Conference 7.286::digital

    	I can also confirm that bonuses, albeit much smaller than what you
    mentioned, filtered down to low-level managers and individual
    contributors as well (and no, I wasn't one of them). I'm surprised by
    this also, given the current economic situation at the company. I'm
    sure this sort of thing *does* address and improve the morale of people
    receiving the bonuses! If I felt comfortable that the people who
    received the bonuses really deserved them (and the one person I know
    who received a bonus definitely deserved it), then it wouldn't bother
    me so much. I'm sure a lot of people who deserved one didn't get one
    and a lot of people who didn't deserve one did get one. THAT'S what
    bothers me.

    I remember some months ago it was announced that Digital was dropping
    the stock option plan for rewarding top people in favor of cash
    bonuses. There was discussion of it in a number of places, I think
    including this conference. I think that most people sort of assumed 
    that the bonuses would only be paid if the company made money. I know
    that's what I assumed. What I keep hearing from managers is "be glad
    you still have a job." And I am. Isn't the same true for managers?

>I asked Bob Palmer at the 1992 annual stockholders' meeting
>if he would reaffirm the open door policy. Bob strongly
>endorsed the policy and that's when he announced that he was going
>to appoint a VP of Ethics. It sounded like some radical change might
>happen to improve things.

    Now we have a VP of Ethics. Perhaps Win Hindle would be the one to
    ask as to the ethics of giving bonuses while we are both losing money
    and reducing the work force? 

    			Alfred

    I got a bonus.
    
    Not in Dec., but in Jan.. 
    
    It was more like 1/4k. 
    
    For 100% attendance. 
    
    
    Buzz

Re:         <<< Note 2332.2 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>

>    I remember some months ago it was announced that Digital was dropping
>    the stock option plan for rewarding top people in favor of cash
>    bonuses. There was discussion of it in a number of places, I think
>    including this conference. 

Discussed last September in Topic 2103 of this conference.

-  David

    Paul,
    
    I don't know about bonuses, but "keeping your job" is not an incentive
    to #1 performers, no matter what level they are.  My understanding of
    the salary plan is that Digital intends to highly reward #1s and "high
    2s".  If that's correct, then bonuses are just another kind of reward.
    
    Mark

    I think the consensus is that every top performer should be duly
    compensated.  But, when a company is losing a LOT of money, the blame 
    usually rests with upper-management.  It looks suspicious for a company 
    to hand out bonuses to upper-managment when it is both losing a lot of 
    money and when its official position (as found and discussed in notes 
    2103.*) is to link cash rewards to upper-management with company 
    performance.
    
    There needs to be some sort of announcements, let alone justifications,
    for why upper-managers at Digital are getting bonuses.  Bonuses
    should inspire all to perform well so that they, too, can be handsomely 
    rewarded.  But, rewarding upper-managers when the company is losing a
    lot of money serves only to boost morale among a very few and to destroy 
    morale among the ranks.
    
    Steve

    In the Singapore Sales subsudiary, we have a bonus plan for meeting the
    Country Profit Goal. The idea here is when the entire country satisfies
    the stipulated (by Asia region) profit margin, then everyone gets a 4%
    (for meeting 100% profit goal) bonus on the annual salary. Everyone
    includes the engineers, sales, sales support, secretaries, admin... ie
    The whole TEAM.
    
    That's not to say the goal is easy to reach. We didn't make it last
    year.

A $40 K bonus is obscene with or without profitability.  No two ways
about it.

Dennis

    Jack Smith "operated" this company into $2 billion of losses. I 
    think he deserves a $40,000 a month bonus for every month he stays
    retired. Whoever put Palmer in charge deserves millions. Consider the
    return on investment.

>I'd think that keeping the company in business
>so you can keep your job would be a pretty hefty incentive to high
>level managers. If anything, bonuses should be given after we return
>to profitability. I would like to hear Bob Palmer justify these bonuses.

	I agree with you. I am not aware that there is a great demand for
	people to fill high paying jobs out there. While I know that sometimes
	one rewards a child in advance to "show them what they'll get" if 
	they stay good, one hopes that top Digital managers are not children
	to need this sort of thing.

>Hearing about this kind of bonus is the sort of thing that would
>further erode morale if we had any morale left to erode.

	This is probably why these bonuses are not common knowledge.

>However, I've seen no change being implemented that shows the morale issue
>is being addressed or even acknowledged by the leadership of this company.
>I don't think they have a clue as to the extent of employee dissatisfaction.

	The review of the Russ Gullotti DVN in LIVEWIRE indicates that Russ 
	acknowledges the morale problem. he lists it second in his four
	priorities. He thinks the way to fix it is to make a profit. I myself
	believe that fixing morale will be required first if we are to make
	a sustainable profit. We've all seen the sign, "The floggings will
	continue until morale improves." Many of us need to work harder,
	smarter, and better for the company to make a profit. Running morale
	into the ground to attain "productivity" will not work in the long
	run. However, improving morale will go a long way to getting the
	productivity to improve.

	My question for management is this, other than the fact that jobs
	are hard to come by, why should Digital employees stay with Digital?
	Obviously senior managers are getting large "Christmas presents" to
	stay. What about the rest of us? Or does the company really just not
	care if we stay or leave?

