Conference 7.286::digital

    Whats a 1....

    In the U.S. a '1' is the walks-on-water variety of contributor, I
    thinks the range extends to '5' which is 'unable-to-crawl-unaided'.
    
    Here in the UK we have E for Excellent, C for Competent and M for
    managing (just about coping with work).  The numbers which are
    associated with the letters are growth rates.  A '1' means that
    the individual can expect to br promoted to VP from trainee in
    around six months whereas a 5 means they may be 'given the chance
    to seek other opportunities.
    
    I seem to remember that most people are classed as C 3.  Average growth
    and can meet the job requirements.
    
    Calvin

Most of the "1"s I've met, and known well enough to discover that they were
"1"s very much deserved the rating.  Some of them note, some of them don't.

Of course, I've met many 2s and 3s who work just as hard as the 1s do.  (No,
I'm not counting myself in that group.)  There's the crime.

.3>Of course, I've met many 2s and 3s who work just as hard as the 1s do.
.3>(No, I'm not counting myself in that group.)  There's the crime.

That brings up the age-old question... are you rated on how hard you work
or what you accomplish? Superman might be rated a "1" for accomplishments
but get a much lower rating on how hard he works at it.

I once had a long debate with a manager on this very subject. He felt
that employee "A" that didn't accomplish as much but tried harder deserved
a better rating than employee "B" that accomplished more but with less
effort.

Lee
 

    My view is to reward by RESULTS, not effort.
    
    Calvin

Re: .-1  Some would say this is the #1 problem with American business.
Mr. Demmer (I hope that is spelled correctly) preaches that quality and quantity
is a *statistical* beast, not necessarilly related to individual contributors in
a direct fashion.

Case in point: how many software developers have been burned by things beyond
their control?  Hardware engineers?  Field personnel?  The point is that many
*major* contributors simply happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Note that I did not say all.  I have known some engineers that were absolutely
amazing in the quantity of work generated.  However, they did have their bad
days.

I think both sides have merit.  I also think that the basic reward system in 
US industry is erroneous.  

    re:  .0
    
    Perhaps the 1 performers have organizational and time
    management skills that would blow some people out of the
    water....thus allowing time to note.
    

    Two people went to fish, the first caught 5 fishes easily, the second
    caught only one fish , although the second worked much harder than
    the first.
    
    so, which is the better fisher-person?
    
    /nasser
    oh, by the way , the first had a net available to use, the second a
    long stick.. I was not sure if this fact mattered to your answer..
                                    
    

    RE: serveral previous notes
    
     It seems as though you're all assuming that a "1" (or a 2, 3, 4 & 5)
    only "note" during their 40 hour work week, or for that matter, work
    just 40 hours in a week. Not true. I know many people who "note" during
    non-work hours (or during lunch). 
    
     I believe noting usually offers much more enlightenment and entertainment 
    than a software manual or newspaper and lends itself nicely to learning in 
    the relatively quiet atmosphere of ones home.
    
    Glenn

RE: .6 It is Deming with one "m".  

But that is not the point.  One of the main issues is what are you 
rewarding, hard work or results?  People respond to the stimulus so if
you are rewarding political contacts rather than good products, you will
get products that are shipped on time but don't work.  (Shipping on time
is politically correct becuase the boss can brag that they can meet
schedules.)  I maintain that, when the focus is on a single metric like 
ship date, the results for things like quality and workmanship will not 
be important and therefore less good.  

This company has a single goal at the moment, Cost of Sales reduction.  
Until that focus is changed, even groups that stay on budget and make 
money will be cut back because the goal says that everyone must reduce 
costs.  Doesn't matter if you are planning correctly, the bottom line is
REDUCE.  Reminds me of those eating disorders where people think they are
fat when they are long past skinny.

Back to the individual.  I happen to think that results are what should 
be rewarded.  And what results does the company want?  The line is that
the company wants us to "do the right thing."  Problem with this is that
you can not measure this except by trying to identify the people doing
the wrong things.  So you end up with subjective results.  People never 
know what is the yardstick they are measured against.  Is it any wonder
that the question of what is a #1 is asked?

IMHO,
Lee G.

    Ohhhhh, what a sore spot... DEC flex.  I have seen people put into
    positions SIGNIFICANTLY below what their job code was... kept at the
    same rate, and manage to demoralize an entire group.  How Digital
    promised to save these people is beyond me (pardon me if I speak in
    gross generalities).  When someone makes three times more than an
    existing person in that position... and doesn't show up on time and no
    amount of complaints or protocol corrects the problem.... It is no
    small wonder in my mind that Digital is in trouble.  It has shelled out
    inordinate amounts of cold hard cash on people living off the fat of
    the land.  These people are virtually untouchable too.  They'd get 12's
    on a 1 to 5 rating in my book.
    Grrrr
    

    rewards for "doing the right thing" ..... hmmmmmm
    
    I've developed an opinion about performance ratings at DEC; people do
    get rewarded for doing the right thing, and if they and their boss 
    have the same subjective opinion about which things are "right" and
    which are the "right" ways to do these things, then the performance
    rating will be a good one -- ie, 1 or 2
    
    however, if the boss and employee's opinions differ to any great 
    degree then "doing the right thing" is probably not as good an
    approach to high performance ratings as doing what the documented
    plan said to do, even though it may not seem "right" at the time
    
    just a thought....
    
    tom                                           

>    Here in the UK we have E for Excellent, C for Competent and M for
>    managing (just about coping with work).  The numbers which are

	"M for managing," eh?  I think I'll just leave this one alone.

    re:  Paying for Result vs. Paying for Effort
    
    I reluctantly share the opinion that the Corporation should pay for
    results, not for effort.  That is how the Corporation as a whole is
    measured by the stockholders, and we, the employees, should share in
    the responsibility of meeting that measurement.
    
    However, one responsibility of a manager is to motivate the workers.
    Say that a worker is making the extra effort, but is blocked from 
    success by external factors.  The manager should be lenient with 
    the "results" part of the workers metric and should be responsible
    for redirecting the worker so that the worker is motivated to keep 
    up the extra effort and is put in a position where the extra effort
    will mean greater "results".  It's more of an investment for future
    performance rather than a reward for past performance.
    
    Sadly, I don't think that the Corporation is much into investment in
    the workers these days ...
    
    Geoffrey
    

    
    When a manager tells you that a given raise is appropriate for either 
    a 3 or 2 rating, the discussion of "pay for results" vs. "pay for
    effort" becomes academic, at best...
    

    1's might note, but they don't let other things slide in order
    to do so.  They don't fail to complete the project because of
    their noting, chatting, vacation, illness, whatever.  The hypothetical
    balance sheet of productivity/time wasting comes out in DEC's favor
    even if it does so in unorthodox ways.
    
    Some of the 1 traits I'm familiar with include
    
    - developing innovative solutions that are presented, accepted, and
    implemented and actually work to solve real problems that matter
    
    - willingness to put in extra time or take work home when things get
    difficult; willingness to be inconvenienced
    
    - willingness not to pass the buck, but to say "I'll find a way to
    solve this" and then do so
    
    - willingness to look at the big picture and adjust priorities
    according to real project needs as opposed to what one happens to feel
    like doing that day
    
    - willingness to manage projects and take responsibility for them
    
    - willingness to sit down and produce rather than think up tasks for
    other people to do
    
    - ability to envision oneself working hard, and commit to a result
    that will only be accomplished through hard work
    
    - willingness to cut through process discussions, make decisions, and
    settle down to producing something  
    
    - willingness not to whine or make excuses or say "I can't", but rather
    to say "What's keeping us from doing that and how do I change it?  Who
    can I get to help me?"
    
    - willingness to invest in professional development outside of work
    time
    
    - willingness to do triage when the notesfile you moderate is blowing
    up, your best friend is having a crisis, and there is a customer who
    needs you; ability to manage those things calmly one after the other in
    an appropriate order
    
    - never letting your manager be surprised
    
    

    
    do they read books on  management-pyscho-babble as well  ?
    
    :-)
                                                   
    Winton 

    .16 is what i'm talking about!  (whew! what a note!)  Especially the
    last line:  "Never letting your manager be surprised."  If 1's are
    capable of doing all that .16 laid out and more (or in cases where it's
    less), then why does a 1 have a manager and not be the manager/VP?  I
    for one would want to follow under the direction/discipline/guidance of
    a 1 than a 0 ( isn't that right? if a 1 is high and 5 is low and 1 is
    always working for someone, then following the number line, 0 comes
    before 1 so in essence most people work for 0's instead of who they
    should really be working for.)
    
