Conference 7.286::digital

    It depends on who you ask. Ask Personnel, and they'll say it's
    competitive, ask Senior Management, and they show you the High
    Salraies/Increases of themselves and their direct reports. Ask the
    average DEC Peon, and they'll roll their eyes, and wander off,
    muttering...
    
    

    Put it this way, a friend of mine, an engineer, who worked for
    Digital for 21 years. Last summer went  looking for another job,
    he was asking for a 40% pay raise. He got it and his new employer
    said Digital's wages were no longer competitive.
    
    Remember too, unlike Digital, HP, Sun, Apple, and IBM are making
    money.

> Put it this way, a friend of mine, an engineer, who worked for
>   Digital for 21 years. Last summer went  looking for another job,
>    he was asking for a 40% pay raise. He got it and his new employer
>   said Digital's wages were no longer competitive.
   
	Umm, what was his new wage?  Just so we know
	what we're worth in the wide world...

	(No need to name names)

    Two random comments. I have been told that the last two comparisons
    Digital did with pay and other companies had mixed results. Most people
    were paid "competitively." Software Engineers were under paid.

    Secondly, I know of a number of employment agencies whose customers
    have told them not to send them Digital people. It seems they believe
    that Digital people don't know how to work hard. So the market just may
    believe we're paid ok for what we're worth. Your mileage may vary.
    
    But maybe the good people are staying and only the not so hot are
    leaving. :-)
    

    		Alfred

    
    The following always holds true...
    
    If you pay peanuts you only get monkeys.
    
    I'm not saying that we all are but isn't the following holds true
    too...?
               EMLOPYEE SATISFACTION ===> CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
    
    Could our present financial problems have some remote link to the
    above?

    
    	Salaries are only part of the total package. Many companies offer
    	very competitive medical benefits, employee purchase programs, 
    	profit-sharing, child care assistance, etc., that make employment
    	with them very attractive.
    
    	But, hey, we work for the glory, right? ;)

    Hmmm, I've heard quite the opposite (well, at least of DEC Australia
    Employees - where I (and the author of .5) come from). I can think of
    at least half a dozen Digits that left to jobs paying at least 40%
    better salary. 
    
    So what do you when you get offers for 20-40% over your current salary
    from an outside company? Take them to your boss, and say "Boss, these
    people think I am worth more?" To which, he'll reply, "If you don't
    like it here, go...".    "But Boss, I do like it, I just want better
    pay..."
    
    What amuses, annoys me, is the total onesidedness of the salary
    process.  On two occasions in my 15 years with DEC, I have gone to my
    boss, and said, "I would like to be earning $X in twelve months time."
    To which the summation of responses infers "1. We can't commit to a
    salary review timeframe, 2. We can't commit to a salary increase level
    now, based on Level Y performance." All this from a company that forces
    budgets well ahead of time for salary. pshaw.
    
    q
    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Sorry guys and gals...
    
    You don't work for a company for the money.  That is, you don't work
    for a company for years at a time for the money.  Rather it's those
    little things that keep employees in a positive frame of mind that
    stimulate the employee to perform.  Money is not a motivator.
    When ever you get a raise, you most likely feel you deserved it.
    
    When was the last time your employer said to you,
    Hey thanks for working late.  Your efforts saved us.  Thanks for
    working the weekend, we needed the output to put us over the top.
    We couldn't have done it without you...
    
    When I was a supervisor, any time an employee worked after the normal 8
    hours or weekends or did something out of the ordinary or worked an
    area when I asked for that extra effort...
    I always went back to them and thanked them, one on one.  I felt that
    their, knowing I appreciated it meant more than the extra money.  It also
    helped when I needed that extra effort because they knew I appreciated
    it. 
    
    These attitudes and actions make people want to come to work and do a
    good job.  
    
    Unfortunately I think these attitudes and actions are missing from the
    DEC of the late 80's and 90's.  I saw the change happen in the 80's
    when there was an influx out management from outside the company.  Instead
    of growing the staff from within the went outside for skills.  With the
    business skills came changes in employee/employer attitudes.  

    People have said that the old DIGITAL is dead.  I think they most often
    think of this as the wasteful DEC.  I agree that the wasteful practices
    of the old DEC should be killed.  However I think that the employee/employer
    attitudes that were innocent victims of the killing were the backbone of this
    company and are sadly missed.