		Alfred

Re: .2
I did request a meeting with Win but have so far been turned down. I was
refered to a subordinate who does not have the power to change anything.
That tells me upper management doesn't really want to hear what the truth is
and what's needed to address the morale and integrity issue and replace the
people who need to be replaced. Some new people coming in from the outside
could be good however, I don't know anything about them.

I agree in principle with bonuses also, but not at the moment for high level
dec managers, because they are in charge of the system that has not been
working for the last couple of years. Revisit the bonuses after we return to
profitability.

I just saw Bob Palmer and the 9 heads of the business units speak. Of the
9 heads, only one - Willow from the medical BU really had any content to say.
And nobody said anything directly about morale and integrity - it was only
mentioned in passing.

I have received several supportive messages since I posted the original
note. Rather than mailing anything to me however, it'd be much more useful to
identify somebody in the company who can address whatevery you see is an
issue. If enough people identify the same issue as needing work, then it
can't be shoved under the rug.

And when Willow did talk about the Healthcare market, her span of interest
seemed to finish at the US coastline ;-(
								- Ian W.

    Okay Paul, so you agree that bonuses are good, you just don't like how
    they are given out and who gets 'em.  That's fair.
    
    Mark

    re: .15
    
    I think that if your message is directed to .0 the synopsis misses some
    of the more crucial aspects of this round of alleged bonuses.  Such 
    aspects include the messages sent by upper management.  These messages 
    may have a direct and profound impact on the rank and file.
    
    To illustrate, if upper managers are given fat bonuses while their
    organizations are losing money, one does not hear a message that says,
    "Digital links cash incentives to performance."  Instead, one is left
    to ascribe the bonus to some other parameters of performance that are
    unspecified and ambiguous.  This leads to mistrust, especially if the
    rewarding is done in relative secrecy.
    
    If top performers are not given bonuses or given very small bonuses,
    one also does not hear a message that links reward to performance.
    Instead, one hears the message that the reward for doing the job is
    basically limited to continuing to do the job.  This leads to seeking 
    employment elsewhere where ones talents will be appreciated.
    
    The problem as I see it involves the messages being sent and, after
    discussing this with Paul, I sense he feels the same way.  This is a
    serious issue and affects how many of us, including top performers,
    will respond to Digital managerial leadership.  We cannot take this
    type of thing lightly if Digital is to continue to expect the best 
    efforts and trust of its employees.
    
    I have approached DELTA with this issue and they are pursuing it.  I will 
    be hearing back sometime today and expect there will be follow-up postings 
    of results.
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    I'm really in no position to debate this, since I have not seen ANY
    MESSAGE to employees about bonuses.  My manager has communicated with
    "the troops" and told us about salary planning (which I summarized in
    reply #2 or so).  He did not tell me other people's salaries, or how
    big their raise would be.  If he had, then I speculate that a similar
    thing would happen.  The secrecy that you are condemning is nothing
    new.
    
    What I read from alot of you is that Digital should not be giving out
    any bonuses at all until we are "back on our feet".  That's your
    opinion, I do not share it.  It's tantamount to a salary freeze, which
    I also would oppose.
    
    Mark

    re: .17
    
    If you're reading from me that Digital should not be giving out any
    bonuses at all, then I've been misunderstood and I apologize.
    
    Digital should give bonuses.  It should be part of the messages it
    sends about reward for performance.  I think we agree on that.
    
    Like you, I am unprepared to debate about the bonuses because I don't 
    have any solid info about bonuses given out.  All I have is assurance 
    from Paul that reliable sources have indicated that upper-managers have 
    gotten large bonuses.  I have information available to all indicating 
    that Digital suffered substantial losses last quarter.  I have information
    available to all indicating that Digital has made formal commitments to
    linking compensation with performance.  I have a basic understanding
    that upper-level managers are responsible for the general performance
    of the company.  I have a basic desire to "do the right thing" for and
    within Digital.  Together, these lead me to the determination that there
    may be a serious situation needing resolution.
    
    My response is to do more than just express concern in notes or pursue
    profitless debate.  I recognize that I don't have enough information
    to draw solid conclusions.  So, I forwarded my concerns to DELTA to
    find out who should be contacted.  That is what is happening now.  I
    expect the results of this contact will be made publicly known so that
    rumors can be laid to rest and so that either the rank and file can be
    reassured that the "right thing" is being done or corrective actions
    can be taken.
    