    If we start rating appropriately and I agree to rate on the results one
    produces, then how many results does one need to produce in a given
    year to maintain a 1 status?  Where is the line drawn for employee A
    producing X results and employee B producing Y results?  Both result
    sets are of high quality and provide the potential to produce money,
    maybe even 1 result did produce money.  Now, do we rate the employee
    that actually produced money a 1? and all others 1.5?
    
    The way our reviews are designed with allotment for enormous amounts of 
    management-pyscho-babble as time and space will allow (we know there's
    more than enough space on those "forms", time is limited), ANYONE could
    justify an employee's 1 rating.
    
    I believe it all boils down to maintaining a quota and helping your
    clique. If someone is a 1 in their manager's eyes, then that manager
    should humbly step down and let that person take over (unless of course
    that manger isn't a 0 but has recieved a 1 also).
    
    Reviews should be broken down into a block structure with little space
    for babble (babble can alwyas be provided separately and copied to the
    employee and his/her personnel file) and rated on potential, quantity,
    quality, and results for each block of an employee's performance with
    numerical ratings for each block and averages taken the the overall
    average provided and voila! employee is a ___, please merit
    accordingly.
    
    Reg.

    re: .16
    
    
    OK, I'll fess up.  I was rated a one on my last review, second one of
    my 10 year DEC career.  I'd like to think that I do "consistantly and 
    significantly exceed most major goals blah, blah, blah" and if someone
    choses to define those things as in reply .16, thank you.  That makes
    me feel good.  BUT, as far as walking on water and "should be the next
    VP" Nooooooooooooooooo thank you.  
    
    I also believe that I'm `only' a 3 and should work to hard and smart to
    get the job done, results - absolutley the bottom line however I get
    there.

    re: .16
    
    Maybe it's me, but most of the "1" qualities mentioned seem primarily
    to be behaviors that will "get the job done" when the person's manager
    provides no value or does things that actually hinder the person's work.
    
    -joe tomkowitz

re: .18  I disagree with just about everything you said, but don't have time
to go into it now.

Bob

    RE several back regarding DECFlex.
    
    There were/are MANY of us who performed jobs several levels ABOVE our
    salary also.  I was getting paid 'low end' Department Coordinator wage
    class 2 while performing wage class 4 jobs!  I was even turned down for
    a job that I was performaing already for several months because they
    would have had to bump my salary too far just to get me into the range.
    
    So while your growling about the few (or many) goof offs who take no
    pride in anything they do - including a second chance at life at DEC -
    think about the few or many of us who had the rug pulled out from under
    them and grabbed the brass ring of oppportunity and busted butt at ALL
    assignments!!  
    
    Joyce
               

  >  If 1's are
  >  capable of doing all that .16 laid out and more (or in cases where it's
  >  less), then why does a 1 have a manager and not be the manager/VP?
    
    Good point.  In my opinion, the answer is sphere of influence.  A
    person may be a profoundly good problem solver in a relatively small
    sphere of influence, say one project, technical manual, or product
    subsystem.  That same individual contributor may have no talent for or
    interest in managing a group or looking at the really big picture from
    a vp level.  (The peter principle says that the excellent individual
    contributor will be pressured to move "up", though.)
    
    Keep in mind that .16 is just one person's opinion/observations.  I'm
    not a manager and never wish to be, so I don't have that perspective at
    all. I would not expect others to necessarily agree with what I wrote
    in that note.
    
    I was surprised to get several messages from people who wanted
    permission to forward it around.  I wrote back and said that it is
    probably much more applicable in engineering or writing than in
    "influencing" type jobs.

    Regarding 0. I am very curious as to what your rating was last time.
    

	(Slight FLAME ON)	

	I rarely participate in notes conferences, but this is a subject
	that I believe is one of the roots (if not THE root) of our current 
	situation.  Presently, we have no way to objectively rate our own
	work force.  At least two things fall out of this: 1) If we can't
	objectively rate our people, we can't help our people improve their
	skills, and 2) When we do fall on hard times, we are forced to 
	reduce headcount based on function as opposed to performance.

	Let's take a general look at the overall rating system.  To my
	knowledge, an employee may be rated a 1,2,3, or 5 (4's were 
	eliminated quite some time ago.)  A manager cannot rate an employee
	as a 5 without substantial backup, which means that most "poor"
	performers must be rated as 3's, which is currently defined as 
	"meets job expectations". NOT!  There are 1's out there, but they 
	are few and far between, so that means that the bulk of our 100,000
	employee base is rated as 2's or 3's.  I don't think this is a 
	broad enough range to represent the overwhelming majority of
	our workforce with.  The line between a 2 and a 3 is very grey and
	very broad, varying widely from group to group.  
	(In the past, managers have been told that they had too many 2's, 
	and were forced to change some 2's to 3's in order to make 
	salary plans work.)  

	(most Flame OFF)

	The result:  No consistency in the measurement of performance, 
		     WHICH ALSO MEANS no consistency in rewarding that 
		     performance.

	Couple this with the latest revelation in performance reviews
	where an employee is asked to author their version of their
	review "for comparison with the manager's version".  What really
	happens with most of the folks I know is that they are asked to
	forward their copy to the manager, and with varying amounts of
	wordsmithing, it ends up being the "final" copy.  I don't know
	where this plan originated, but IMO, it's a joke.  

	So.  How do we fix it?  I think there are several ways the system
	could be improved.  1) Broaden the range (1 - 10).  This would 
	allow for rating within a catergory.  i.e. if 4-6 indicated meeting
	job expectations, than 4 could indicate a good positive attitude 
	and skill set proficiency, while 6 may indicate that someone is new
	in a job, is still on the learning curve etc.  2) Get peer 
	involvement.  This adds a lot of depth to the material supporting
	the review.  Some managers do this now, but I don't think it's 
	a requirement.

	Of course, NONE of these suggestions will make any difference if
	a manager REALLY SHOULD NOT BE A MANAGER (but they're probably 
	rated a 2 or a 3, so who would know?)  There are many managers I
	have dealt with over the years who had no real interest in 
	management.  They "fell" into it due to time in grade, or fealt
	they had to take a management position due to social/peer pressure.
	Many of them were good people, believed in the company, AND WERE
	LOUSY MANAGERS.  

	O.K.  I've said my two cents on the subject.


	Jim
	

    I would love to see individual groups rate each other in an open forum.
    No pay figures have to be disclosed, but we should be given a chance to
    view who is getting what, understand why they are getting what they are 
    getting and have input to what we think our fellow employees are
    should get and why. IMO, secrets should only be kept if someone can
    explaine why. Anyone should be able to explain why someones pay
    couldn't be disclosed, but its very difficult for me to understand and
    others to explaine why a fellow employees rating needs to be kept quiet.  

    There are three things about performance numbers in this discussion
    that bother me and make me concerned about their use as criteria for
    you-know-what.
    
    1. Digital seems hell bent on reducing complex questions to a number.
    That way, we don't have to think or to judge or to understand. We only
    have to apply policy. "Cut all the threes," or however it gets played
    out is, at the root, a cop out, a symptom of inability or unwillingness
    to make hard decisions about people and the business based on study,
    analysis, thought, knowledge, and experience.
    
    2. Take 100 random Digital employees and all their performance
    reviews/evaluations (assuming they had received them, which is another
    issue) and cut the rating number off the bottom. Next put the reviews
    in one pile and the rating numbers in another pile. Now try to match
    the rating with the review. Betcha can't. Many of the reviews I've seen
    in the 12+ years I've been here are virtually interchangeability.
    Without extensive reading between the lines, extrapolation, guesswork,
    intimate knowledge of what **really** was being said, or being present
    when the review was given the prose is unhelpful. 
    
    3. Political disconnect. For example: 
         Review: You're a jerk.   Rating:2   Political comment: "what's
                                             your problem? I 'gave' you a two"
         Review: You're great!    Rating:3   Political comment: "Don't worry
                                             about the Rating, it's the 
                                             evaluation that counts."
    
    And, of course, as has been mentioned in both cases the raise is the
    same.
    
    John H.

    As soon as a company gets so big that it tries to systematize its
    performance ratings and turn them into a number, its too big to survive
    much longer.  I've come to the conclusion that nobody on this earth
    knows how to manage well an organization without face to face contact.
    That goes for businesses, colleges, cities, or anything else.  We
    humans only work when we have human contact with each other.
    