    
    
    Tom

    Money may not be a motivator, but lack of money is very certainly a
    demotivator.

    re .9
    
    If you don't work for the paycheck, can I have yours so you can feel
    even better about doing a good job????

re the person who worked for DEC for 21 years and got a 40% increase elsewhere:

In the US, if you spend your whole career at one company, your salary will
suffer.  To get the best salary, you've got to move around a little (every
2-4 years) when you're starting out.

    .9, I'm sorry, but I, and a hell of lot of others work for my pay,
    period!!
    
    As a hiring manager for 12 years, I can absolutely confirm that DEC
    had a policy of meeting the industry average for wages for many years.
    We never strove to do better.  The problem is if you set mediocrity
    in salary as your target, you are always going to come in below it.
    
    Our benefits also are falling rapidly behind.  We urgently need some
    form of profit sharing and company-matched 401K's.  And that's only
    the beginning.  Also where are our eye-care and child-care programs?
    Instead we are seeing a steady erosion in health care.
    
    Finally, I can also confirm that a lot of firms won't hire former
    DECies.  The perception is that we don't know how to work.  MCI here
    in Colorado Springs is moving in 2,000 software developers to their
    new operation here.  The word on the street is that they don't want
    to talk to DECies.

    Ah..the proverbial "word on the street".
    
    Mark.

    
    	There have been several replies here stating that many firms don't
    	want to talk to DECcies because they "don't know how to work".
    
    	Can someone with first-hand knowledge, or knowledge from a good
    	source, explain what that means?
    
    	Is it because DECcies..
    	
    	o Are too lazy?
    	o Are unskilled?
    	o Are (insert your favorite negative character assessment here)
    
    	Or what?
    
    	Please explain.
    
    
    	John

Re .15 (John):

I don't exactly have first-hand experience from another company; however, I do
have a sort of second-hand experience from a person who used to work at Digital
and whom I dated occasionally.

This person said she figured she was at what seemed a dead-end job, so she
left the company and found a job in another computer company.

The culture shock was too much for her, and she ended up leaving that company
for a third, where apparently she was able to adapt.

I suspect that "don't know how to work" is a euphemism for "don't work the
same way we do."

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    I can attest to the "don't want to talk to DECcies" attitude.  I worked
    as a temp in Digital a number of years ago and had to leave due to the
    fact DEC was trying to eliminate (for a time) temporary and contract
    workers.  I decided to go for a permanent job.  The employment agency I
    went to told me to put down that I worked for the temporary agency and
    to avoid mentioning that my work had been at Digital if it was at all
    possible.
    
    The attitude she had run into was that former DEC people wanted large
    salaries for doing minimal work, especially in the secretarial field. 
    She had been told NOT to send former Digital employees to many of the
    openings she had available.
    
    Now, I'm not saying I agree in whole with this attitude. 
    Unfortunately, I have seen examples of what "outsiders" are referring
    to.  It's unfortunate that a few "bad apples" create the reputation of
    the whole barrel, but it happened and probably still is happening.
    

    I can't agree that there is a don't hire DECies word on the street. 
    Here in Southern California, I know of three DECies with major management
    roles, two in banking and one in health care.  I know of two more sales
    people in responsible sales positions, one selling software and the
    other hardware.  I know of a couple of others with limited DEC
    backgrounds that are also employed.  This is quite a number for me
    since I have only been with DEC for 2+ years.
    
    My personal observation is that people may be reluctant to hire DECies
    because of our culture.  They hear about "techie NERDS" and the 
    organization that doesn't exist and those are not pluses in most of
    corporate America.
    
    Daryl 

    	A lot of factors might have contributed to this reputation...and
    it's so comforting to know how we'll be received with open arms if we
    ever leave DEC.
    	In software engineering, we're perceived as being several years
    behind the curve in software development technology (CASE,
    object-oriented programming, etc.) that a lot of companies now use.
    We're perceived as a bunch of VMS people who know little of Unix, DOS,
    or other popular operating systems. We're not exactly perceived as
    shipping the best software in the industry...to say the least.
    Consequently, any DEC software people would be unproductive (even if we
    don't happen to be lazy too!) and require a significant ramp.
    Considering the salaries we demand, they might do a lot better with
    non-DECies. Don't shoot me. I'm just trying to see their perspective.
    	As far as how well we're compensated here, you need to look at a
    lot of factors: salary, benefits, fringe benefits, job satisfaction,
    etc. and decide if you're happy. I agree that our benefits are slipping
    fast, despite the propaganda we receive telling us otherwise. However,
    all in all, I can't complain. I'm sure I could make more somewhere else
    (if anyone would hire a lazy DEC software engineer like me), but I'm
    sure I'd give up something in the process.

