to be treated with a "serves you
  right for being so short-sighted".
  
  Ever stop to think that some of the company's low productivity (and its
  current situation) might just be connected with the lack of continuity,
  the lack of responsibility and the lack of overall quality that this attitude
  encourages ?
  
  [ BTW, the actor vs long-service guy doesn't wash ... it's a real apples
  and oranges comparison.  Actors don't wait until the run finishes before
  looking for the next show - you read the stage papers in the dressing room
  and call up your agent to make sure they still know you're alive - see how
  your manager likes you reading Computer Weekly during a customer visit ].
  
  Frank

    Our manager goes mad if we are sitting reading anything other than a
    manual when the customer's visit.

    However if you don't like the comparison with actors how about using
    contractors instead? They do the same jobs as us but are forever on the
    move.

    Jamie.

    
    >Our manager goes mad if we are sitting reading anything other than a
    >manual when the customer's visit.
    
    That is Jamie, i'll give a good trick you can use to get around this,
    pick one of those big orange manuals we have plenty of and put the 
    thing you *really* want to read inside the manual, make sure the edges of 
    the magazine dont show up, slide the magzine down if they do, and when
    your manager is around the room, just raise up the manual up a little
    just in case.
    
    in school days, i always put my micky mouse magazine inside my
    text book and read it during class, it always worked for me really
    greate. i dont see why same idea wont work now .
    
    i also agree with the last few about the IBM and DEC comparisons, i
    tink it is really good ones.
    
    ..got to go, coffee time..
    
    byu,
    /nassser

    Actually Nasser as long as I am industriously typing on a keyboard
    everyone thinks that I'm working, whereas in reality I'm writing
    something completely useless, like this.

    Jamie.

    I have to react to the actor analogy.  In the Yew Ess of Ay, you are
    dead meat in terms of employability of you are 50 or over...and you
    get some pretty nasty feedback even at 45 or over.   The stories of
    over-50, highly qualified executives, layed off for years are too
    numerous not to have credibility.  500 resumes with about 6 responses
    seems to be the standard.
    
    Face it people.......if you are over 50 in this country, there is
    severe, on-going age discrimination.  I know you may find this hard to
    believe, but even Digital does it!!!
    
    When the Target Sales Force closed down there were about 120 of us put
    on-the-boat.  After a year of full-time, heavy-duty internal job
    searching five of us still did not have jobs.  All of us were over 50!!
    Personnel, of course, absolutely denied that age discrimination could
    be part of the cause.
    
    There will always be a demand for old actors as there are plenty of
    roles where they are required.  Not so in our MBA/Yuppy-Driven/High
    Tech world.

    This age discrimination, is that only in private industry only?
    I get the feeling it is , Iam thinking of academia, I dont think it
    exist there, I've seen old professors going around, and they are
    well paid and respected more for there knowledge and experience.

    some full professors, who have been around for long time, are like
    head of companies, you have to make an appointment with there secretary
    days ahead just to ask them a question or two. 
  
     thank you,
    /Nasser

    Nassar, I believe that is called Tenure. Something you don't
    see in the real world.
    
    Jim C.
    

re: .17

>    Nassar, I believe that is called Tenure. Something you don't
>    see in the real world.
    
I wonder if age discrimination was the root cause of TENURE...

- George    

    There is one big difference between internal job hunbting in IBM and
    DEC. After spending 11 years in IBM, I have a pretty good idea how its
    works, and unlike DEC, if you want to look around the corp. in IBM for
    a different job (unless they changed it since the end of 87), you
    basically had to have your current manager's OK before you could even
    interview. And he could lock you into your current group forever (they
    claimed that after a period of time locked in, you could escalate your
    complaint, but that often got nowhere). At least here, you can look
    around.
    
    Eric

    Here in DEC you can look around allright, but you are not supposed 
    to talk to another manager without first telling your current
    supervisor or manager know what you'r doing. it is in the green
    book in VTX iam sure.
    
    /nasser

    Its one thing to have to "notify" your current manager. Its quite
    another when your current manager can stop you from even looking
    around. IBM's favorite buzz word was "critical skill".
    
