Conference 7.286::digital

    I don't condone the manager's behavior, nor do I think you will find
    many who would, but...
    
    >We discussed and appointed Mr. R as spokeperson for our team to give
    >feed back to the manager.  By the way Mr. R and the manager cannot get
    >along at all.  
    
    This seems to be a strange appointment.  It suggests that Mr. R might
    be the only one willing to be the spokesperson, is that true?  If there
    were others, then I think the team made a mistake in this appointment. 
    Surely someone the manager isn't prejudiced against is going to be
    better able to carry the message?
    
    If indeed the team was serious when it said they didn't want to work
    for this manager, now is the time to show it.  Team members, including
    those who are safe, should start quietly making their moves. 
    
    Otherwise, the manager just won the pot by calling your bluff.  
    
    	"If it's war, then get ready to fight!"
    
    By the way, nothing has happened to DEC.  It has always been possible
    for the strong to abuse the weak.  You get the justice you fight for.
    
    Good luck,
    
    Dick

    
    
    I think the point .0 was trying to make by example is:
    
     At DEC:  What is advertised & sold is NOT what is delivered.
    
    
    

    Re: .0
    
    The "Open Door" is not policy, it is LAW - and it can be found under
    the sign marked "Exit".
    
    
    Re: .2
    
    Perhaps what you THINK you bought is not what was delivered.
    
    

    What about the Jack Smith blurb sent to all employees?

    
    Sad, indeed, as stated.  Surely there's more to this scenario than
    meets the screen.  "Insubordination" is one of those personnel buzwords
    in an employee file that constitutes a veritable "black-ball."
    
    If I were Hu (in .0) I would be careful the open door wasn't a 
    trap-door, as it seemed it was for Mr. R. 
    
    Has Digital changed?  I'm afraid not.
    Is it best for the others in this unit to hide?  I'm afraid so.
    
    Mike
    

    Sigh...
    
    Assuming for the minute that the scenario in .0 is the absolute truth,
    it amazes me that people would not forsee the outcome of this.  And
    that is not to condone, but merely acknowledge that we live in world
    run by humans.
    
>    Mr. R : "Most of the team member think that you are arrogant, conceited,
>    prejudiced, unfair and hard to work with.  Unless you change your
>    attitudes none of us can work for you."
    
    Looks to me like the team put a gun in Mr. R's mouth and let him pull
    the trigger.
    
    Rule #1: People who would actually stay rational while at the receiving
    end of frank criticism such as the above are almost certainly not
    arrogant,  conceited,  prejudiced,  unfair  or hard to work for.
    Relevent collory:  Anyone who _is_ arrogant, conceited, prejudiced,
    unfair and hard to work for will not react rationally to being told so.
    This should not be a Big Suprise.
    
>    After this, Mr. R went to the next upper management and related the
>    story and the offensive word that the manager used.  Well, the upper
>    manager promise that he will personnally do something about it.
    
    Rule #2: Being right when working the open door does not excuse you from 
    the requirement to sell your position.
    
    Generally, one of the reasons people get to be managers or supervisors
    is that they are trusted.  Breaking the bonds of that trust will almost
    always require more than a simple uttering of the truth.  You must 
    persuade the middle manager that not only is the employee wrong, but that 
    he is wrong as well (since his trust is misplaced).  Very similar to
    rule #1.  This is what selling is all about - leading a person to reach
    the conclusion you want them to.
    
    In situations like this, it won't be very easy.  Not impossible, but
    not easy at all. In many cases I would imagine the risk outweighs the 
    potential gain.
    
    At any rate, I think it's naive to think that the Open Door will work
    with an approach like that outlined in the base note.  It's not good
    enough to be right, you have to be able to persuade others that you are
    right.  Lacking that ability yields the same results as being wrong. 
    People are human and they will be defensive when attacked, and any 
    successful application of the Open Door will take that into consideration.
    