    Steve

    Re:  .1
    Set/mode=flame on
    I actually had tears of anger and frustration running down my face as I
    read this...as a single parent on a Dept. Coord. III salary, what I
    could do with such a bonus is unimaginable!  I could buy out my ex's
    1/2 of the house, I could dig out of the hole I am in, I could put a
    few dollars by for a rainy day/my old age, pick it, I could put a few
    dollars by so that my son can get a college education...I could go on,
    but I just get too upset.  It seems to me the powers that be, in their
    continuing arrogance and insensitivity have ONCE again missed the mark! 
    For openers, bonuses should only be even THOUGHT ABOUT once senior
    managers have actually returned this company to HEALTHY, STABLE, and
    SUSTAINABLE profitability, NOT before!  Secondly, to offer bonuses
    while rank-and-file are losing theirs jobs, read, the REAL workers, is
    insensitive beyond all comprehension!  Thirdly, to offer bonuses while
    the few surviving rank-and-file race miniscule, or non-existent raises,
    cuts in benefits, rising costs of remaining benefits, and so on, ad
    nauseum ranks right up there with a non-paralled thoughtlessness. 
    Fourthly, excuse me, but shouldn't the REAL recipients of a little
    extra cash be the beleaguered members of the rank-and-file?  Oh well,
    in my dreams...
    Clear mode
    Re: .16
    I am concerned, that despite your excellent intentions, what we will
    most likely get from DELTA, and/or the senior management once they
    realize this has blown up in their faces, is simply "damage control".
    Re: .17
    ??? You've gotta be kidding!  Bonuses, to the senior management who got
    us into this mess BEFORE they get us out of it?  And only to the senior
    types, not to ALL who are working so hard, and giving so much up to
    save the company we love???  I guess I don't get it!
    
    Signed:
    
    Speechless, but not quite!
    
    

    re: .19
    
    Speechless, (BTW, I *love* your personal name ...)
    
    I understand your feelings.  I felt similar feelings when Paul first
    told me about this.  I didn't believe it at first.  I asked him about
    the sources.  He couldn't give them to me.  But, I've known Paul for 
    a few years and been through some "interesting" situations enough to
    have developed trust in his integrity and intentions.  So, I take this
    situation seriously.  Who can have worked with this company so hard and
    for a few years without having developed a sense of real compassion and
    love for fellow workers here?  It's part of being in the "team" at
    Digital.
    
    Please exercise a little patience with Paul, me, DELTA and others. 
    I experienced with the DCU BoD reforms over the past couple of years
    now that real change requires doing your homework and being persistent.
    We need to get the facts straight before jumping to conclusions and 
    taking action.  DELTA is helping with that right now.  As a corporate
    resource, they are adding value to this very issue because they know
    who the contacts are at Digital and DO make contact with them.  Persons
    of position have already been contacted about this very issue.  DELTA
    contacted me today about it and promised that more information would
    be forthcoming.
    
    There are many of us who are very aware of how this kind of thing can
    affect the rank and file.  That is why we are taking action now, today.
    
    Steve

    I'm still waiting to see a reply to this note that provides evidence
    that Digital is paying large bonuses that somehow cannot be justified
    based on an individual's performance measurements.  Until I see such
    evidence, I cannot get worked up over this.

If a bonus was earned, it should be paid.  For example, "Do x and you'll get y"
"X" should be something of significant value to the company, above and beyond
your normal job.

Both the value of y for x, and the fact that x was achieved should be able to
withstand public scrutiny by the stockholders, management, and employees.

If it can't, then x wasn't worth y, and should be discontinued.

My  2 "z"'s worth... 8^)

Bob

Lets look at another possibility.
What if managers "A" "B" and "C" were told make 2 mil more than last year
and you each get a 40 thou bonus. Now, managers "A" and "B" do exactly that
but, because manager "C" cost the company 5 mil more than last year, the
net result is that DEC lost money. Shouldnt managers "A" and "B" still
be given their bonus? Or, should each of them be punished because of
manager "C"?

- George

re:.23

Depends on how much control "A" and "B" have over "C"'s business.

Bob

    
    	If Digital is still trying to correctly assess "cost of sales" and
    "profitability", how can Digital measure performance and award a
    "bonus". The issue of a bonus is wrought with inuendos and double speak
    even in the best of circumstance. Unless the involved parties wish to
    make the bonus public, said bonus should not be dispersed. As replies
    in this string mention this has the makings of a real "morale buster".
    
    	puzzled.......
    
    		fred deady
    

I agree that bonuses should be given for outstanding performance,
but the it seems that managers get much larger percentage
bonuses than regular employees.

Regular employee: let's say makes $40k and can get a $400
bonus - this is 1%.

Manager: makes 200k (VP?) and gets $40k bonus. This is 20%.
The manager would have to make 4 MILLION for it to be 1%

The question is, did the manager really earn this much?
(Some may have, but we'll never know if this is kept secret.)

    DELTA is waiting on a response.  Stay tuned.
    
    Steve

    
>    	If Digital is still trying to correctly assess "cost of sales" and
>    "profitability", how can Digital measure performance and award a
>    "bonus".

	In the UK we had very clear targets, A revenue target, a CERTS target
 
	In Q1 we overachieved certs but underachieved revenue by 1%, it was 
	decided to give us the bonus, as it was so close and also our
	customer satisfaction survey showed excellent results, but we were 
	told we would not get the Q2 bonus if we did not meet the Q2 figures

	In Q2 we missed the Revenue by 4% and the Certs by 1% - no bonus.

	We have targets for Q4, they are on "thermometer-type" scales in the
	canteens in different offices, so we can see how we are doing.



	Heather

Heather,

That bonus you got in Q1 was in fact for FY92 Q4 performance. We've missed
the Q1+Q2 bonus as you documented...
								- Ian W.