    Eric

    in EDS, internal transfer worked like this, you fill up a standard
    form of your skills, your geographic preferences etc.. send the form to a 
    central department, they put your input into a central database that is
    accessed only by managers from all over , if a manager is
    interested , they call you and go from there, if you are good, you'll
    get many calls during the day from all over, and you go from there.

    I think the DEC system is more flexible for the employee.
    
    /Nasser

	On continuously looking vs. loyalty to the firm...

	First of all, in the volatile environment that is
	the computer industry now ( and likely forever ),
	companies are liable not to hire people "for life."

	I figure the odds of retiring from a given high-tech
	company are very low.  It'll be "boom and bust",
	hire and fire from now on.

	This means that the skills required to stay on 
	in a corporate, bureaucratic organization are
	very different from the ones required to actually
	make a good living, now.

	Folks that want to get ahead will HAVE to flit from
	job to job, with an eye on the next opportunity all
	the time.   They know that in the next economic downturn, or
	after the next cancelled government contract, their
	employers will cut them loose.

	Why remain loyal, when no such loyalty exists from the
	employer ?

	The new high-tech employment model will be increasing 
	numbers of contractors and self-employed folks on 	
	varying-length assignments.

	Any gold watches we want will come out of our own
	wallets.

	Steve H

>This makes it sound like IBM must discourage people transferring on their own
>initiative within the company.  Otherwise those two problems SHOULD cancel
>out, no?

It is, sadly, in many cases true.  My stepfathers wife works for them.  A friend
of hers was threatened with firing when they looked at another department to
transfer out of their current posision (NOT under duress).  6 months later that
facility was shut doen and that friend was NOT offered a transfer to somewhere
else within the corporation as most others in the facility were.

    I think the "boiling frog" lesson applies here ...  
    
    Steve

    Well, I'm sure you can find a number of people in DEC who would claim
    that they have been "frozen" into their jobs by mgmt because they are
    too valuable to lose; at least for a period of time.  
    
    I won't name anybody specific, but I have seen cases where manager x
    puts the political squeeze on manager y, and all of a sudden the hiring
    process stops (as in "sorry, we really don't have a position for you
    afterall") or moves very slowly.  Usually, this happens when both
    report up to the same v.p., and product/project delivery is at stake.
    
    It certainly isn't the rule, or policy for that matter, but *it
    happens.  
    
    

re: .24

Well in that case the "psychological terrorism" scenario does sound more
accurate.  If you're in a non-productive group and you can't leave it but
can only wait to get put on the "bottom 5%" list, the company certainly
seems to be endangering your sanity.  (And, as has been mentioned, the
old Reaganesque "vote with your feet and leave the company" line doesn't
recognize any sort of long-term "investment" of employee in company and
company in employee.)

re: .26

>    Well, I'm sure you can find a number of people in DEC who would claim
>    that they have been "frozen" into their jobs by mgmt because they are
>    too valuable to lose; at least for a period of time.  
    
I've seen it threatened but rarely pulled off successfully.  In reality,
claiming anyone other than the manager of some critical project as being
a "critical resource" should not be easy to defend.

If each individual supposedly owns 80% of career planning for themselves,
managers should still own 80% of providing the right skill mix for their
organizations and reskilling their people to newer technology when the
required skill mix changes.  That's for the good of the company!  And if
managers see the need for the work that the organization does decreasing
over time, they should make sure they keep their people grounded in reality
about that.  Again, for the good of the company and that "reciprocal
investment" mentioned above.
								paul

    I thought I would repost this here lest it be very much buried in my
    metrics note. It's very applicable to this topic as well and is, IMHO,
    dead on what's wrong with this company.  It's rather lengthy and starts
    out a little slow. But it's well worth the 5 minutes to read. The
    higher ups could learn a great deal by practicing what this note
    preaches. 
    