    Dick

    I think reviews should be based on graded exams, this is how it is
    done in schools, and worked well for hundreds of years, so why
    re-invent the wheel?

    for example, a software engineer, will , at time of his/her review,
    go to closed room, with a terminal, and a debugger, and asked to
    code a program to solve a certain problem.

    you come and check on them after an allocated period of time, say 3
    hours. the are allowed to bring in only one manual with them, of their 
    choice.

    you take the program they wrote, grade it, and that will be the
    performance they get, the grades should be A,A-,B+,B,B-,C+,C

    for more advanced people, like principle and consultant engineers, the 
    tests will be harder, and they have to write documentations too. and it
    must be closed manuals and closed notes. I think a consultant should pass
    without the help of a manual.

    for managers , we test a manager by putting them in a room, and let a group
    of highly paranoid employee with the manager alone in the room, you
    disconnect telephone lines to the room, and monitor the progress on a 
    close caption screen , monitor how the manager handles the situation , 
    and if they can control the employees in a graceful manner. 
    
    Iam sure we can organized tests the check the compatibilities of
    any type of worker in the corporation. 

    this way of doing it is better, because it is fair, every one gets
    the same test, same time to do it in, and it test the actual skills
    needed to do the job.

    thank you
    /nasser

>    for managers , we test a manager by putting them in a room, and let a group
>    of highly paranoid employee with the manager alone in the room,

nasser,

Where would you possibly find a group of paranoid employees around here?  :^)

Marc

    

>    I think reviews should be based on graded exams, this is how it is
>    done in schools, and worked well for hundreds of years, so why
>    re-invent the wheel?
>
>    for example, a software engineer, will , at time of his/her review,
>    go to closed room, with a terminal, and a debugger, and asked to
>    code a program to solve a certain problem.

This may work in situations where all the answers are known long beforehand
but how do you test someone who's inventing the answers?

>    this way of doing it is better, because it is fair, every one gets
>    the same test, same time to do it in, and it test the actual skills
>    needed to do the job.

...and we wind up just like the post office.

    	re .29 -- tests
    
    	That would force DEC to create another layer of overhead -- the
    	employee testing group.
    
    	-------------
    
    	my group has some of the best review processes I have encountered.
    	After a review, I know what I need to do to get to the next level
    	in ratings, or to get to the next job level.

    Is it the rating system or the process that is the problem?  If you
    knew that your review was made up of input from your peers, your
    customers, your suppliers instead of just your manager, would it make a
    difference??  If you knew where you stood in relation to your peers
    would that make a difference?  If it were a team process instead of 1-1
    would that make a difference? 
     

    
    
    	I think BOTH parts of the process are broken.  The number scheme
    needs to be changed or eliminated, and the input process has to be
    changed.  I don't see any way that we can really increase our
    competitiveness and efficiency without knowing what the strengths and
    weakenesses of our workforce are.  Everything else that we are seeing
    is like watching a blindfolded kid trying to hit the Pinata (sp?) at a
    party, i.e. expense controls, downsizing, etc.  Not that we don't need
    these things also, but they are peripheral to the main problem.

    RE .25
    
    I have to tell you that you are misinformed if you believe that the 4
    rating was eliminated quite some time ago ... I got one in February,
    and for reasons that had nothing to do with my job performance (but
    that's already been covered in another note).
    
    The problem with these ratings is that they are entirely subjective,
    and your manager is the SOLE source for that subjectivity.  Therefore
    two employees who are performing at the same level, but for different
    managers, can end up with entirely different performance ratings.
    
    ... Bob
    

    re: .29
    
>    I think reviews should be based on graded exams, this is how it is
>    done in schools, and worked well for hundreds of years, so why
>    re-invent the wheel?
    
    This process may have been *used* for hundreds of years, but what makes
    you think it works, much less works well?
    

    .25 
    
    Jim:
    
    You spelled it out better than I could.  Our group has implemented
    a practice that at first glance seemed like a good idea, but in
    seeing it practiced, caused me a lot of concern.  Before a team
    member is to have a PA our manager sends out a memo asking for "peer"
    review on the individual to receive the review.  As I said initially
    this seemed like a good idea, (but I thought it would be a better 
    idea if management had some idea as to how individuals were
    performing).  My main concern was about someone who was a good worker, but
    not a people pleaser.  Personalities DO clash and my initial gut re-
    action was "what if someone does a hatchet job on a peer because of
    _name difference of opinion here_.  When I broached this question at
    the time I was told that we shouldn't provide any negative input that
    we weren't willing to share to an individual face-to-face.  <--- Sounds
    great on paper, but it has been my experience most people are unwilling
    to do this, but will definitely write a negative peer review on
    someone.
    
    No one is perfect and some people seem unwilling or unable to cut
    someone else slack or give them credit for good work and accomplish-
    ment......personality conflicts have come into play and this concerns
    me because this is someone's living we're playing with.
    
    My preference would be to NOT have it mandatory to do peer reviews;
    but my PA is impacted if I don't submit one when asked <---- yes, they
    have the secretaries keeping track and checking off.  I'm usually of
    the opinion if you can't say anything good about a person, don't say
    anything at all....so I do a lot of generic "reviews".
    
    It's kind of ironic though, I received a 2 and a promotion with my
    last review, the bucks were terrible because I was already a quarter
    into the salary range for my new level, (probably because of my years
    of service) :-(  A co-worker who had received a 3 on their PA was
    upset at the 3 rating, but then said "oh well, a least a got a pretty
    good raise and named the amount".  I almost fell out of my chair :-(
    
    

    ref .37

    > re: .29

    >>    I think reviews should be based on graded exams, this is how it is
    >>    done in schools, and worked well for hundreds of years, so why
    >>    re-invent the wheel?

     >   This process may have been *used* for hundreds of years, but what
     >   makes you think it works, much less works well?
               
    as the right honorable senator from (I forgot which state the right
    honorable senator was) , he said, "Democracy is not perfect, but it is the 
    best thing we got".

    I heard this in TV not long ago, I thought It was good, It was 
    a program late night, where 3 honorable senators were sitting discussing
    the matter of what is the best system to use.

    /Nasser

>	(In the past, managers have been told that they had too many 2's, 
>	and were forced to change some 2's to 3's in order to make 
>	salary plans work.)  

I was once told I was a 2 in my PA and when the paperbook can back from
personnel, it had a 3 on it... I was told we had too many 2's...

>	Couple this with the latest revelation in performance reviews
>	where an employee is asked to author their version of their
>	review "for comparison with the manager's version".  What really
>	happens with most of the folks I know is that they are asked to
>	forward their copy to the manager, and with varying amounts of
>	wordsmithing, it ends up being the "final" copy.  I don't know
>	where this plan originated, but IMO, it's a joke.  

In 12+ years at DEC, I have had ONE manager write my review. I have written
EVERY other PA and my proposal to become a consultant. Now that I'm in the
field, I save all of the mail messages from salespeople and customers that said
"great job" and attach them to my review :^)

I once didn't have a manager for 9 months and had to ask the IS manager WHO
my supervisor was so they could sign my review in time to make personnel's
deadline. Maybe the lack of a manager explains why my portion of a late project
was the only piece done on time!
Dan "who reads notes after hours or when his private cluster is rebooting"

    Any system that has no mechanism for feedback and continuous
    improvement is bound to be a failure.
    
    I have found the review system to be confrontationalist in the extreme.
    The salary plans are worked out in say November. Ever try to
    redistribute the kitty when everyone performs on a major project the
    following year? Try divvying your 2*1s and 3*2s to a team that performs 6*1
    and the money apportionately the same way, to reward some you have to 
    shaft others..
    
    
    John
    
    
    
    
    
    

    The system was destined to fail at the exact moment some joker
    decided that there had to be a "normal distribution" of 1's, 2's,
    3's, etc., in an organization, regardless of an individual's actual
    performance with respect to their job description.  Subsequently,
    beyond simple failure, it was destined to crash and burn when some
    (other?) joker decided to tie salary increases to the "grading" system
    using a bizarre mechanism that, for example, would permit a "2"
    performer to get a zero-percent raise.
    
    And then, the system became a satire of itself when some (other?)
    joker decided to tie the performance ratings into layoff criteria.
    So, for example, someone who has consistently gotten "2" for years
    and who has been promoted, and, relatively new in their position,
    gets a "3", is now a prime candidate for layoff.
    
    There are several notes throughout this conference where we've
    dissected this absurd system, and most people (including many
    supervisors I've had the misfortune to encounter) still don't
    understand it.
    
    Chris
    

Just an anecdote, albeit a true one:

A friend of mine got a review a few years back from his supervisor.  It was a
1.  When the review got to the next level of management, it was downgraded to
a 2.  Why?  Well, if he was a 1 performer, they'd have to promote him, and he
wasn't in the plan for a promotion that year.

He got both his "1" and his promotion the following year, and knowing both
the person involved and the management chain, I have no reason to disbelieve
this story.