    I would love to see the lower paid employees, that always work, that
    have the pain of saying, "at least I still have a job." Why not put the
    moral to a top high and give them some salary increases or good
    ratings, or at best a bonus. 
    Those are the people that get paid the least, those are the people that
    deserve it the most.
    That bonuses are being paid to managers, when salary increases are 2%, 
    or nothing, I find that a hard fact to understand. This deserves
    a real justification. 
    Regards,
    Ruth

	Oops, so it was 

	Heather

How about some direct answers before we start making sweeping conclusions:

1.  Were there any bonuses, and on what basis were they paid?

2.  Do lower-paid workers as a group work harder than higher-paid workers as a
    group?

3.  Do non-managers work harder than managers?

Many sweeping generalizations are being made (not just in this string, but in
many) that really don't support our getting back on our feet as a corporation.

Pete

    	I said it way back in the beginning of this string, but it seems to
    have gotten lost in the shuffle. Individual contributors (engineers)
    *did* receive bonuses, at least around here. These weren't $40k by any
    means, but they were pretty significant (4-digit bonuses). It could be
    that managers were given bonus money to hand out. Some spread it around
    and made it go deep into the trenches while others kept it at the high
    levels.

    Engineers in Spitbrook received 4-digit bonuses??????????????????
    
    WHERE'S MY SUITCASE???  I'm moving North!!!!
    
    /Charlotte (in HLO, where no one I know of received bonuses or ever
    has)

    RE: .27
    
    Hay Steve....
    
    I vote we make DELTA the "Office of Ethics".
    
    Seems every "real" issue in here gets run to DELTA.  I am not knocking
    it, if DELTA can get something done, then it's great.
    
    Maxine...
    
    Ever work for Win? ... Do you want to?
    
    

Re: .35
That won't work because the folks in the DELTA office have no authority to
*tell* anybody to do anything - more responsibility without power.
All they can do is pass along suggestions
to the appropriate place. We *do* have a VP of Ethics now, but as I've said,
he's so far refused to meet with me. That office seems to me to be the
proper place to address these issues because that office has the authority
to make things stick.

    Well, I like working with DELTA because they help me to get in touch
    with the right people quickly.  They do the ground work and then throw
    the ball back in my court.  That's the way I want it.  It makes it
    easier to "propose and do."  Speaking of which, DELTA got back in touch
    with me this morning with a contact.  I've prepared a proposal and am
    having it reviewed by interested parties before I approach the contact.  
    I anticipate posting the first contact here for your perusal and 
    discussion.  Then, I anticipate more personal contact to work the issue.
    
    Steve

                      <<< Note 2332.35 by SPECXN::BLEY >>>
                           -< -< Office of Ethics > >-

    RE: .27
    
>    Hay Steve....
    
>    I vote we make DELTA the "Office of Ethics".
    
>    Seems every "real" issue in here gets run to DELTA.  I am not knocking
>    it, if DELTA can get something done, then it's great.
    
>    Maxine...
    
>    Ever work for Win? ... Do you want to?
    
Thanks for the good laugh.  To tell you the truth, as of the first of the 
calendar year we report to the Corporate Quality Group, which ... you guessed
it... reports to Win!!  So whether I want to work for him or not - I do!!

   

    	At this point, there is little to nothing that anyone can do about
    it, except seek the facts and voice their opinion. I haven't seen anyone 
    actually propose what they would like to see done about this. 
    
    	If you're pushing for something through Delta, it should be framed in
    such a way as to show how the company will save money. Since we're
    basically in agreement that bonuses should not go away, Delta will have
    little to do with it. So, what's the next step ?
    
    	Just some of my own thoughts on the subject are that it should be
    treated like an employee recognition program. As such, it should -
    
    		1. Make the bonuses open to EVERYONE
    		2. Define the criteria which determines how one gets a bonus
    		3. Determine the criteria for how much one gets (% of salary?)
    		4. Publish the above criteria
    		5. Publish the results (who got rewarded for what)
    
    	At least in this way, you are recognizing and rewarding positive 
    behavior AND identifying what those positive aspects are. This would
    make the process feel more fair and equitable, rather than something
    that appears to be secretive, devious, and unscrupulous.
    
    	Ray

    
      IMHO, remuneration data should NOT be public.  I won't tell you
     what I make, how much I got for a raise, or whether I got a bonus
     of stock or money.  I would object to a company policy making this
     stuff general knowledge.  None of your business !
    

    	When employee recognition awards are given, it is typically stated
    that "so-and-so" is being recognised for outstanding performance in the
    xxxxxxx project, or for whatever the reason recognition occured.
    
    	It is NOT disclosed what renumeration, if any, was given. This is
    SOP (at least in my group). I don't see this as an intrusion to anyones 
    privacy. I see this as the company giving positive reinforcment to 
    outstanding behavior/acheivment.
    
    	Ray
    

    If a bonus is to be used as an incentive then who gets one and why
    should be widely known. (Though how much can be kept private.)
    Otherwise how are people supposed to know what sort of behavior is 
    rewarded? Or even that it *is* rewarded? I'm also suspicious of bonuses
    given in secrecy as it suggests, to me at least, that the criteria it
    is based on or the worthiness of the recipient might be questioned.
    In which case one has to wonder if the reward is really justifiable.