	We're entitled, I believe, to make our own judgment of whether
	we are individually underpaid, overpaid, or close enough; and,
	having made the judgment, to act accordingly.

	Assuming we are still a for-profit enterprise, the corporation
	is entitled to judge, however, that we are at least either 10%
	too many or 10% overpaid.

	Take your pick.

				Charlton Allen

                                         
    Re: .19
    
    I remembered when Wang layoff people flooding the street 2-3 yrs
    ago, they are send away by agencies too. One major reason, their
    skill set is too PROPRIETARY. Priords. Who care Wang OIS/VS at the
    time except some OEM or Direct Reseller is hiring ex-Wang employee ?
    
    Re: .20
    
    I agree with it. It's demand and supply market. Everyone should
    question themselves when they open Sunday Globe Help_Wanted section
    , how many skill-sets we still meet market demand ? Then, we will
    feel how nice this company treat us.
    
    In this changing Hi-Tech world, not only hardware product changing
    fast, but also our skill set obeselote like thunder lighting.
    
    
    Michael.. (Still learning since marrying to computer)

   Re: Several on equity in pay
   
   "Are we overpaid in relation to the industry?" depends on your
   definition of "industry".  I spent several frustrating years working
   with Source/EDP.  I have nothing but good to say about Source in
   Dayton/Cincinnati.  I have worked from both sides (hiring and
   looking).  They have been very helpful.
   
   The first frustrating incident happened during my first meeting with
   Source.  I asked what could they find for me that was non-vendor
   related (i.e. I wanted to be a customer again)?  The rep pulled out a
   glossy brochure with a very nifty chart in it (great graphics).  He
   put his pencil point at one spot on the chart and said, "You are
   here?"
   
   I looked and the section of the chart was labelled "Golden Handcuff".
   
   In essence:  Digital paid at and just below the midpoint for
   salaries.  
   
   "Not too bad," you say?  That comparison was with other computer
   manufacturing companies only.  We were well below software houses and
   niche consulting firms.  We were way above "computer customers".
   
   If I wanted to go to work for company ABC who had an internal DP
   shop, or company XYZ who uses computers for process control, then I
   would be looking at a 15% to 20% pay cut for a comparable position
   with that customer.
   
   Source's explaination went sort of like this:
   
   	Computer vendors become dependent on their technical employees. 
        This is because the proprietary knowledge they have is not
        replacable from people on the street.  That knowledge is very
        valuable to the customer base.  Therefore, vendors will overpay
        their technical people so that it becomes very difficult for
        them to jump ship.
        
        Vendors seldom want competetors' technical people.  They don't
        generally need tecnical employees with extensive knowledge of
        competetors' proprietary systems.  There are sometimes special
        projects, but no widespread hiring.

   

    	Well, I can understand why other companies aren't
    talking to ex-DECies right now.  After all, one of DEC's
    few claims to fame has always been that DEC doesn't lay
    people off.  So, who in their right mind is going to talk
    to ex-DECies now (after the first layoffs in DEC's history)?

    	You might think that currently employed DECies would
    have an easier time finding a job at another company than
    ex-DECies who were laid-off.  The trouble is however, that
    it probably involves too much legwork for potential hiring
    managers (from other companies) to find out whether a person
    who says they still work for DEC actually still does work
    there.  Those who can *prove* that they still work for DEC
    may simply still be on the DEC payroll (i.e. in 9-week
    transition, etc.).  As a result, it is probably easier for
    hiring managers to simply ignore *all* DEC applicants period.

    	So, what does this mean for us grunts?  I say it means
    that IT'S TIME TO GET OFF OUR DUFFS AND ORGANIZE OURSELVES!
    TIME TO KICK BUTT!  NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT FOR US,
    SO LET'S GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD OURSELVES!  OUR FRIGGIN
    CAREERS DEPEND ON IT!  POLISH THOSE SKILLS!  GET A FRIGGIN
    QUALITY PROGRAM IN PLACE!  DELIVER A FRIGGIN QUALITY PRODUCT!
    DO IT OR ELSE WE DEC EMPLOYEES WILL NEVER BE VIEWED AS BEING
    WORTH HIRING BY ANYBODY!