    Al
    
    
    
    
    

        When people in this note are writing  " Digital hasn't changed"
    what do you mean by that? Over the last few years this company had
    changed drastically, IMO. Does Digital still value its people? Of
    course, but how can a person deny that this company has changed? People
    have been layed off, people have taken SERP, in some cases because they 
    had a fear that they would be let go anyway and new policies are being
    written to insure our bottom line will be as strong as possible, in
    some cases at the expense of the people in our system. I'm not saying
    its not for the good of the company and for the survival of Digital i'm
    just saying things have changed. I honestly can't say I beleive in the
    open door policy and I never really have. If you work for a bad manager
    your in a bad situation and you have to deal with it by copeing or simply
    move on. The quote about the "exit door" I find disturbing and it shows
    no value given to the employee in .0 - would you make the same comment
    to the person who is responsible for creating the Alpha chip? It amazes
    me in this company these days when a person uncovers a problem or
    raises an issue that others see them as the problem or see something they
    did as creating the issue. I also tend to think there is more to this
    issue than has been written because of the process that has to be
    followed before someone is forced to terminate, but I definitely see a
    attitude in this company that I have never seen before and it scares
    the heck out of me to think "I feel like I'm working for a union" where
    people simply do what they are told when they are told to do it and
    could care less about the work or their fellow employees. I know - the
    manager in this case is a fellow employee also, but they are not in
    here looking for an outlet to vent their frustration and gain support
    needed to simply move on with the work that needs to be accomplished.
    My comments in .0 are - after all I've written I still feel this is a
    great company, but as anything else it depends who is in charge. In
    your case you might think you have a bad manager and no outlet to vent,
    but I really wouldn't reccomend doing anything drastic. This is a very
    large company and lots of opportunity still remains if you look for it.
    As far as the manager - if they are as bad as you say hopfully some of
    the powers at be in your site will realize it, if they haven't already,
    and deal with the person. As far as the person who was terminated, its
    not your issue and their may be things that your not in-tuned to..

    My comment on the "exit door" stands...  If you choose to oppose a
    manager, you are almost assuredly choosing departure.
    
    To answer the base note's title question:
    
    **GENERALLY** There are two kinds of people in this company - worker 
    bees, and managers.  Worker bees are supposed to do things.  Managers
    are not.   The basic difference between the two is that managers know
    absolutely everything about everything, and are privy to business
    accumen that the owrker bees can not possibly even conjure up.  If
    you've ever seen a peer promoted, you may have noted the *amazing*
    acquisition of knowledge that occurred.
    
    Further, because they know everything, managers are never wrong - to
    suggest that the bottom one COULD be wrong is to suggest that the
    person who put her/him there may have been less than perfect which is
    to suggest...  
    
    The moral of the story:  Don't go through any open doors unless you
    have another offer and your lawyer has been prepaid.
    
    Don
              

    Regarding the base note, It sounds like the same jerk I worked for when
    I was out west. I chose to leave and have no regrets. I do miss the
    west coast and the fine people I worked with and someday hope to
    return.
    
    The old saying "what comes around goes around" is true. The bonehead
    manager was TSFO'd 10 months after my departure and left no friends
    behind.
    
    Before taking on a manager remember two things, its a suicide mission,
    and managers protect managers, they have to or become targets
    themselves.

    re: a couple back
    
    Actually, the difference between workers and managers is as follows:
    
    	Workers are supposed to do lots of smart things.  It's okay to do
    	something stupid every once in a while, so long as they can prove
    	they do lots of smart things.  
    
    	Managers are supposed to avoid doing anything stupid.  It's okay
    	to do lots of smart things every once in a while, so long as they
    	can prove they haven't done anything stupid.
    
    Problems arise for workers that prove that managers do stupid things.  This
    is because it conflicts directly with manager agenda.  Managers get the
    big bucks and stick up for each other partly because of how difficult it 
    is to prove that they don't do stupid things.  Same thing goes for
    lawyers, doctors and so forth.
    
    It is generally easier to show that a stupid thing was done than that lots 
    of smart things are not being done.  So, the proof that a worker has to 
    offer against a manager tends to be simpler than the proof that a manager 
    has to offer against a worker.  If proof were all that mattered, there
    would be an imbalance between the workers and the managers, favoring
    the workers when a manager did something stupid.  But, systems are
    usually set up to balance this inequity, which is why politics plays such 
    an important role in settling management disputes.  Politics can, in
    fact, completely overrule any proof that may exist, which is why, in my
    opinion, Open Door Policy exists.
    