I s'pose there wasn't any long term harm done by this, but it sure doesn't
sound like a working system to me.

    A similar thing happened to me.  After my first year I was reviewed and
    got a straight 2.  ie a 2 in each area discussed.  After my manager
    submitted it she got back to me with some "bad news."  Although the
    rating stood there would not be a raise based on a 2 since it had 
    not been in the plan and it would have to be made up the next year.
    
    By the time the next year rolled around I had a different manager.  
    Someday, when I'm feeling particularly bitter I'll calculate what
    that little end around cost me...
    
    Ken
    

    Been there.....done that.
    
    Sdp
    
    (more times than I care to remember)

   I don't understand the payraise matrix at all anymore.  From '85 to
   '91 I got pathetic raises at long intervals (worked out to less than
   1%/year).  I was a consistent 2 performer during this time (I'm a SWS
   Consultant I).  
   
   This past year I was downgraded from a 2 (per the appraisal
   calculations) to a 3.  I get what I consider a very good raise
   shortly thereafter.
   
   	Note: I happen to know that my previous raises were well below
   	      spend plan and my suspect last raise was slightly above the 
   	      spend plan.
   
   I am not sure how to take this.  My PA sharply critized me, and thus
   causing the downgrade,  as having too much of the "old DEC" in me,
   and being unwilling to conform to the the "new DEC" (I still haven't
   figured out what the new DEC is yet and my boss can't tell me, but I
   don't fit the mold).  But doesn't my payraise indicate I must be
   doing pretty OK?

    
    There is no end to the horror stories in this arena...My personal
    favorite occurred several years ago when I was one of two people
    assigned to provide technical support to a government program that we
    had won.  It was a 3 million dollar program which Digital had bid at a
    $350K loss in order to favorably position the company for future
    business.  We were failing terribly in the delivery and the customer
    was on the verge of holding us in default.  The two of us jumped into
    the program and commuted weekly to D.C. for 4 months.  We found
    solutions to the problems, regained the customer's confidence and they
    booked slightly over $29 million dollars in PROFITABLE business with
    DEC.  The total time on the project was slightly over 8mos which was
    the major portion of my review period.  1 month after I returned from
    the assignment, I was reviewed and rated a 3 with a raise that was 2%
    below the "spend" figure.  My manager's reasoning was that the work I
    had done had taken place in D.C. so he "didn't have much of an
    understanding of anything I had done there" even though HE had made the
    assignment.  It was ludicrous.  I had no expectations of being regarded
    as a hero, but I believed (and still do!) that I had done an excellent
    job for the company, and was proud of that.  None of the letters from
    the customer OR the internal field people were attached or even
    mentioned in the review.
    
    Anyway, maybe of Palmer is serious about being more communicative and
    fixing some of the problems enough of us will bring this up to get some
    visibility????????
    
    Jim 

    re Steve
    
   >and being unwilling to conform to the the "new DEC" (I still haven't
   >figured out what the new DEC is yet and my boss can't tell me, but I
   >don't fit the mold).  
    
    Your boss can tell you, but is afraid to.  New DEC means you lie to
    keep him happy.  :-(  Stay the way you are, at least, I like you better
    this way.  :-)
    
    Dick
    

    ...gee, and I thought it was just me !   I never look forward to review
    time, it hardly seems worth the pain .. but it can really screw your 
    career.
    
    Has anyone been asked to provide input on their manager for their
    review ??  
    
    I never forgot the words of my first manager at DEC during our
    discussion on the merits of my review, "Just remember that its my
    perception that matters, not others"  and this after I had some solid
    thank you letters etc. ..  and he DID have a different perspective.
    Most of the input from my peers, they usually show me anyway and what
    goes in is certainly not what shows up on my review, a few changed
    words can change the entire context.  
    
    Anyway, I'm feeling tired now .. my review is due.

    
    Yeah, after about 9 years with mother DEC I still can't figure out
    reviews.  When I was with sales support in Houston, I had one that 
    lasted 6 hours; (I think he was trying to outlast me 'cause I know
    I was trying to wear him down).  
    The last one was interesting.  It simply didn't happen.  No review
    of goal sheet, no meeting, no signing of anything, no drawing up of
    a new goal sheet.  ZIP.
    
    But a few weeks later I get about a $30/week raise, which is crappy,
    but still a raise.
    
    Go figure.        

    If there are "supposed" to be so many 1's, 2's, 3's etc., does this
    mean that since all the 4's and 5's got TFSO'd, that a 2 and 3 is now
    a 4 or 5?
    
    If we got rid of the dead weight, then there should be no 4's or
    5's....
    
    

    
    RE .25, .36, existence of 4 rating:
    
    You're both right. In the depths of DEC's past, there was a legitimate
    4 rating. Around the same time DEC was becoming Digital, management
    decided that the 4 was just too difficult to deal with, so it went
    away. Within the past two years or so, when management realized that
    3-rated no-ops were more difficult to handle than the 4 rating, it was
    reinstated.
    

    	In my group we are very serious about peer input.  If a co-worker
    	is not pulling his weight, or if I am aware of something that
    	my manager is not aware of (positive or negative), I'm gonna
    	make it known to management.
    
    	Mincing words on PA inputs is a disservice to my group, to the
    	peer, to me, to DEC.  In my group the person getting his PA
    	selects two peers to provide input.  The manager selects two
    	others, and unsolicited PA input is also welcome.  If management
    	always got minced words, there would be no value in peer PA
    	inputs.  As it stands, if I give a glowing input on a peer, my
    	management can count on it being accurate because they have seen
    	tougher PA inputs from me too.  (A positive comment on peer inputs
    	for me was my candor.)
    
    	In some ways peer input is more important to me than what my 
    	manager sees.  Peers are the ones I have to work with.  Peers
    	are my barometer to my performance.  I want to know what my
    	peers think about me.  I want to know how they view my performance.
    	I want to be able to straighten out problems before they fester 
    	into tragedies.  I don't want minced words on peer inputs for
    	me.
    
    	Peer input is only one part of PAs in my group.  Self-evaluations,
    	customer letters, management statistics, attainment of job plan
    	goals,  all these carry weight.
    	
    	I like the PA process in my group.  It relies on more than just
    	your manager's impression of you.  There is plenty of supporting
    	data if you are a top performer, and a lesser performer cannot
    	hide behind BS at review time.

>    	Mincing words on PA inputs is a disservice to my group, to the
>    	peer, to me, to DEC.

....the customer

	After I'd been at DEC for a few months, my first manager took me 
	out to lunch one day (I really didn't see her very much other-
	wise).  We went to a nice restaurant, talked about Scrabble, the 
	house she and her husband were building, A Prairie Home Companion,
	and she picked up the check.  Later, she informed me that that
	had been my first PA.  It was a nice lunch, but ...

	Another boss once told me outright that if I wanted to be a "1"
	I had to be a workaholic.  No, it didn't matter that I might
	get the same amount of work done in 40 hours as the workaholic
	might do in 60 -- the workaholic just had to be rewarded somehow.

		-- C

    This emphasis on 1s and 2s is, I think, an American phenomenon.  In my
    previous group only one person was rated a 2, and everybody else a 3. 
    You'll just have to take my word for it that as a group we were of high
    quality.
    
    Is there a conflict here?  No.  We simply operated under a different
    set of assumptions.  A 1 really boiled down to a management failure. 
    If you're really that far ahead of your job requirements then you
    simply shouldn't be at that level.  A 2 meant you were ready for
    promotion.  There was no shame in a 3, and there could legitimately be
    4s (for someone in a new job, for example.  A 4 simply means needs
    development to meet requirements).

    .56 Here, here! Someone that agrees with me!  The real logical
    solution.
    
    Reg.

    Joe:
    
    I admire your openness in saying you won't mince words on a peer
    review, but do you also spell it out to the individual being
    reviewed face to face?
    
    When peer review was implemented for our team it was stressed that
    one was not to put negative info into a review if we were not willing
    to face the co-worker directly also.  I tried this a few times at
    first; basically I was told to take a hike, mind my own business....
    whatever.  A few other co-workers who were less tactful than I, found
    themselves in verbal shouting matches....this is not professional
    behavior IMHO.  This has happened more than once and working rela-
    tionships have deteriorated.  When the "chop-ees" asked to see the
    peer review (when informed there was negative input from their peers);
    they were not allowed to see who wrote what.
    
    I think peer input is a definite plus in the technical area; but an
    assumption is being made that *all* people have the ability to be ob-
    jective, this hasn't proven to be the case.  As I said, I'm aware
    of some real hatchet jobs that have been done on one peer by another
    based simply on personality conflicts, I'm sorry, I have a problem
    with this.....especially if the person getting chopped up is a very
    competent worker.  When I say I became aware of the situation, it
    wasn't from the person who got nailed, it was from someone who 
    basically said "here's my chance to nail the SOB".
    