    Gene
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1797.118              The Metrics Are Killing Us                 118 of 118
HAAG::HAAG "Dreamin' on WY high country"            330 lines   3-APR-1992 20:08
                     -< Read the Following. It's Goodness >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    
    There is a LOT we (DEC) can learn from the following document. It talks
    a lot about the subject of this topic. It's long, but definitely worth
    reading. I encourage one and all to feel free to extract and forward it
    at will. Please keep in mind this document is making the rounds thru
    the mail systems on the EASYnet. IMHO, we (DEC) desperately need to
    implement just about every evaluation stated in the following.
    
    Rgds,
    
    Gene.
    
    
************************************************************************
    These notes were written by a Dupont employee who attended the Deming 
    seminar in February. There are many thought provoking remarks herein 
    regarding variable compensation for Sales, on performance management in 
    general, and the value of performance ratings. This is a long document, 
    but well worth reading.
    
    
    
    
                            DEMING SEMINAR
                           FEB 17-21, 1992
                           ---------------
     
         These are my notes from attending a seminar led by the
    legendary Quality guru, Dr. W. Edward Deming. 
    
         There were about 600 people there including
    representatives from: AT&T, Eastman Kodak, Exxon, GE, IBM, &
    Merck. The session was sponsored by the Philadelphia Area
    Council for Excellence (PACE) which is part of the
    Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. PACE's mission is for the
    Delaware Valley to have world-renowned business success
    through the teachings of Dr. Deming. PACE consists of
    hundreds of organizations throughout the Delaware Valley area
    including Hercules and ICI; Dupont is not a member.  The
    seminar was the 10th that PACE has sponsored featuring Dr.
    Deming.
     
         Key learnings from the seminar were:
     
         * Although Dr. Deming is noted for Quality and
    statistical process control, his central message is that we
    must transform our approach to management of our businesses
    in order to compete in the world.
     
         * One must think of a business as a system. Following is
    a simple model of key parts of a business system:
     
     
     
        F <--------F <----------F <------------F <------------ F
        !         /\ !         /\ !           /\ !             !
        !          ! !          ! !            ! !             !
        !          ! !          ! !            ! !             !
        V          ! V          ! V            ! V             !
        A ---------> B ---------> C -----------> D ----------> E
     
     
    WHERE:
      A: Suppliers
      B: Production
      C: Sales
      D: Distribution
      E: Customers
      F: Feedback to all parts of the system
     
         The point is that all people in a system must think of
    themselves as within a system since they can't realistically
    isolate themselves from the system. The Aim (Purpose) of
    the system and everyone in the system should be to work
    together to optimize the system as a whole. That way everyone
    wins.
     
         * The key to improving a system is the method. It is
    better to focus on a method of improvement rather than goals,
    objectives or results. The numbers can be manipulated
    especially in an environment of fear. He recommends companies
    eliminate the MBO approach to management. A key question to
    ask about improvement is: "By what method?"
     
         * Deming recommends companies work to drive our fear.
    Fear inhibits innovation and productivity.
     
         * We must stop management tampering with the system.
    Usually this is caused by lack of understanding of the
    difference between special cause and common cause. This
    results in management taking inappropriate action which
    causes waste and lower productivity which is exactly the
    opposite of what they hope to accomplish.
     
         * Deming recommends that organizations become learning
    organizations. We should create a "yearning for learning."
    There is no substitute for knowledge.
     
         * Deming recommends we create a constancy of purpose. We
    need to stop short-term thinking and short term programs.
    There is no instant pudding! We need a long-term commitment.
     
         * We need LEADERSHIP not management or supervision to
    accomplish the transformation. We need leaders that listen to
    and serve the people.
     
         * America is being ruined by "best efforts." Everyone
    doing their best is not enough! The key is to work together
    to improve the system as a whole. Deming conducted the famous
    "Red bead experiment" where willing workers doing their best
    produced red beads (defects) even though they were not
    wanted.  Deming's point is that we should not punish the
    people for only doing their best; they can only produce what
    the system will deliver. We must focus efforts on improving
    the system.
     
         * There is a natural distribution of capabilities &
    contributions of people in a business system. The key is to
    enhance and develop everyone and not destroy the will of
    people to contribute to improvement of the system as a whole.
     