    As to the base note, the workers apparently felt that since they had
    proof of their manager doing something stupid, they were free to use
    this proof against the manager.  Their mistake was in assuming that the
    proof would be sufficient against the manager and, as other notes have
    pointed out, they did not take steps to address the politics that
    surely would work in favor of the manager.
    
    My understanding of Open Door Policy is that it is by no means a way to 
    counter politics.  Rather, it is a way for any workers to become involved
    in the politics of management.  Otherwise, there would be no means for
    countering politics regardless of proof.  But, to use Open Door Policy
    without paying attention to politics is folly.
    
    Steve

I would think that if .12 is correct, then this shouldn't be
discussed in this notesfile, no?

\john

  If there is a suit pending before the court, it would be unwise for either
party to discuss it because their words could be used in a trial to impeach
their testimony. 

  If you are not part of the suit, then the fact that a suit is involved should
not deter you from discussing the issue. 

  George 

    I don't want to be an alarmist, but if one wanted to demonstrate to a
    jury  any attitude at Digital from "all managers are great" to "all
    managers are evil", the text could be obtained in this conference under
    the discovery process.
    
    The general attitude towards employee relations at Digital matters as
    much as the circumstances in the specific case and the written
    policies.  You could even call it "the corporate culture"

  If I were on a jury I'd hardly be surprised to hear that some employees
thought management was great while others complained. I'd be surprised to find
anything else. In any case, it's not clear that either side would benefit from
making that claim. 

  In a discrimination suit, the plaintiff wants to prove that management
discriminates on ethnic or religious grounds while the company wants to prove
that they do not. Neither side cares one way or the other about the exercise of
"the G.I.'s right to gripe". 

  George 

    If you were on a jury, you might be surprised to hear that a company
    maintained electronic records of allegations of incidents of
    discrimination and allegations of a  pattern of discrimination and did
    nothing about it that was obvious.
    
    This VAX Notes Conference has such material and several others do as
    well.

  I think we are talking about two different things. I was attempting to answer
the question of who is required to remain silent on a case in a more general
sense. There may well be things about this case that make it too sensitive for
DECies to discuss. 

  But in general, parties not involved in a suit may talk about that suit.
That's why groups like Court TV and CNN are allowed to cover cases that are in
progress. 

  George 

    
    	re .0
    
    	Let's see if I have this straight...
    
    	o One of your managers asked your team to give her input as to how she
    	  could improve her management..
    
    	o You appoint as team leader someone who "cannot get along" with
    	  the manager..
    
    	o Your team leader opens up by saying that most of the team thinks
    	  that she (manager) is arrogant, conceited, prejudiced, and hard
    	  to work for...
    
    	o Team leader eventually gets fired for subordination..
    
    	What do these facts have to do with your (inappropriate) title?
    
    
    	

    re .21
    
    The manager in question may be prejudiced, may be discriminating
    against minority employees, and may be replacing them with other people
    she prefers.  All that may be true, but your version of the incidents
    can never be used as evidence of the situation.  It is hard to prove
    prejudice, hard to prove racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination.  As
    soon as the kinds of mistakes in common sense as shown in .0 appear,
    the manager can hide behind them.  The point is that you (and the fired
    employee) have very little chance of making your charges stick.  You
    had very little before the encounter and now you have less.
    
    Sorry, but that's the way it is.
    
    /rab

  Was Personnel involved in any way with this problem? In the past when I've
had problems I've found personnel to be very helpful. Also, my girl friend
worked in the legal department for a time and they are very much oriented
toward protecting the rights of minorities. Did you contact either personnel,
corporate personnel, or the legal department about any of this? 

  George

    
    
    Curious, don't you think......the basenote has been removed?
    Curious but certainly not surprising....sigh.....
    

    
    Almost certainly this was done by the basenotes author.  DOn't get too
    paranoid.....
    
    	- andy