    			      -davo
    
p.s.	Who knows, we might even make DEC a place worth working
    	at again in the process?  ;^)

    re: .9
    
    digital does not (or, did not, in the early 80's) have 
    the only supervisors in the industry who knew how to 
    treat their employees right.  I suspect that some of
    the management types brought in from the outside were
    and are capable of showing appreciation of a job well
    done.  I think outside management is what the company
    needs.  Not at the lowest levels, maybe, but those who 
    can set the business direction.
    
    Gary

    A few notes back brought up an interesting point (i.e. that vendors pay
    more for "proprietary" people... because that's what vendors need).
    
    Does this mean, that in the future, as we merge towards two OS paradigms
    (UNIX and/or NT/DOS), that salaries will go down?
    
    You've gotta admit... as more colleges put out more UNIX-types, and
    companies move towards standard "open" systems, the possibilty to
    differentiate yourself from the crowd also gets harder and harder.
    And it won't make any difference if you're a UNIX geru, because
    they're a dime a dozen to.
    
    Or putting it another way... will "commodity" systems lead to
    commodity salaries?
    
    And since I'm not currently thinking of leaving DEC (on my own), MY
    market-minded thoughts want to ask the next obvious question...
    
    "What should I be learning next, that will make me worth more?"
    
    GaryB
    

Re: .25
    
>    Does this mean, that in the future, as we merge towards two OS paradigms
>    (UNIX and/or NT/DOS), that salaries will go down?
 
No, I don't think so. Salary will at least keep pace with inflation, at least
in this industry in large. You may disagree with me whether increase inside DEC
can catch inflation. One exception will be, if low labor cost country (Asia
/Russia etc) will catch up computer technology here, then you will see another
round of masscare same as our auto-industry  experienced in Detroit.  Then, I'm
afraid we don't have time to think about salary increase rather than walking
on the street. However, I don't see immediate threat for SW side yet.
   
>    You've gotta admit... as more colleges put out more UNIX-types, and
>    companies move towards standard "open" systems, the possibilty to
>    differentiate yourself from the crowd also gets harder and harder.
>    And it won't make any difference if you're a UNIX geru, because
>    they're a dime a dozen to.
 
This is true, especially for over 15-20 yrs experience engineer. Do they really 
worth twice than fresh college graduate ? That's up to every hiring mgr to 
decide. Engineer itself will become another commodity too, better service/
quality/product will do the sale.

>    Or putting it another way... will "commodity" systems lead to
>    commodity salaries?
 
No, better commodity ask for higher price, common commodity settle for less.
As long as demand > supply, there's always job there, it's up to market
to decide which job pay most. If you thinking your job skill from basic
marketing principal, then it will be simple rules to follow.
    
>    "What should I be learning next, that will make me worth more?"
 
Step 1:  Opening Sunday Globe and read JOB ad
Step 2: Talk to friend/agent, what's hot out there 
Step 3:  Learning state-of-Art technology, most magazine will tell you what's 
         coming
Step 4: Always practice your Burger cooking skill, you never know when
        it get handy. :-)  (As Reagan said, service sector is our #1 
	industry in U.S.A) 
   
Michael..
    

   Re: .25
   
   "What should we learn next?" 
   
   That is the BIG question many of us have been asking.  Unix people
   are a dime-a-dozen.  Our customer (USAF) reminds us of that weekly. 
   Our office has made a booming business over the past ten years by
   selling VMS/TOPS/RSX system software gurus to the customer.  The
   customer now wants all of their computers to be Unix based (with the
   exception of some PCs).
   
   So, Digital wants to train us in Unix.  However, the customer has
   told us many times that Digital cannot compete with others for system
   managers, etc.  (I currently get $104/hr. to run a VAXcluster.) 
   They are not likely to look at Digital for Unix support bodies even
   at $65/hr.
   
   We talk to our manager about what we can sell to the customer for a
   premium dollar.  We talk about solution selling.  We talk about
   systems integration.  We talk about projects.  We try to point out
   that what we can bring to the customer that just-out-of-college
   people can't are talents which solve customers' problems.
   
   Our managers (sales and software) agree that this is what we need to
   do.  The demand for systems support people from Digital is going to
   decline (not because we can't do it; we just cost too much).  "Let's
   go for it!!!"
   