         * Dr. Deming strongly recommends eliminating performance
    ratings and rankings of individual people. He mentioned it
    dozens of times during the session. He directed people to go
    back to their work places and eliminate performance ratings
    Monday Morning! Some of the key reasons discussed in the
    seminar were:
     
           - Ratings foster competition within the system.
     
           - Ratings inhibit teamwork (limit interdependence and
             cooperation).
     
           - Ratings foster mediocrity. People tend to set safe
             goals they can easily meet.
     
           - Ratings increase variability since they represent
             what Dr. Deming calls management tampering with the
             system.
     
           - Ratings cause focus on the short-term. Why try to
             develop something for the long-term health of the
             business if one is rated on annual objectives?
     
           - Ratings tend to destroy intrinsic motivation (joy
             and pride in work).
     
           - One cannot separate people from the system. What we
             might really be rating is the results of the system
             and the "style" of the person. Dr. Deming says
             that since people work within a system, only 3% of
             the perceived performance is due to the people and
             97% is due to the system!
     
           - Ratings inhibit risk-taking and innovation. People
             are afraid to admit mistakes especially to their
             bosses.
     
           - Ratings tend to destroy self-esteem.
     
           - Ratings cause focus on pleasing the boss vs.
             pleasing the customer.
     
           - Ratings foster sub-optimization. This means that
             people are not focused on the purpose of
             optimizing the system as a whole. Individuals are
             more worried about "What's in it for me?"
     
           - Ratings focus on goals and objectives without
             consideration of "By what method?"
     
           - Ratings tend to reward style not true contribution.
     
           - An individual's "performance" really can't be
             measured.
     
           - Ratings tend to focus on quantity not Quality.
     
           - Ratings destroy morale and joy in work.
     
           - Judging people does not help them do a better job.
     
           - Ranking people is a FARCE. Apparent "performance" is
             actually attributable mostly to the system not to
             the individual.
     
           - Ratings don't focus on improving the system.
     
           - Having workers doing their best is not good enough
             for business success.
     
           - The ratings system punishes people; it creates
             winners and losers.
     
           - Ratings instill fear in people (carrot & stick
             approach to motivating people).
     
           - Ratings cause people to deny their true needs
             for personal growth; they don't want to admit
             weaknesses.
     
           - Ratings destroy trust between people and managers.
     
           - Ratings cause bosses to be judges rather than
             coaches and counselors.
     
           - Ratings causes bosses to talk more than they listen
             to their people because of the power inequity.
     
           - Ratings become a label that sticks with the employee
             and limits growth and development. Top rated people
             don't feel like they need to improve.
     
           - Ratings cause humiliation of people who don't get a
             top rating. It causes destruction of the will to
             contribute.
     
           - Bosses don't really know what people do and
             accomplish even though they argue that they do!
     
           - There is a lack of feedback from others in other
             parts of the system as to an individual's true
             contribution; note those others might be outside the
             company.
     
           - Employees get blamed for faults of the system.
     
           - You really can't measure the contribution of an
             individual within a system.
     
     
         * Dr. Deming held up for public ridicule the recently
    announced approach of IBM with forced-ranking of its people
    and dismissal of the lowest ranked people! It sounds like the
    early warning signal of the demise of IBM a once leading
    people-oriented company.
     
         * An American Cyanamid representative mentioned that
    their R&D organization plans to eliminate performance ratings
    for the Chemicals organization. The key contact was not
    present so I plan to follow up.
     
         * Representatives of many other organizations mentioned
    privately considerable resistance with eliminating
    performance ratings in their companies. The key seems to be
    management's unwillingness to give up something they feel is
    vital. Dr. Deming really challenged their thinking.
     
         * Dr. Deming is also opposed to incentive pay for sales
    people. Many of the reasons are similar to what is discussed
    above but include:
     
           - Sales people work in a system; they don't work in a
             vacuum. It's unfair and arrogant to only reward
             sales people with extra pay.  Many other people
             contribute to the sales but are excluded. This
             causes anger of the others and does not work towards
             optimization of the system as a whole. The notion of
             "pay at risk" for the sales people is not an answer
             to the dilemma; sales incentives for sales people is
             a divisive program!
     