    I still think there needs to be more management involvement in day
    to day business, then there wouldn't be as great a need for someone
    (sometimes self-appointed) to point out the errors of others. MBWA
    does have merit, as long as the manager doesn't spend the entire day
    walking around :-)
    
    
                       
    

    
    Peer input to a review is a wonderful idea.
    
    Expecting peers to justify their input face-to-face with the reviewee
    is an example of management wussing on their responsibilities.
    
    I'm a manager, doing a review on Bob. I ask Mary for input, and she
    says Bob lets some things fall through the cracks. I ask for
    examples, verify them, and then during the review I say, "Bob, you
    tend to let some things fall through the cracks; for example..." There
    is no need to involve Mary; having accepted her input and verified it
    independently, I am taking responsibility for the review. I am doing
    the "management thing".
    
    Now do it the other way. During the review I say, "Bob, you tend to let
    some things fall through the cracks." Like what?" "Well, Mary says..."
    The review then degrades into a shouting match between the two, while
    I sit back and wait for the dust to settle. In effect, I have placed the
    responsibility for at least part of the review on Mary's shoulders. The
    logical extension of this process is that I construct a review entirely
    of peer input; I can then shrug and say "Hey, these aren't *my*
    opinions!"
    

    	While it is not a policy in our group, it is a standard practice 
    	to copy the peer on the input I send to the manager.  I always
    	do it.
    
    	When I point out a negative situation, I also make a point to 
    	point out a positive way to correct it, and suggest (in the
    	PA input) that the peer incorporate that change into his/her 
    	job plan for the next year.  This changes the negative report
    	into something positive to work on, and draws the focus from
    	the negative behavior to future plans for improvement.
    
    	Perhaps what I do really *IS* mincing words, though I don't
    	see it that way.  I want the people I'm going to be working 
    	with to be the best they can be so that when I need their 
    	support on a project/problem I can count on quality assistance.
    	In pointing out problems and possible corrections (most times
    	the correction is a suggestion of what *I* would have done
    	differently in the same situation) I help to build a stronger
    	team around me.  I ask nothing less of others doing peer
    	inputs on me.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    RE:  Peer review ...
    
    Whenever I'm asked to provide input on a colleague's preformance, I
    send the draft to him/her before I send it to the manager.  Maybe I've
    been working with some very good people, but no one's ever had a
    problem with what I wrote,  Once he/she lets me know it's OK to send it
    on, I do.
    
    -- Kenny House (who realizes he's been very fortunate to have worked
                    with these people)

    This is an interesting note to follow.  Interesting in that I was just
    watching (last week) an interview with Dr. Demming, including his
    comments on grading people.  He felt it was the wrong thing to do.  He
    said it labels people as winners/losers and that is wrong.  He said w/l
    should only be realized when you're playing cards, or backgammon, etc. 
    He said the entire school grading system is wrong.  He said (I hope I
    get this correct) "grading people doesn't get you quality people".  If
    you paid those people 50 times their salary, you'd still get the same
    quality of work from them.
    
    Geez, I wish we'd listened to this man when he was younger before he
    went to Japan.  There were lots of other good comments he made as well.
    
    Anyhow, back to your regularly scheduled program...

    
    	I watched that interview as well...interesting guy this Demming
    dude..yeah I know, he's a Dr.
    
    	Wish alot of people would listen to him...like DEC!
    
    B.A.

    well, I dont think Grading people is the best thing either, but
    how else do you suggest to reward? 

    example, in school, you do a test, grade it. a test is one of best 
    indication available to give you an idea about ability of the 'worker'.

    plus, if there are no tests and grades there will be little motivation
    to work hard. 

    I personaly love tests and being graded (Iam weried), but a test and 
    a grade is a challenge, and getting a good grade is the reward.
    
    so, if no grades, what is the alternative?
    /Nasser

    

    Well, Nasser as you know, school and DEC can be quite different
    regardless how much it may seem like kindergarten at times.  And as
    long as we have Humans giving out the rewards (money) and the grades
    (reviews), they're gonna screw it up.  Not all, but I don't know many
    people who have been happy with their raise in quite a while.  I'd
    suggest for a manufacturing environment, that groups get rewarded on an
    equal basis, i.e. the group does well and everybody gets the same/good
    percentage.  I think this is the best way to promote the teamwork
    neccessary in this type of environment.  And believe me, when we're all
    getting the same raise, peer pressure has a way smoothing out some of
    the proverbial wrinkles.  Now outside of manufacturing, your guess is
    as good as mine....
    
    Sdp 
                           

	re .60,.61:

	For the reviewer to copy the peer with criticism sent to the manager
	is one thing.

	For the manager to reveal the identity of the reviewer is quite another.

	/Tom

    I'm inclined to agree with Demming;  I suspect that the entire
    performance appraisal system has minimal impact on people's
    productivity.  Maybe the opposite is true;  the mere existence of it
    holds people back for fear of reprisal and therefore we are robbed of
    the ideas that could actually improve things.  I've often wondered how
    many people are positively motivated by the prospect of a good PA once
    or twice a year.

We were having a talk about Deming this very morning - and it broke when I
had to answer a phone call from Israel. Deming seems to be against financial
metrics on people too.

So, does your favourite Japanese company not discharge its budget
responsibilities down the line? How do they ensure that they have a competent
and well executing salesforce?
								- Ian W.

    RE:  .64
    
    Is grading a test in school evaluating a person, or evaluating a
    person's results?  With a True or False, or a multiple choice type test
    it is easy for anyone to evaluate the results.  An essay exam is not so
    easy.  DEC's employee evaluation system is an essay exam with no right
    or wrong answer.  For example; how does one quantify the difference
    between someone who "Sometimes" exceeds job requirements, and someone
    who exceeds job requirements "Most" most the time.
    
    
    Dave

    You don't fatten a sheep by weighing it.
    
    John H.

       <<< Note 2022.70 by STUDIO::HAMER "ain't no luck, I learned to duck">>>
                             -< Testing improves nothing >-
    >    You don't fatten a sheep by weighing it.
    but if you dont weight it you dont how fat is it?
    

	Re: .64

	
>>    plus, if there are no tests and grades there will be little motivation
>>    to work hard. 

	I  disagree with this. Just look at the pay system we have in place
	now. Is this really pay for performance? The difference between a 
	good performer and a poor performer is a matter of a few percent.
	Do you really believe this motivates hard work? At DEC, the people
	who work hard are motivated by achievement, pride in their work and
	respect of their peers. 

	The pay system should reflect the goals and strategies of the company.
	If you want stellar individual performance, then that is what you
	reward. If you want to benefit from teamwork, then teamwork is what 
	you should reward.

	To answer your question "how else do you suggest to reward?", one
	answer is to reward a team's accomplishment. For this to be effective
	though, the team must really have control over it's work. Pay could
	also be linked to the performance of the company. 

	While I don't believe the current grading system is effective,
	(Count the number of managers you know who treat it as a chore, 
	rather than a serious part of managing), performance appraisal
	can be very useful. However, it should be a continuous, educational 
	process involving your peers, not a point grade associated with a
	raise.
	
	Marty

    If a manager could determine at interview time that the prospective
    employee is "achievement driven", then he could avoid hiring anyone who
    isn't.  That would make his later task of evaluation easier.  But, by
    doing a poor job of interviewing, he condemns himself to a worse job of
    performance evaluation.
    
    In particular, he should avoid hiring anyone who thinks tests and
    grades are all that motivate people to work hard.  :-)  (just kidding)
    
    Dick

Re: .72

>	The pay system should reflect the goals and strategies of the company.

Ah! And therein lies the problem. Please ask any two people to recite the
goals or strategies of the company!
								- Ian W.

    re .74
    
>Ah! And therein lies the problem. Please ask any two people to recite the
>goals or strategies of the company!
    
    Which company?  The European Digital, Manufacturing Digital, Sales
    Digital, Engineering Digital, Finance Digital, IM&T Digital, ...
    
    Every department seems to think its a law unto itself.   :-(
    
    That's why KO couldn't pull it together, too many organizations thought
    THEY were Digital.
    
    Sadly,
    
    Dick
    

    
.74> Ah! And therein lies the problem. Please ask any two people to recite the
.74> goals or strategies of the company!
    
    And to square the hypotenuse of the problem, ask any two people to
    explain the salary review system.
    
    Side note: The top priority in salary reviews last year was "equity".
    Those who were high in their range because of previous stretches of
    good performance may have taken a hit this past year so that others
    could catch up. Think about it.
    