    		Alfred

From:	ECADSR::SHERMAN      "Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a" 21-JAN-1993 15:46:51.76
To:	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subj:	Secrecy in Bonus Policies



                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     21-Jan-1993
                                        From:     Steve Sherman
                                        Location: MLO5-2, pole 26a
                                        Tel No:   223-3326 (508-493-3326)

TO:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
     Worldwide Personnel
     Corporate Employee Communication


Subject: Secrecy in Bonus Policies


Hello, XXXXXXXXXXXX!

DELTA suggested I contact you concerning bonus programs at Digital.  As you 
probably know, I contacted DELTA as a result of discussion regarding execution 
of bonus policies.  I am glad that you are also following discussion in DIGITAL 
notes.  The rest of this message will detail what I feel will be a solution to 
the situation.  I anticipate also contacting you by phone or perhaps in person 
assuming there will be value added in further discussion.

The basic message of this letter is that secret rewards are hurting the rank
and file.  The rank and file need to know specifics about how bonuses are being 
handled to avoid being hurt.  The proposed solution is that bonus policy be 
ammended to require public recognition to avoid damaging the morale of the rank
and file.  What follows is a more detailed argument of these points.


Secret rewards are hurting the rank and file
--------------------------------------------

An obvious hazard in any bonus program is that if it is carried out incorrectly 
it can destroy morale more than improve it.  I humbly suggest that the current 
implementation of The Cash Incentive Plan is detrimental to morale among
the rank and file at Digital.  

I do not personally contend that the actual bonuses that have been administered 
were in error.  I have no personal knowledge of any such bonuses being given 
out other than to myself.  However, your office and others have indicated that 
bonuses were given out last quarter, in spite of a tremendous operating loss at
Digital.  Because there have been no formal announcements regarding any of 
these bonuses, I feel the rank and file have been deprived of several 
opportunities to boost morale:

	- opportunity to develop trust in upper management by seeing them
	  demonstrate that Digital management links compensation to performance

	- opportunity to be inspired by details of what it is like to be
	  a top performer

	- opportunity to be motivated by the nature of rewards that lie ahead 
	  for those who become top performers

It is particularly disturbing to some (who have expressed their concerns both
in notes and elsewhere) that great personal sacrifices are being made for 
Digital due to "hard times," yet a select few are being monetarily compensated 
above and beyond their salaries.  The rank and file does not know why.  This 
strikes them as unusual.  Surely if someone did something worthy of a big bonus 
during such difficult times there would have been some sort of announcement, 
wouldn't there?

I am including a paragraph that was contributed by another member of the rank 
and file concerning prevailing attitudes.  This further illustrates my point
concerning the hurt that current bonus program policies inflict:


       "In order for any compensation system to be just -- and seen by 
        employees as just -- before any bonuses are granted, those who have 
        been hurt must first be 'made whole.' There are many employees who, 
	over the past several years, have taken huge pay cuts through no fault 
	or failing of their own. In some cases, they were forced out of their 
	jobs into jobs that paid much less. In others, salaries were summarily 
	and arbitrarily cut (and almost always at the individual contributor 
	level). For those who have suffered such a loss in compensation despite 
	being good performers, it is imperative that, before anyone is granted 
	a bonus, that those so hurt financially be brought back up to 
	'financial wholeness.' Only after this can bonuses be considered."


My understanding of common practice is that there is usually some form of 
public recognition as a courtesy along with the granting of a monetary reward.  
This has happened to me at Digital in the past.  I have also applauded others 
when it happened for them at Digital and in other companies.  This recognition 
typically includes a formal gathering with invited peers and associates, a 
picture in a company newsletter, announcement on company bulletin boards, 
public "attaboys" from superiors and so forth.  These things cost very little 
and do not generally compromise financial confidences.

I fear that in some flawed vision of "cutting costs" the public recognition is
being avoided.  Instead, in the name of "protecting privacy" all details
concerning rewards are being kept quiet.  This DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to the rank
and file.  Why would anyone want to hide their successes?  Why would a top
performer not want to be recognized by peers and associates?  So, naturally, 
they are left to speculate as to the nature of the rewards shared among 
upper-level managers.  

In fact, the lack of recognition along with the granting of bonuses has 
apparently become an aberration.  I feel this leads the rank and file to 
speculate and mistrust upper-management, to feel that there is no real benefit 
to top performance and to lose any sense of motivation to strive for rewards 
through top performance.  In short, reward without formal recognition destroys 
the opportunities that might otherwise have been benefits of a bonus program.
For this reason, public recognition should be required with reward and not
simply a courtesy.

I know that this situation is festering into a situation of outright hostility 
toward management.  It seems to me to add to building negative perceptions 
concerning management by the rank and file.  In having this letter reviewed
by members of the rank and file, it has been pointed out to me that my approach 
here is perhaps too diplomatic.  It is an understatement to write that this 
issue has become the focus of much pent up anger and frustration within the 
lower ranks directed towards management.  It parallels or exceeds the feelings 
I was made party to when I was involved with recent reforms involving the DCU 
Board of Directors.


The rank and file need to know specifics
----------------------------------------

I feel the solution to the problem involves including a requirement of formal 
and public recognition when any form of bonus is granted.  This will not only
serve to bolster the self-esteem of the person being honored, but will also
send clear, positive messages to peers, associates and the rank and file.