   $ SET TEXT/PARENTHESIS=START
   
   	This is for all the "We Are Digital" noters I have seen in this notes
   	file.  You are appalled by the "We v. They" mentallity (i.e. line
   	employees v. Digital).  This mentallity comes from mounting
   	frustration of trying to make money for this company just to have the
   	company figure out a way not to take the customer's money.
   
   	Digital is upset because we are losing money big time.  They react to
   	contain this disaster.  We try as best we can with the decisions made
   	because of this.  Let's cut expenses.
   	
   	That's fine.  But why can't we try to make MORE money at the same
   	time?  Can't a parallel approach to the situation be to increase
   	revenue while holding to current costs?
   
   $ SET TEXT/PARENTHESIS=END
   
   In the past year the following has happened:
   
   A. A proposal to design, upgrade, install, manage, maintain, etc. the
   customer's network (some 1000+ nodes) at a fixed rate/node (sort of
   how TV cable companies work;  they provide the cable plant and taps
   and you pay a fee to connect and use it).   Customer thought is was
   great.  Customer currently spends close to $5M/yr on his network.  We
   already have done something similar for Kodak.  
   
   Line employees fire up management.  Layout an initial plan.  Even get
   the manager who made the Kodak thing happen agree to talk to us.  We
   are being inovative.  We are finding new business.  We are branching
   into solution selling.  We are trying to get long term commitments
   from the customer.
   
   Line employees are told to go back to work; We'll take it from here. 
   We piss off the customer.  We can't bid it.  We can't figure out who
   is in charge to do this.  We lose the opportunity.
   
   I'm sorry.  But the line employees do not want to be included in the
   We.
   
   B. Customer wants to standardize on Pathworks.  Could Digital please
   arrange to sell us, say, 1500 licenses.  A site license would be
   nice.  That would prevent these other division managers from buying
   Novell and mucking up my network.  I have the money now.  Digital
   will own my network to the desktop.  Digital can provide additional
   Digital hardware to act as servers.  This would stop part of the
   erosion of Digital's presence at the site.
   
   Line employees fire up management.  Layout an initial plan.  Get the
   customer to set aside the money for procurement...
   
   Line employees are told to go back to work; We'll take it from here.
   We get lost in Digital's quagmire of buearacracy.  Customer was
   thinking in terms of giving us a P/O in two weeks.  Four months
   and 6 iterations of our proposal later (none of which was what the
   customer wanted) we piss off the customer.  Novell proponents at the
   customer site are now pushing on pointing out the Digital can't do
   it.  We say, "Shucks, it was only $35K."  They can get Novell
   products from Digital cheaper than they can from anyone else.  They
   still won't buy it from us.
   
   I'm sorry.  But the line employees do not want to be included in the
   We.
   
   C. Realtime data acquision solution.  Requires Digital to be the
   systems integrator (prime).  $500K to $1000K.  No body shopping.  A
   real SI opportunity.  Fixed price.  None of this cost-plus nonsense. 
   Opportunity to establish ourselves as more than a hardware vendor and
   seller of $/hr.  Subcontractor for the realtime gear has better
   access to Digital SW engineering than we do.  They are in the top
   200 CMPs for DOCUMENTED LEVERAGED SALES.  Customer wants us...
   
   Line employees fire up management...
   
   Line employees are told to go back...Everyone says they want the
   business.  Nobody is willing to invest resources to bid it.  (Except
   for one group who read the various documents spent two hours with the
   customer and declared that all they customer really needs is about
   60% of what he asked for and if he really wants that extra 40% the
   customer can to get it himself.)  One manager wants to do it, but to
   cut costs we won't provide any kind of project manager.  "It will all
   sort of come together.  Any coordination can be done by the software
   person who is tasked [fulltime] to write the custom code needed." 
   This even when we don't know what vendor will be able to subcontract
   two of the needed subsystems.  After 2.5 months of memos from the
   sales rep and SW (EIS not SS) person involved pleading for someone to
   help is get this business it is still in "middle management
   consideration".  Bids are due in 3 weeks and we don't even have
   someone to begin a technical evaluation and coordinate a solution
   (which includes an ULTRIX ASSETS package from Europe).
   
   I'm sorry...
   
   I wish I could say this is the extent of the list.  But it goes on. 
   People who deal with customers on a day-to-day basis are becoming
   more frustrated because "We" don't seem to be too terribly interested
   in turning around the negative profit trend of the past two quarters.
   