	Measurement is not a good motivator - I agree that it acts the
	other way, to demotivate. Especially since, as often pointed out,
	it is not done well.

	However, measurement has a vital role to play - simply in giving
	feedback. Imagine reading one of those "programmed texts" or
	following a computer-based instruction course. You read some
	material, do some tests to evaluate your comprehension. Depending
	on whether you get the tests right or wrong, the system then
	either moves you on to the next material to be learned, or takes
	you through a remedial section which teaches you the material
	on which you couldn't answer the questions, but slower, one
	step at a time. Eventually you get it right, and you move on.

	Feedback loops are a fact of life. Why shouldn't they exist in
	business? But it is a cardinal rule that individuals should not
	be judged, praised and condemned, still less rewarded or punished
	on the basis of such measurements. The results are counterproductive.

	/Tom

    Okay, we're gathering some really good ideas here and sound
    input/problems with the current system.  What do we do to fix it? Who
    will listen?
    
    I for one find that the review process is way too tedious and time
    consuming.  My supervisor (if he wants it) requests input from my peers
    and/or customers either of whom I've worked closely with over the
    course of the year.  That's good, that's what should be done.  Now my
    supervisor hjas to take all this input, my own version of my review and
    his comments and state tabulating/documenting the results.
    
    This turns into an approx 6 page book (sometimes more) that has gone
    through numerous revisions because before it could be shown to the
    employee (me), my manager and personnel (and who ever else wants to be in
    the review process) has to review it to make sure it's pc and non
    offensive and non defamatory and eventually end up adding their own
    comments which take away from my reviewer's comment who actually has
    the 1 on 1 contact with me.
    
    Now we have to schedule a conference room for 4 hours because that's
    about how long it takes to read the review, interpret it and discuss it
    and find out where I am supposed to go from here. 
    
    just like the length of this reply, why does so much emphasis have to
    be placed on explaining/justifying the rating one gets?  We have pay
    scales yet everyone still appears to complain that they aren't paid
    fairly.  Why not cut to the chase and "grade" people numerically so
    that once it's all calculated and averaged out, one knows where they
    stand numerically and this number dictates how much they will be
    rewarded?
    
    Soemthing like this:
    (for and example, albeit a simple one, but one that can be used for all
    portions of the review)
                                         _____  _____  _____  _____  _____
    HOUSEKEEPING:                        | 1 |  | 2 |  | 3 |  | 4 |  | 5 |    
                                         |---|  |---|  |---|  |---|  |---|
                                                MARK APPROPRIATE BOX
    
         COMMENTS:  blah-blah-blah for no more than 3 lines
                   ________________________________________________________
    _______________________________________________________________________
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Too impersonal?  Maybe a little, but at least there's little room for
    double speak jibberish (is that an example?).  The math would not lie
    and all (employee, supervisor/manager, personnel) would know where one
    stands and what needs to be done to improve.  One feels there needs to
    be more justification?  type it up and add it to the employee file so
    it's on record.
    
    MPO,
    Reg.

    
    Re .78:
    
    Excellent try, but it will never work.
    
    If you make the process that objective, your overall rating would have
    to match the sum of your accomplishments to date, as listed on the
    review. However, we all know that your overall rating was actually
    determined by guesswork, up to eleven months prior to your review.
    There has to be a lot of subjectivity in the review process so that
    the outcome can match that guess.
    

    I missed the smiley face, but I assume that was light hearted intended.
    
    Just another one of my points:  where is the boss?  shouldn't the boss
    be more visible and informed of what you're doing?  We have to fill out
    very extensive labor tickets and then weekly status reports and then a
    major monthly consolidation.  All that personal input along with what
    everyone says about others in their weeklies and monthlies as well as
    requested input from others/customersand end of work/project documentation 
    on completion of task as well as weekly staff calls and daily
    visits/talks about the work load should be more than enough for any
    supervisor/manager to make an objective analysis or one's year in
    review process and "grade" them accordingly.
    
    (phew! what a runon!  no anger at anyone, just still questioning why
    the system doesn't work and we still need to further bog it down with
    glorified rhetoric.  Our process isn't just redundant, it's so invloved
    it's lost which requires the lengthy review process)
    
    Reg.

    The whole business of systematically rating employees and deciding
    bureaucratically what raise (if any) to give them, whether to keep them
    on the payroll, or give them a promotion etc, demonstrates how little
    Digital trusts the judgement of its managers.  Maybe that lack of
    trust is justified, but the rules show that managers are probably more
    seriously mistrusted than any other class of employee.  If you trust a
    manager, you don't make rules for him/her, you let them do the job they
    were hired for.
    
    imho,
    
    Dick

The lack of trust in .81 is the reason why an ex-coworker, a "2" performer, went
for two years before seeing any such reward.  Why?

Well, the "plan" was done just before he was hired into the company.  Since he
was unknown, 'cause, well, they didn't know him when they did the plan, they
planned for a "3" performer.  When a year went by and his review came up, he
got the planned review.  It wasn't until later that he got his due.

I don't know whether to blame that on the manager or the system, or both for
supporting each other.

    re .82 - You blame the manager!!!  They is a very simple process in
    place to change the amount of money being given someone at review time
    and the rating isn't even checked!  ANY manager can fill out the form
    and in fact this year we were told that we could hold back money at the
    COST CENTER level for just such unplanned activity.  I get very tired
    of managers blaming the "system" instead of fighting for what's right!

    
    re .83:
    
    I can't agree completely with your header -- any system that preaches
    pay for performance and then dictates that 20% of the people will not
    get salary adjustments in any give year has at least one basic conceptual
    flaw.
    
    However, thanks much for the information on CC reserviors for unplanned
    adjustments. Data like that helps people know what the system is
    supposed to do, which is a basic prerequisite for determining when, and
    at what level, it's not working.
    
    I believe that much of the frustration expressed with the system stems
    from the fact that for individual contributors it is so shrouded in
    secrecy. For example:
    
    o  It is a fact that raises and promotions for the entire following year
       are decided each November; why is that not widely understood?
    
    o  If there is a slush fund for unplanned salary adjustments, why is that
       not known?
    
    o  If the date of your next review was determined last November, why were
       you not told then, rather than waiting and sweating for a few months
       after you though it should be due, wondering what was going on?
    
    o  Many factors were allegedly considered in your planned salary
       adjustment; why are these factors not explained to you when
       you receive that adjustment, rather than handing you a letter and
       leaving you to try to determine, with virtually no data, whether the
       adjustment was appropriate?
    

    re: .82/.83
    
    From my perspective, .82 does have it right.  November is only a "plan"
    and exceptions can be made at any time throughout the year.  When
    managers blame "the system", what they are saying is they are too lazy
    to fit for an exception to the plan.  Holdouts, though, in the plan,
    are not supposed to happen, but they do in most cost centers I have
    worked in.  Otherwise, you need to take money from someone else that is
    scheduled for a raise later.  It comes down to the fact that you have a
    pot of money to work with and in most cases, that is all you will get. 
    There have been cases, though, where if you provide adequate
    justification, you can get more money from your Area of maney that
    might have been held over.
    
    In any case, the compensation system is less than perfect, but it
    carries far too much of the blame for employee salary issues. A manager
    CAN work within the system to insure an employee is properly
    compensated for the job they do.  

    re: .85 "fit" should say "Fight".  I gotta start proof reading this
    stuff ... sorry.

    After reading these replies I have to wonder if I'm working for the
    same company as some of y'all.  In what used to be ESDP, which was
    recently DCD until it merged with CUIP to become IDC, we have always 
    been told that there was no relationship between salary reviews
    and performance reviews, that the former was based on where in the
    salary range you were, and was accounted for in the annual salary plan,
    while the latter was determined by your job performance (and your
    ability to be PC).  Salary increases and performance reviews were not
    even given to the employee at the same time ... theoretically we were
    supposed to be given performance reviews annually, while a salary
    increase could happen anywhere between 12 and 24 months (longer if you
    were a questionable performer).  In practice, I know some people who
    went three or more years without a pay raise.  Now that we've
    "reorganized", I have no idea what the "policy" is ... I suspect no one
    else does either.
    
    Like most other things at Digital, there is no bona fide corporate 
    policy on this subject, and in reality it's left up to your managers to 
    do it however they see fit.  If you have a fair minded manager, or one
    who sees his people as something other than "resources", you get
    equitable treatment, both with your performance assessment and your
    salary planning.  If you have a manager who's primarily interested in
    what the bottom line on his cost center spreadsheet looks like, you
    probably won't.  IMO - most of Digital's troubles stem from this little
    bit of corporate culture.  We're like a team of horses all trying to pull
    the cart in different directions ... too little progress is made for the
    effort, and if we're not careful we're going to tear the cart apart.
    