In the announcement of The Cash Incentive Plan it is stated that over the
years Digital has been changing and modifying reward tools for its employees.
What I suggest is just such a modification.  It is that the Plan formally
include a requirement that all bonuses are accompanied by suitable, public 
and verifiable recognition of the success that justifies the reward.  This 
recognition can serve far more than to simply boost an individual's sense of 
accomplishment.  It can also send clear and positive messages to peers, 
associates and the rank and file.  

As the financial objectives and results of the corporation are made known, it 
is probably appropriate for rewards to upper-level managers to be accompanied 
with announcement of how the respective managers have contributed to the 
achievement of these objectives.  This is the type of thing that I expected to 
happen after reading the September announcement.  To my knowledge, it has not 
happened, yet.  But, I have been informed that bonuses were administered.
This is very much a surprise.

The Cash Incentive Plan announcement mentions that the plan "will not be funded 
and awards will not be paid if minimum corporate financial performance 
objectives are not achieved."  Right now, the rank and file seem to be asking 
whether or not this program was funded and whether or not the objectives were 
achieved.  How much was the "pool" of cash rewards for the rank and file?  How 
many shared in this pool?  What amount was paid in total in bonuses to top
performers?

The September announcement also stated that "more detailed information on this 
program will be distributed over the coming months."  I believe the rank and 
file would like to get this information.  It is not sufficient to simply state 
that the program is working.  Such a statement does little to bolster the faith 
and trust of the rank and file.  I feel they need to know who was successful 
in helping the company reach the minimum corporate objectives.  What did they 
do to make the company successful and how did they do it?  

I believe the rank and file are looking for inspiration.  They want to trust
their management.  They want to believe that the corporation is trying to 
"do the right thing."  They want to feel that compensation is linked to
performance.  But, I don't think they can do it if the reward system is 
shrouded in secrecy.


Bonus policy needs to be ammended to require public recognition
---------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest that Digital modify the Cash Incentive Plan and perhaps others of 
its policies regarding cash incentives, stock options and other such "bonuses."
I think the changes I suggest here are more in line with previous practice and 
with common practice of other successful companies I have worked for.  The
changes should be made so that all rewards are accompanied with public and 
appropriate recognition.  This is necessary so that all may benefit from the
rewards and not just the few who receive them.  Public recognition should be
a requirement that is enforced in order to avoid the type of damage that is
currently being done to Digital's rank and file.

I and others would appreciate an effective and timely response.  Thank you for 
your time and attention.




						Sincerly, 


						Steve Sherman

    Intel awarded some nice bonus checks this year to all its employees. 
    They got a total of 10 1/2 days extra pay (that's how they get around
    the privacy issue).  Everyone gets the bonus, so you don't see any
    favoritism.  
    
    I think it would be nice for Digital to do the same (once we start
    making a profit again).  I think every employee makes a contribution to
    the success of the corporation, and so every employee should get a
    bonus if the corporation is successful for the year.  Maybe, base it
    on a percentage of profit for the year.
    
    Unfortunately, the pay for performance policy doesn't seem to get
    implemented properly.  So bonuses would/could be a real incentive to
    perform well (i.e. even if you don't get the raise you think you 
    earned, you still have the possibility to get a nice bonus).
    Possible morale booster.
    
    Renee

    re: .44
    
    Initial phone contact has been made.  I will exercise discretion in
    reporting details, but I will do my best to post that which is
    appropriate as things progress.  Thus far, I am encouraged.  If anyone
    desires to influence how this goes, feel free to send me email and I'll 
    see what I can do.  I won't be forwarding mail, but information that
    may be helpful is welcome.  I cannot formally represent the "rank and 
    file."  However, I am hopeful in trying to add value to Digital by both
    understanding and conveying some of the attitudes and experiences (from 
    notes, email and whatever) of a sampling of the rank and file.
    
    This issue could be a tempest in a teapot, or it could be widespread.  
    So far, I don't think anyone really knows.  I am involved because I
    care for a few people who are concerned and whose morale is being 
    affected by this.
    
    Steve

While the exact amount of bonusses and salaries to individuals should not
be revealed, it is possible to be *very* open about the process.  For the
last couple of years, my managers have held meetings every spring to
describe the salary plan in detail -- including the average raise, the
number of people in each performance bin, and tables of the base raise
amounts depending on performance and other factors.  They make it *very
clear* what we're working toward, and what one can expect.  

The people who talked about incentive-based bonusses in this notes 
string clearly had the same experience.  They knew what the bonus
might be and they knew what they had to do to get it.  And it is
publically known whether the bonus was distributed.

That's the problem here for me -- where's the public announcement of
whether bonuses are being given and what the criteria is?  And while 
lower level folks do sometimes get bonuses or stock or whatever when 
our division is losing money, generally we don't.  There's even less
reason to give bonusses to upper level managers when there's a loss.

I've always felt that stock options make a good incentive -- especially
at a time like this.  They are only of value if you stick around and if
the company performance improves so that the stock price goes up...

Anyway, what we need here is summary data on how many bonusses were given
and how many dollars were given in each of several job code ranges, plus
an explanation of how bonusses are determined.  That would either defuse
this whole thing or else expose something that needs fixing!