           - Sales incentives may cause the wrong behaviors on
             part of the sales personnel, eg: they might oversell
             a low profit item just to boost sales. Any attempt
             to design around this can be beaten by the sales
             people. After all they are clever, hard-working
             people!
     
           - Sales incentives can't truly measure contribution
             to the system as a whole, eg: mentoring, developing
             future markets, etc.
     
           - Sales incentives tend to cause sub-optimization.
     
           - Sales incentives foster internal competition and
             interfere with "Doing the right thing."
     
           - Sales incentives create expectations and once
             achieved may create negative feelings if managed
             in what is perceived as an arbitrary way.
     
           - Sales incentives lose incentive over time and can
             demotivate.
     
           - Money tends to be the value system in business. It's
             a poor replacement for emotional valuing that people
             need so much.
     
           - Managers claim that sales incentives measure the
             performance of individuals but they're really
             measuring the result of the system in which the
             individuals work.
     
           - Sales incentives bring out the worst in people. They
             create a short-sighted, selfish behavior focused on:
             "What's in it for me?"
     
         * Deming recommends that profits of the business be
    shared equitably with all people in the business.
     
         * He recommended that in a business downturn we take
    action in the following order:
     
           1. Reduce dividends.
           2. Reduce bonuses of top management.
           3. Reduce management salaries starting from the top
              down to the middle of the hierarchy.
           4. Workers are asked to accept pay cuts or a reduction
              in force through attrition or voluntary discharge.
     
         My personal recommendation to anyone reading this is to
    try to attend a Deming seminar as soon as you can. Dr Deming
    has tremendous wisdom to impart focused on what will make
    business successful. Since he is 91, he won't be with us for
    long. He has an amazing schedule of 18 seminars left in 1992;
    if you'd like to attend one, I'd be glad to send a copy of
    the schedule.
     
         Further, I came away more convinced than ever that
    eliminating performance ratings is an important part of
    Dupont achieving its vision of becoming a GREAT GLOBAL
    COMPANY THROUGH PEOPLE. It's an important part of creating:
     
     
                DUPONT: A GREAT PLACE TO WORK
     

	re .21:

>    Its one thing to have to "notify" your current manager. Its quite
>    another when your current manager can stop you from even looking
>    around. IBM's favorite buzz word was "critical skill".

	Sounds like what the Soviets used to do with nuclear physicists.
	"Sorry, no exit visa, you have knowledge that is proprietary to
	the State".

	All bureaucracy is the same. "Organisation is the last refuge of
	a tired mind".

	/Tom

    
    RE: Tenure
    
    Do not confuse tenure with seniority. In academia almost all faculty
    are members of a union. Most collective bargaining agreements call
    for seniority to be the prime or only criteria used in any reduction
    in force.  Tenure is a process of appeal for a firing for cause. It
    cannot be used in a RIF situation. The only difference between a
    tenured faculty member and a non-tenured faculty member also
    exists within the collective bargaining agreement - that is that in
    a RIF situation all non-tenured personnel must go before any tenured
    personnel.
    
    

re: .30
    
I'm a little confused by your reply..

>    Do not confuse tenure with seniority. In academia almost all faculty
>    are members of a union. Most collective bargaining agreements call
>    for seniority to be the prime or only criteria used in any reduction
>    in force.  Tenure is a process of appeal for a firing for cause. It
>    cannot be used in a RIF situation. 

O.K. I follow that last statement, so seniority is used in layoffs.

>    The only difference between a
>    tenured faculty member and a non-tenured faculty member also
>    exists within the collective bargaining agreement - that is that in
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    a RIF situation all non-tenured personnel must go before any tenured
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    personnel.
     ^^^^^^^^^
    
This is what losses me..    
It must not be possible then to have seniority over someone else and not 
have tenure. Oh that statement must be as confusing as the one I'm quoting.

Let me ask it this way. I'm a professor with 20 years service, hence twenty
years of senority, but, for whatever reason am not tenured. My collegue with
ten years of senority is tenured, who goes first in a RIF situation?
If it is me, then seniority does me absolutely no good. 