    ... Bob
    

    re .84 - the process I was talking about did not include the philosophy
    only the mechanics.
    
    I have been a manager at DEC for many years.  I have always discussed
    as much salary plan information as I could, I have held meetings with
    my staff on what the process is.  This last salary planning pass, we
    experimented with the team doing a great deal of the planning. 
    
    Interestingly enough, no-one wanted to know what anyone else's salary
    was, which made the exercise much more difficult, but everyone could
    have known if they wanted to.  We did joint ratings, and used
    percentages rather than dollar numbers.  I made VERY FEW changes to
    what the group worked out.
    
    I will say again - managers can have very broad latitutde - but it's
    work to not follow the "guidelines"/rules/whatever. 
                              

    So in response to my own .65, what do you all think about an across the
    board raise given say once a year or whatever interval business needs
    dictate?  I think it would do wonders to increase our ability to work
    together.  
         I know I would be a much happier employee had I received a raise 
    at regular intervals rather than the 5 raises I've gotten in 8 years 
    with only one review being less than a 2 performer.  Not to even mention  
    that one of them was because of a promotion and two of them were not 
    worth getting!  
    
    Scott

    That doesn't sound quite so unreasonable, however I think I would make
    it across the board w/?% p/rating.  Meaning all 1's = x%, 2's = y%, 3's
    = z%; 4's + 5's = 0%.
    
    And, like someone else said performance rev's and salary adj's don't
    neccesarily need be given at the same time, but the pay increase should
    reflect what you were rated- not where you are in your pay range.
    
    1's should recieve faster succession thru the ranges/levels than 2's;
    2's faster than 3's; 4's would have to make a change in rating to go
    anywhere and repetitve 5's would go.
    
    BTW: my supervisor and manager(s) are doing a wonderful job; we may
    have our disagreements at times, but these are some of the DEC upper
    echelon that others could take a lesson from.
    
    Reg.

The problem is that managers have a salary pool and they have to divvy it up
more or less equitably.  They can't necessarily relate it to your PA.  It's
just as unfair to give a 1 the x% increase if it takes too much out of the pool
so you can't give the 2s and 3s their y% and z% increases as well, as it is to
deny the 1 the percentage they're supposedly due.

    re: .87
    
    > we have always
    > been told that there was no relationship between salary reviews
    > and performance reviews, that the former was based on where in the
    > salary range you were, and was accounted for in the annual salary
    > plan, while the latter was determined by your job performance (and your
    > ability to be PC).  Salary increases and performance reviews were
    > not even given to the employee at the same time .
    
    
    Section 3.03 of the Orange Book
    
    Job performance is assessed at least once per year.  Because job
    performance plays a key role in a salary review, a performance
    review needs to occur before the salary review.
    
    ----
    
    Granted, they are not the same, but it only makes sense that the
    performance review should precede a salary review.  Therefore, they are
    related.
    
    tgc

    
.91>  They can't necessarily relate it to your PA.
    
    Can you establish a relationship between your statement and DEC's much
    touted "pay for performance"?
    

    re .93
    
>    Can you establish a relationship between your statement and DEC's much
>    touted "pay for performance"?
    
    No, because 'pay for performance' is crap and everybody knows it.

    
    Re: .94
    
    W. Edwards Deming would agree with you.  One of his 14 points is
    that pay for performance eventually brings about the opposite of
    what its intention is.
    
    Steve
    

.95>      W. Edwards Deming would agree with you.  One of his 14 points is
.95>      that pay for performance eventually brings about the opposite of
.95>      what its intention is.


So would Peter M. Senge.  His first "law of the fifth discipline":

      Today's problems come from yesterday's "solutions".

    so, what's the alternative? In every organization I've belonged
    to there have been 'the drivers' who have a glimpse of the big
    picture and struggle to drag the organization forward, and there
    have been the people who know how to generate reports nobody needs
    anymore but they keep doing it because that's what their job plan
    says that's what they're supposed to be doing. And often the 
    difference in pay level is a few percent, certainly no more than
    10%. You can't pay everybody the same. It destroys initiative.
    Look at the ex-Soviet Union. 

    re .97
    
    Let's take this as a case, assuming there are two persons working in
    the same job classification for the same manager, who have the
    following characteristics:
    
    a) Technically gung-ho and business-wise, self-promoter, a "reacher"
    who sometimes causes some snafus by his eagerness to embrace change,
    has recently designed a program that will make this department 20% more
    productive.
    
    b) Emininently reliable and predictable, knows his limits and doesn't
    try to exceed them.  Never causes a problem, but his work is being
    replaced by the new automated system that a) is designing.
    
    
    Each of these persons is valuable in his own way.  Each has some
    liabilities which the manager must deal with.  The manager is faced
    with three kinds of decisions.
    
    1) Only x$ of money in the budget for raises.  How to divide it between
    a) and b)?
    
    2) Manager is promoted, is asked to recommend one of the two as his
    replacement.  Which one?
    
    3) One employee must be terminated to comply with tops-down headcount
    constraints.  Which?
    
    If you think these questions are tough, you've never been a manager. 
    These are the *easy* ones.
    
    Dick

    
    Re: .97
    
    > Deming is an academician; reality ain't that way.
    
    I doubt the Japanese would agree with you nor would Ford Motor,
    Xerox, or Nashua Corporation to name a few.  Deming has a very long
    list of corporate clients whom he has helped and whom all agree
    that his advice has helped them turn around.  He has more hands
    on experience helping corporations turn around than you and me
    will ever have combined.
    
    Second - reality is that he's right.  The people who generate reports
    etc. are often very capable of being top performers.  The problem
    is not with them, but with an organization that is paying them
    to do work which produces no benefit.  More often than not such
    workers would gladly do something more useful but the resistance
    to change in the organization prevents it.  Witness the many cases
    where companies have instituted suggestion programs and they failed
    because the many employees who willingly and enthusiastically suggested
    changes saw that it went nowhere.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

There's some excellent backup to this discussion in "Deming Management at
Work" by Mary Walton, ISBN 1-85251-120-6. Chapter 8 is all about "Doing
without performance appraisals". Selected quotes from this chapter include:

"A statistical study of the old system showed that 75% of the 1600 people it
 covered were in the top two categories ... the task force concluded that
 without a forced distribution, ratings systems would always become top
 heavy over time".

"The Navy consultants found that supervisors sometimes avoided low ratings
 because they required documentation. Moreover, giving a high rating was one
 way of promoting a poor performer out of their jurisdiction".

"Rather than performance appraisals ... a company could base employees pay on
 market rate, seniority and the company prosperity. He once had skills and
 responsibility on the list, but later concluded that they figured into
 market rate and besides, could create measurement problems".

"But surely, people always wanted to know, in the interest of fairness there
 had to be some way to reward overachievers or to encourage underachievers,
 Deming readily admitted there were such people. If performance were viewed
 as a control chart, the work of most people would be within the upper and
 lower limits within the system ... Dr Deming suggested if s/he is outside
 the limit of variation on the good side, there is rational basis to predict
 that s/he will perform well in the future; s/he deserves recognition (but
 it didn't necessarily have to take the form of money".

"Merit rating rewards people that do well in the system. It doesn't reward
 attempts to improve the system. It discouraged risk taking and innovation.
 Employees tended to play it safe".

Excellent bedtime reading!
								- Ian W.

There's also a quote from a GM manager that says that 80% of people always
think they're in the top 30% of the performance range. They termed this the
80/30 rule.

Another rule is the 85/15 rule; an individual can only make 15% of the
difference through personal effort; the other 85% relates to characteristics
of the "system" in which they operate. A lot of the JP&R metrics I see
encourage "lone ranger" types; we should spend more time focussed on the
team effort.
								- Ian W.

    re .100
    
    >Moreover, giving a high rating was one way of promoting a poor
    >performer out of their jurisdiction".
    
    I've often wondered what percent of the people giving ratings, whether
    in school or in business, really understood the system.
    
    I advocate flunking the best students so you have the pleasure of their
    participation in class and promoting the worst by the mid-term exam. 
    The same goes for employees, never give an exceptionally good
    evalutation to a good worker, save it for the bum you want to pawn off
    on somebody else.  I also assume that this methodology has been used by
    most of my managers.  What else would explain my mediochre ratings?
    
    Dick
    

    re: .102
    
    Sounds like an excellent example of the Peter Principle.
    
    Jim C.
    

Re: .95
    
>    W. Edwards Deming would agree with you.  One of his 14 points is
>    that pay for performance eventually brings about the opposite of
>    what its intention is.
    