   I have seen one of the most upbeat, positive, optimistic, creative
   specialists I know turn into a cynic approaching my level.  This
   person has had some of the best ideas for convincing the customer to
   give us his money.  Only to see Digital manage to convice the
   customer otherwise.  
   
   I have seen him go from calling anyone to tell them about
   opportunities to make money to saying "Wouldn't it be neat it we
   [Digital] could...". 
   
   
   What should we learn next?  I have no idea.  Digital's actions do not
   match their rhetoric.  I don't know what they expect of me or anyone
   else except that somehow we will magically make money for Digital.  I
   see no plans, only statements of we will succeed.
   
   Until Digital figures out what it is they want us to do, it is very
   difficult to figure out how to do it.

    As to what to learn, we need to learn how to solve the tough problems.
    That's how Digital got the big money in the past.  It's how we'll get
    the big money in the future.  Nobody will pay much for someone that can
    solve easy problems.  
    
    Customers want and will pay top dollar for people that can solve their
    tough problems quickly and efficiently.  The only way I know for being 
    ready for that is to constantly be learning.  
    
    U*ix is only one thing that a person needs to have under the belt.  You 
    don't hire a carpenter because he is skilled with a hammer.  You hire a 
    carpenter that has all the skills needed for constructing your house.
    
    I don't know that anyone can accurately predict "what we should learn
    next."  But, the question might be moot.  There are so many things we
    need to learn that it may be more important to simply pick a few and
    focus on those.  Perhaps it is more important to spend time learning
    about new things than to agonize over which new thing to learn about
    next.
    
    Steve

re: .27,

>    What should we learn next?  I have no idea.  Digital's actions do not
>    match their rhetoric.  I don't know what they expect of me or anyone
>    else except that somehow we will magically make money for Digital.  I
>    see no plans, only statements of we will succeed.
   
	Are there any projects that *have* worked over there recently?
    If so, what were they and what was it that went right to make them
    happen?  If they were successful purely by accident, then how can
    such accidents be duplicated again?  There's got to be something
    to build on out there (where ever "there" is - hard to tell).

	Seems like you might have a slightly better argument to your
    management if you could say something like..."why can't we do
    more of X, like the time that Y bought all of the Z widgets and
    we won the contracts to integrate them?"

				 -davo

    re: .31  "Is the cup half-empty?"
    
    You ask if there are any successes to balance the losses that were
    described in .27, and there is a very easy (but gloomy) answer:
    
    Look at our revenue numbers.  Last quarter was bad.  Next quarter
    will be horrible, because the services dollars we used to count on
    may not bail us out any more.  And Digital's expensive thirsts will
    not be satisfied with anything less than a full cup.
    
    So much for mixed metaphors.
    
    Geoff

    re: .32
    
    Or to paraphrase how George Carlin put it:  It's not that the cup is
    half-empty or half-full.  It's that the cup is too big.
    
    Steve

    	I would like to reopen the discussion about employees working
    	for money or recognition.
    
    	I don't believe we can paint with such a broad brush.  Perhaps
    	some work for recognition, but I certainly don't.  I think we
    	all have different motivators, and a good manager will discover
    	the correct motivators for his direct reports and use them to
    	their fullest.
    
    	I work for money, though for me it is not necessarily salary 
    	that makes a difference.  Awards like gift certificates, dinners, 
    	t-shirts -- anything that has a monetary value to assist my 
    	budget and replace something I would have otherwise had to 
    	acquire via my own budget -- these things matter to me.  
    	Personal thanks?  Well, it's nice to know the people "up there" 
    	notice you, but I'd rather get something of value.  You can't 
    	feed your kids with a plaque or a pen-and-pencil set.  I've 
    	always wanted to know how to get stock options.  Personally I 
    	would work harder for extra stock as my carrot -- even at 
    	today's prices!
    
    	Other people are different.  They would rather get a plaque
    	THAT WAS PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THEIR PEERS than privately
    	receive a $25 gift certificate to a local restaurant.  Some
    	people need to hear frequently by their management that they
    	are doing a great job.  Some people would work harder for a
    	personal parking place.  Some people work for promotion without
    	regard to the salary attached.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    I'm not known as a sharp dresser, but even I wouldn't regard
    a DEC T-shirt as 'having a monetary value' or that it would
    replace something I would otherwise had to buy myself!
    