	Larry

RE: .45

	At DEC, they would probably impliment that type of plan by giving 
	you more vacation time! :-) :-)

							mike

    Re: Full disclosure appeal to Delta
    
    Steve,
    
    One can only admire your dedication and persistence in spending so much
    time and effort on your appeal. However, I don't think you're being
    quite straight with us. In .46 you say "I cannot formally represent the
    'rank and file'", but in .44 you say "The rank and file does not know
    why. This strikes them as unusual". There are still 100,000 employees
    in Digital. At least 70,000 are loosely described as "rank and file"
    and yet I'd doubt outside of a few acquainances and noters, you  really
     know what strikes us as unusual.
    
    As I say, I admire your efforts, even though I completely and absolutely
    disagree with your conclusions. However, I strongly feel you should
    rewrite your letter and replace "the rank and file know" with "I and a few
    people think".
    
    Thank you.
    
    Dave
    (One of the rank and file who, here in New York, are formally referred
    to as "The Great Unwashed."
    

    
    Steve, if you change your wording, please feel free to count me among
    the "few people"; and thanks for making the effort.
    
    Thanks also to Paul Kinzelman, for having the intestinal fortitude to
    bring this up in the first place. The subject can only benefit from a
    healthy dose of sunshine.
    

    I don't speak for the rank and file and can only speak for a few.  I
    don't know how many really are affected by this issue, which is why I
    have indicated that this could be a tempest in a teapot.
    
    And, that's always been the case as long as I can remember with issues
    that come up in notes.  One of the first reactions by management is to
    discount such issues as the rantings of a small minority.  Also, those
    who try to take actions face the problem of being accused of
    speaking for 100K employees after only being in contact with a small
    percentage of that.
    
    Sometimes they're right.  Sometimes they're wrong.  This is why the wide 
    support for change of the DCU BoD came as such a shock to management.  
    This is why the wide support for no smoking at Digital came as such a 
    shock.  I expect that grass roots causes that begin in notes will
    always come as a shock.  I don't care so long as the right thing
    eventually happens.
    
    The fact is that someone always has to stand up and try to assess what
    the consensus is.  If enough people agree, then the issue has to be
    dealt with and can lead to change at Digital.  If there is not that 
    support, the issue dies.  I just happen to have fallen into that slot
    for now.  This may fizzle and die.  This may bloom into productive
    change.  Either way, I'll ride this out and try to do what's right 
    along the way.
    
    I'll not be rewriting the letter, but it isn't because I think it is 
    perfect or that I didn't make any mistakes.  It's because the purpose 
    of the letter was to kick things off in a more formal direction than 
    notes.  I have already spoken with the person who got the letter and 
    anticipate further communication.  The discussions here and email 
    where more appropriate are good for helping with this communication.  
    There are things that need to be checked into on their end.  Things 
    that I and the average Deccie have no business knowing about.  On this 
    end, I am trying as much as possible to figure out what the consensus 
    is and to help pass along any understanding I garner.
    
    Thus far, I've gotten a mix of reactions.  Though few, the majority
    lean towards the position that I am being a bit too conservative about
    the matter.  I'll take any criticism of my statements and actions
    objectively.  I really am doing this more out of concern for others 
    than for myself.  This ain't no way to get a bonus ...
    
    One of the things I hope for is some sort of official statement in
    terms of followup on the September memo.  This is not a clear cut
    issue.  There are areas that have not been much tested at Digital.
    Please continue with the discussion and presentation of ideas, 
    feelings and facts regarding this issue here and at other companies.  
    
    I think it is helpful to learn how other companies are being successful
    with their bonus and compensation programs.  From what I have read, I
    am lead to believe that other companies view these from the perspective
    that rewards are not only to be enjoyed by the top performers, but are 
    also to present examples to motivate others to improve their performance.
    
    This is a bit off the topic, but I am reminded of those Reader's Digest
    and Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.  The chances of winning are
    slightly less than the chances of being run over by a herd of elephants
    while sitting in your living room on the 4th of July (though I
    understand that such things do happen).  But, every year you see the
    smiles and faces of people who won simply by sending in their entries.
    And, it's enough to motivate hundreds of thousands of people to send in
    entries even though they never win a thing.  The people that run those
    sweepstakes understand how to use the awards to motivate others to
    participate.  I would imagine that entries would fall off a tad if 
    nobody heard of anyone actually winning any of the prizes.
    
    Steve

    Re .several
    
    Is this a gathering place for those of us that were instrumental in
    getting the former DCU board of directors tossed out last year? Hi gang.
    If so I guess it's time for me to say I 100% support this effort
    and I hope it is as successful as the last great electronic action
    group.
    
    I've always felt that bonuses etc should be very public (I can agree
    that amounts may not need to be). But the fact a bonus is being given
    and why is not only a motivator to the person that gets it but also to
    those that can see how success is rewarded.
    
    Dave

    Steve, while you are researching bonuses given to current high level
    managers at Digital you may also want to inquire about 'bonuses' aka
    separation packages given to high level people that have left Digital.
    A little more than 9 weeks pay and a few extra weeks for years of
    service...
    