This is so counter-intuitive that I refuse to believe it without overwhelming
proof.

Say there are two companies, A and B.  For a given job (software engineer,
say) A pays its top performers 30% more than its bottom performers.  B pays
the same to all its software engineers regardless of their performance.  The
average pay is the same at the two companies.  Won't the top performers leave
B and work for A, and won't the bottom performers leave A and work for B?

				-- Bob

    re: 104
    
    I agree with you Bob, from personal experience.
    
    At a former employer, our department could receive, on a quarterly
    basis, up to a 10% incentive of our quarterly salary if we met certain
    criteria as set up by our Senior Managers.  Our direct manager had 20%
    incentives and our Area Controllers (DEC DM's) had a 30% incentive. 
    All of our goalsheets were exactly the same, just the amount of
    incentive was different.  As we would enter the third month of each
    quarter, there was ALOT of emphasis, from the controller down, to make
    sure we were doing everything to meet our incentives.  
    
    Personally, my wife and I planned several vacations or special
    purchases to coincide when we would receive our incentive check.  This
    was a DEFINITE motivator for me personally and professionally plus our
    goalsheets as set by Senior Management did not conflict with the
    metrics of another internal organization.
    
    By the way, I was affected by a downsizing and did not relo to their
    main office out of town.  I came to DEC from there with my severance. 
    Second guessing, I should have relo'd.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Ron
    

    re .104
    
>This is so counter-intuitive that I refuse to believe it without overwhelming
>proof.
    
    That's probably because you are only looking at the direct affects. 
    Most systems start to break down when they create undesirable secondary
    behavior that eventually overwhelms the intended behavior.
    
    The recent Sears automotible repair scandal is an excellent example of
    an unintended side affect of a reward/punishment system.
    
    "Pay for performance" is a bit tricky, and can have some bad side
    affects.  For instance, it sometimes appears in practice to work as
    "pay for visability" instead of actual results.  There's little reward
    for being an unsung hero, so there's a bias towards going for lots of
    small, highly visable projects that are obviously technically
    challenging.  Few people get to be heroes for maintenance and
    incremental improvement, or for being a valuable but quiet contributor
    to a large effort.
    
    In the worst case, the system creates a bias towards creating
    unnecessary projects and results in products whose functionality
    overlaps, splits and confuses the market.  At the same time, it
    shortchanges the steady, long-term efforts needed to improve the
    existing products.  (Sound familiar to anyone???)
    
    /Butch
    
    

    I think some of the problem revolves around the quality of the
    manager(s) making rating decisions.  I think a manager who is truly a
    "1" performer will make it his/her business to know who is deserving of
    rewards/increases/kudos/etc.  The problem comes when a manager who
    actually is a "4" performer trying to rate an employee who is in
    reality a "1" performer.  The "4" manager actually thinks he is a "1"
    or a "2" and really doesn't comprehend why this employee isn't more
    like s/he is.  The answer is just to hire and keep the top 10% of the
    average population, then even the poorest performer is likely to be
    better than any competition! (I don't know how you do this though)
    
    DAR

The skill of the manager certainly enters into it.  But that's far from all;
only a superman could continue over the long run to reward performance that
was best for customers and the company if that performance is not what the
manager's manager likes to see.

As .106 correctly observes, it's the systemic effects, not the direct effects,
which eventually dominate.  That's what Deming and Senge are talking about.

CALLING the written policy "Pay for Performance" in no way indicates what the
actual process ends up delivering.  Not globally (the good of customers/the
company).  Not even locally (witness the orthogonality between "performance
appraisal" and the way salary planning is actually done).  

Come to think of it, can anyone come up with other examples of policies whose
names and actual effects are unrelated, or perhaps even contradictory?

    re: .108 and the threads leading thereto...
    
    **ALL** organizations are a reflection down of their leader(s), hence
    the problem of secondary behaviour.
    
    Under the Watson's, IBM was a reflection of evangelists.  (Had
    technology not been the religion for these men, something else would
    have taken it's place.)  Currently, under those who 'grew up' under the
    Watsons, it is a reflection of insecurity, self-doubt and a lack of
    vision and purpose.
    
    Digital, on the other hand, reflects:
       a) on the positive side: 
            - a desire for technical excellence
            - a love of the product
            - the yen for toys;
       b) on the negative side:
            - technical arrogance
            - a belief that selling (or any kind of commerce) is somehow dirty
            - the desire to play alone or in a close-knit clique
            - fear (and mistrust) of strangers
    
    There are more characteristics to both organizations, and the persons or
    group of persons in charge, but the concept follows through.  This is
    why, at this juncture, Digital resembles a hot-air balloon with no more
    propane (slowly sinking, with the pilot throwing people out instead of 
    ordering more fuel) and IBM is akin to the Hindenburg (don't get
    caught underneath!).
    

    >  - technical arrogance
    I heard this phrase on more than one occasion , but is it really
    true?

    I, for one, not like that, and many of the Engineers around here , if
    not all of them, are kind, modest, gentle, open minded, reflective
    on new ideas and conceptions, and quite considerate too..

    so, where does this precipitation come from? I say It is an illusion,
    and it is not true.

    /Nasser
    I spell checked

>    so, where does this precipitation come from?

Like all precipitation, it comes from above.

    Re: .110
    
    Put simply, IBM has marketing arrogance:  They make crap and believe
    they can sell it.
    
    Digital has Engineering (Technical) arrogance:  They make good stuff
    and believe people will put up with crap to buy it.
    
    The moral (if any)  Noone will come to your door, no matter how good
                        your mouse trap UNLESS they know you have it.
    
    
    Don
    (I can not spell check - I don't even know how to copy things from the
    top half of the notes screen.  I am amused that people think you're
    rude because you are not a perfect typist.  How very rustic of them.)
    

>>    so, where does this precipitation come from?
>
> Like all precipitation, it comes from above.

	And falleth like the gentle rain from heaven, no?

    re: technical arrogance
    
    As someone new to Digital I see a strong assumption that the way
    Digital does things is the best in the industry.  In some ways (e.g.
    the e-mail system) it probably is.  In others I don't think it is.
    Where technical arrogance comes in is that no one seems to want to look
    outside to see what can be learnt from the rest of the industry.  I
    don't see how we can make the cost savings we need to in Engineering
    unless we fix this.
    
    	Anthony
    
    N.B. I have seen a degree of this attitude everywhere I have ever
    worked; but it is stronger in Digital than in most.

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2640             Thursday 13-Aug-1992            Circulation :  7835 

VNS COMPUTER NEWS:                            [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
==================                            [Nashua, NH, USA                 ]

 Digital - Bob Palmer discusses computer industry trends, investment strategy,
	management principles and pay for performance
	{Livewire, Worldwide News, 12-Aug-92}
   Addressing the U.S. Field, President- and CEO-Elect Bob Palmer talked about 
 computer industry trends, changes to expect inside Digital, and his management
 philosophy, including the importance of pay for performance and metrics that
 motivate teamwork and customer satisfaction. The following article summarizes
 his remarks in that August 11 Digital Video Network (DVN) broadcast. 

[text removed]

   Pay for Performance
   "I would like to be able to identify the real contributors and ensure that 
 there are adequate reward and compensation systems to recognize those people
 who are really carrying the enterprise. That means we have to revise our 
 performance review system to ensure that all employees -- of whatever 
 background or diversity -- have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their 
 skills and be compensated for those skills. At the same time, we need to keep
 investing in those skills, which is how we'll maintain the vitality of this
 enterprise.
   "Incentive compensation will begin with the U.S. sales force and gradually 
 spread to other groups as we become sufficiently knowledgeable about how to 
 implement it. We expect to be able to introduce this program starting in 
 January. We have not yet worked out all of the details, but the objective is
 to have metrics and rewards that encourage the delight of our customers.  
   "We have to make it in everybody's best interest for the customer to be 
 satisfied -- for the equipment and the solution to be installed and operated
 as the customer intended and on time. By changing our metrics, we can cause
 the right behavior -- teamwork and customer satisfaction.
   "As we make these changes, we will undoubtedly make mistakes. Physicists 
 talk about the 'law of unintended consequences.' You introduce a change, and
 it leads to behavior that you hadn't anticipated. As we move ahead, if you see
 behavior that is not consistent with the value systems of this company, make
 sure your management listens to your examples of how the metrics are not in
 sync with our intentions; and we will change them. With your help, we will
 eventually craft a system and an environment that everyone feels is optimum."  

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
        Please send subscription and backissue requests to CASEE::VNS

    Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
    provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
    VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2640    Thursday 13-Aug-1992   <><><><><><><><>