    As far as DEC-paid dinners are concerned -- maybe.  If DEC
    wants to pay to send the project team (i.e., engineers,
    tech writers, the product manager) out to dinner, that's
    fine by me; a handful of people in all.   If they want to
    send me to some huge event in some large hotel, then no thanks.
    I'll stay home.  What's the difference?   Well, the former is 
    small enough that I can believe that whoever paid for it might 
    have some idea as to whether or not we did a good job.   The 
    cast-of-hundreds dinner function seems to be organized at
    a level that's too remote from those that actually do the
    work.
    
    ---

    Some time ago, when I was in a group that had the distinction of
    winning customer service excellence awards, I used to complain about
    how the $$$ of the award dinner/trip/doodads would have been better
    spent in giving the group a BIG budget increase so we could get the
    extra VAX computes and other hardware that we sorely needed, or in
    GIVING each winning employee a fully-loaded PC system (would've been a
    Rainbow back during this timeframe, but the idea was sound).
    
    Nobody I spoke to understood.
    
    I didn't want the trip/dinner/plaque.  I wanted new hardware.  Would
    have been a lot cheaper -- even including the cost of a brass plaque
    affixed to the front of said computer!
    
    John
    

    After having looked at this note and it's replies, I'm saddened at the
    general theme of personal reward vs. team reward. I think that is due
    in part to the DEC environment and history. I see excellence awards
    geared toward personal recognition of the individual rather that team
    performance. Individual Awards rather than team awards,  as well as
    pushing 'entrepreneurship'  rather than group development may be
    ultimately counterproductive.
    
    - In the last 5 years at DEC, I watch in horror as an undeliverable 
      project is sold, the person responsible takes their bow and is praised
      for the effort as the project sinks.  
    
    - The noter in .27 had me nodding as he described the typical battle
      between the management and the grunts on the front line. 
    
    - Most software projects I have worked on at DEC have people
      slithering on and off over the duration of the project rather that
      providing a consistant team. Is it the fault of the employee who won't
      take ownership? Is it the fault of management who allows it? Or both?
      [ In a previous life, I worked on large utility projects that took
        from 3-15 years.  The only excuses for leaving the projectwere generally
    	quitting the company, gross incompetence (usu. followed by
    	quitting), death or promotion to a position outside the project (usu.
        accepted after months of transition). Transfers were possible but
    	to do so would be like asking to leave the Chicago Cubs to join the 
    	White Sox. In other words, we took pride in our project teams, we
    	worked hard, we watched out for each other and we succeeded]
    
    Da Chicago Bulls just won the NBA Championship. In the scenes that
    followed, the team took their bows,  the WHOLE team, not just superstar
    Michael Jordan (who sat out part of the last quarter  AND led the
    cheering when the 2nd string proceeded to over come a 13 point deficit
    to win). The win was a team effort, spearheaded by a few excellent
    people who set the pace and mentored and cheered the less experienced
    people
    
    The point is that even though we have high achievers who should and
    must be paid competetively to be retained, the emphasis on training,
    delivery, sales, marketing, engineering  and other facets of the company
    must be tied to the TEAM effort for the ultimate win.  
    
    TQM is a step in the right direction
    but must be taken seriously and given time. The ultimate solution lies
    in changing the paradigm at DEC. We each need to develop our teams as
    they are formed for sales, delivery, service, etc. DEC management
    needs to foster the environment for team building. 
    							also,
    							atta way BULLS!
    								8-}

    re: -.1
    
    Teamwork isn't the answer to everything.  Picking the right people for
    the team is probably as important.  Additionally, many creative works
    are better accomplished by individuals.  You could hardly expect a
    committee to have made improvements on the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper,
    Don Giovanni, etc. etc.  On top of that, using sports analogies, the
    fact that tennis, golf, track&field, swimming, pool, bowling, etc. are
    basically individual sports does not detract from the team
    sports--baseball, football, basketball, soccer, etc., etc.  IMHO we
    don't know what sport we're playing.  We may be trying to invent team
    poker, and that probably wouldn't even be legal.
    
    Dave

    re .37
    
    When you speak of slithering in and out of projects, can you not see
    how those doing it are but copying the basic routine of upper
    management which moves - sorry, "reorganizes to better align ourselves
    with market machinations and customer coalitions" - from job to job so no
    one is EVER accountable.  
    
    

    re. 38
    
    I agree that 100% teamwork and 0% individual contributors is just as
    bad as 0% teamwork and 100% individuality (which is closer to the
    current situation). There is a place in this company for the individual
    contributor and kudos to the people who have done well at this. 
    