- George

    re:.28
    	
    	Good note !!!

    re: Critical skill/stopping transfer

    	I had this happen to me PERSONALLY two different ways. The first
    way was the one mentioned. I interviewed for two open req's. Was told
    that I was qualified and it looked good. The potential hiring manager
    makes a phone call to my current manager and both req's are pulled. The
    explanation given was that they decided they really didn't need the
    people. Two months later, they hired two people.

    	The second method involved trying to give me a bogus written
    warning for something that turned out to be my immediate manager's
    fault. I was offered and accepted a new position and informed my
    manager that I was going to transfer. 

    	In this case, the hiring manager could care less about what my current 
    manager had to say, since it was in two very different sections of the 
    company. It is however, company policy that a warning of any kind will
    stop a transfer in its track (i.e. can't transfer a problem employee.)

    	I had given my current manager 3 months notice (the longest that 
    they would hold the new job open for me) so that I could train a 
    replacement. I also anticipated this happening, told the incoming PSA 
    about it, and asked if they would re-hire me in the event that I had to 
    quit the company in order to transfer. The answer was "Yes."

    	When my manager told me about the written warning, I told him that
    we either stop playing these stupid games (and he can have me for the
    the next 2+ months of my notice), or he could have my resignation as of
    that moment. I explained to him how it was a win/win situation for me
    and a win/lose situation for him. I finished out the last 2+ months and
    transferred.

    	Sorry for rambling on but the point is that it does happen and it
    is fairly upsetting when it does happen. It creates a you against mgmt.
    type of scenario, which isn't in anyone's best interest.

    	Ray

   Re:                       <<< Note 1837.31 by CIS1::FULTI >>>

You got it in one, George.

There are two situations that must be distinguished, though.  

   In some systems, tenure = seniority because the management
   (read deans and department heads) have no authority to deny
   tenure if you reach X years of seniority.  That happened to
   me.  I had five years in such a system.  They were then stuck
   with me.
   
   The other case is where management can give you tenure or
   not, as they choose, without considering seniority.  There
   are some justifications for this when recruiting an
   outstanding tenured figure from somewhere else.  If you don't
   give him/her tenure, you can't recruit him/her.  Under this
   kind of situation, tenure is more like "cumulative seniority"
   within a collection of cooperating institutions.
   
Much of this is really "academic", because major universities
have such a great turnover that a RIF usually just means they
don't renew somebody's contract.  Rarely do they get to the
tenured "bottom of the barrel".

fwiw,

Dick
   

RE -1        (and apologies for continuing this rathole)

As a former tenure track prof, you can't have 20 years and not be tenured.
At Ferris State University, if you do not have tenure at the end of seven
years, you are fired.  Actually, the administration can fire without cause
for the first three years, and the faculty can vote you in or out in year four.
Hartford State Tech had a three year track.
I believe the state colleges of Vermont have a seven year track.  If you have
not finished your Phd by year seven, you are out.
regards
alan

   Re:               <<< Note 1837.34 by EBBV03::BROUILLETTE "MTSND" >>>

Tenure is subject to contract and legal conditions that vary
from institution to institution and between jurisdictions.  That
was the whole point of my note.  By the way, in some
places, tenure is also given to secretaries and janitors.

Dick

        Quotation from Daniel Dennett, "Consciousness Explained": 
"In order to cope, an organism must either armor itself (like a tree or
a clam) and "hope for the best," or else develop methods of getting
out of harm's way and into better neighborhoods in its vicinity.  If
you follow this latter course, you are confronted with the primordial
problem that every agent must eventually solve:

Now what do I do?

In order to solve this problem, you need a nervous system, to control
your activities in time and space.  The juvenile sea squirt wanders
through the sea searching for a suitable rock or hunk of coral to
cling to and make its home for life.  For this task, it has a
rudimentary nervous system.  When it finds its spot and takes root, it
doesn't need its brain anymore, so it eats it!  (It's rather like
getting tenure.)"                                                           :-)