    I think a shop bent on teamwork can also be called a kind of
    bureauocracy and I shudder to think of that. 
    
    The point is that we need more teamwork and not less.
    
    
    re: .39
    
    Maybe...it seems that way sometimes, doesn't it?
    
    
    

Re: .38, .39, .40.

No team can be excellent if it's members are only mediocre. A team rises or 
falls on the individual excellence and abillities of the members. Period. 

You get the kind of behavior you reward. I've seen two high performance teams
ruined by managment practices which rewarded team results - without recognition
of who actually made the achievements possible. Saying "I" rather than "WE"
became frowned upon - and punished.  

You don't get high achievement behavior if you reward mere 'participation in
the consensus' at the same level as achievment. 

What you get is just participation.

No one strives for excellence in order to stand, equally honored, with those
who ran the race and did not finish, or, merely attended the competition.
Yet this is what we are asked to do in the name of 'teamwork'. 

Digital has failed to keep those team who have practiced individual
excellence, and failed doubly by not placing them in places where they could 
have been most effective. 

Now that policy is bearing bitter fruit.

				Regards,
				Rod

Teamwork shouldn't mean participation in consensus, although there are times
when that's appropriate.

Teamwork means:

	"I'm not the most person on the team for doing this particular task,
	so I'm not going to let my ego/desire to do this/whatever stand in
	the way of letting Pat do it"

and
	"Sam is having a hard time with this task, and I'm really the person
	who should be doing it, even though I'd rather not, so I'll go
	ahead and do it, allowing Sam to do something more appropriate."

A team needs both individual excellence and teamwork; it rises and falls on
the ability of the team to maximize the synergistic exploitation of their
individual excellences.  I've also heard of teams where the individual members
were superb, and where any one of them could complete the job in N years doing
an excellent job, but the N of them couldn't complete the job in N/2 years,
because they couldn't work as a team.  A good team ought to be able to complete
the job in 1+epsilon, where epsilon is the overhead, from communication costs, 
etc., that absolutely can't be squeezed out of a team project

   Gary

    Although this doesn't fit with pay and/or rewards, it seems fitting
    to post the "Covenant of Teamwork" which I find to be very good.
    
                      COVENANT OF TEAMWORK
    
    I WILL try to first understand, then be understood.  "Be quick to
    hear, slow to speak, slow to anger"
    
    I WILL make a conscious effort to make my teammates look and sound
    good to others - inside and outside of our company.
    
    I WILL always go to the person with whom I have an issue first, and
    will only go to others if that person is aware I plan on doing so.
    
    I WILL encourage my teammates to stretch, to try new things, to succeed
    and I will be available to help in areas I have expertise.
    
    If a teammates fails, I WILL do my best to help them recover and learn
    from those failures in a manner that I'd appreciate being helped.
    
    I WILL do what I commit to do, and I give you permission to hold me
    accountable if I do not.
    
    I WILL work hard to be better (more vocationally competent), next 
    month, and next year, than I am today.
    
    I WILL respect my teammates enough to be at team meetings, and be
    on time.
    
    I WILL NOT withhold information from my teammates.
    
    I WILL actively offer constructive ideas and criticism; but when we
    must professionally agree to disagree, I WILL defer to the manager
    and the team, and will work just as actively to support those
    decisions.
    
    

    RE: .43
    

    
    RE: .44
    
    	

Re: .43


The covenant would be nice... if it were honored. Always. Unfortunately,
when someone plays by those rules they can become a victim to those who do not..

... who seem to be in the majority these days.


What does this have to do with DIGITAL pay being everything ???

I can remember a time when mere *membership* on certain teams was a source
of pride - a sign that you *made the grade*. Team selections and work 
responsibilities were an important part of percieved compensation.
Getting paid for working on the xxxxx project was just an aside.

This is not necessarily the case anymore. It could mean you have been chosen
to pull somebody else's wagon. Or that you have something the looters want.


Who are the looters ? - As pointed out in .40, .41 they are the ones who
  _slither_ from project to project - always taking over a team _after_ the
  hard work is done. Sometimes teams or 'management responsibilities' 
  get traded like basball cards between these people.


Bottom line - when you take away a standard of execellence for making and
 staying on a team - when growth is on hold except for the 'slither-ers'
  -you might as well focus on salary alone because
  the other motivations are taken away.

 
                 Cheerfully yours,
		slithered to death at CX.