    Dave

	If bonuses should be public (i mean "Digital Internal Use Only",
of course) knowledge, then why not job codes, salaries, performance ratings,
promotions and raises?  They are all ways of rewarding performance.  It
seems that the issue is that we don't trust "management" to:

		(A)  understand what their reports actually do
		(B)  be able to judge what good performance is
		(C)  reward good performance vs. return political favors
		(D)  all of the above

	To me this is a rathole.  If we can't trust our immediate managers
then at least we should be able to trust the Open Door Policy.  If we can't
trust the Open Door Policy then that says the highest levels of management
are corrupt and there's no chance of getting anywhere by writing memos such
as Mr. Sherman's.

	It's NOT "the economy, stupid"--it's the trust issue.

								- paul

    Boy, you guys are up late!  I thought I'd get to be all alone tonight!
    
    Steve

>    Boy, you guys are up late!  I thought I'd get to be all alone tonight!
    
    Dream on, Steve. ;-)

RE: .55

	Nope.. There are others..

	Good job BTW.. I liked the letter and hope that good comes
	from it.. It would be a true change for the better in the
	company if communication was to open up. After all Management,
	we ARE adults.. (for the most part)

							mike

re: .57

>		It would be a true change for the better in the
>	company if communication was to open up. After all Management,
>	we ARE adults.. (for the most part)

Unfortunately, while you address yourself to "Management", there is no
such entity in reality...just a big collection of individuals...most of
whom have never been taught what their duties should encompass.   Most
of whom have no time for MBWA or helping the people who report to them
get their jobs done more easily...because they view their management
duties mostly in terms of being good individual contributors in the eyes
of THEIR managers (i.e., attending the mandatory interminable meetings,
coming up with the required slide-show presentations, etc.).

Bob Palmer needs to enunciate a correct philosophy of management to all
these individual managers struggling to do their job for DEC to survive.

								paul

Yes,

We here in the EIC at Solent UK (and officially part of Europe not the UK) 
are also on a bonus scheme.  We also have clear targets to reach on revenues, 
certs, Customer satisfaction and getting TickIT certification (ISO 9000 
for software).

We DID meet our combined Q1/Q2 target and will get a bonus in our 
February pay packets. Every employee gets the SAME bonus regardless of 
grade or job title - so in percentage terms, the indians do FAR better 
than the chiefs.  We do NOT get a pay rise award this year, with the 
exception of people promoted - they may do.  In other words, we don't get 
any extra pay unless we earn it.

GREAT!  I'm all in favour of this.  Digital pays us if we ensure that 
Digital earns the money to do so.  Something which should have been done 
long ago.

Roll on a successful Q3/Q4!

Cathy

    At GE, the management levels are:
    
    Unit manager
    Sub-section manager
    Section manager
    General manager
    Vice President
    
    Managers at the section manager level and above receive incentive
    compensation (bonuses) in addition to their salary based on the
    performance of the business unit (not the performance of the entire
    corporation).  The amounts are not made public, but it is well known
    within the corporation that when you reach a certain level of
    management you are eligible for incentive compensation.  Managers in a
    business that is doing well may receive large bonuses; managers in
    businesses that are losing money do not receive bonuses. 
    
    As I understand it, BP's plan is to break Digital into nine business
    units.  If, for instance, the PC business unit is doing well and making
    large profits for the corporation, I would expect that bonuses would be
    distributed in accordance with some policy.  If, on the other hand, the
    PC business unit was losing money, I would expect that bonues would not
    be distributed within that business unit.
    

re .54

>	If we can't trust our immediate managers then at least we should be 
>	able to trust the Open Door Policy.  If we can't trust the Open Door 
>	Policy then that says the highest levels of management are corrupt 
>	and there's no chance of getting anywhere by writing memos such
>	as Mr. Sherman's.

	I trust my immediate management. But I raised an issue through
	the ODP last April. I'm still waiting for a written response 
	resolving the matter. I'm not holding my breath on it. But that 
	should tell you something about my trust of upper management or the 
	ODP.

	When I saw the base note, the thought that came into my mind was
	the scene in "Dr Strangelove", where Strangelove says, "What good
	is a doomsday device is you keep it a secret!". What good are
	bonuses if no one knows about them? If you want to motivate people
	with a carrot, you hold the carrot where they can see it...

							Tom_K

    re: .60
    
    Does GE make any disclosure involving the rewards to managers that meet
    their goals?  I understand that the amounts may be hidden, but do they
    indicate to the company, for example, that a manager met goals and will 
    be rewarded?
    
    Apparently, some companies are recognizing the affect that disclosure
    of rewards to management can have on the rank and file.  This is, I
    think, one reason why some companies are announcing pay cuts or forced 
    stock purchasing for upper-level managers during times of poor 
    performance.
    
    Steve

    GE does not disclose the amount of the awards -- they are considered
    compensation, and compensation is considered to be confidential.

    Awright, Gang, listen up, it's time to refocus on the real issue here. 
    One more time from the top...
    
    The Digital credo is that "we pay for performance".  Performance can be
    measured all kinds of ways, but off the top of my little noggin, I can
    think of things like healthy, sustainable profitability as a corporate
    measure of success, and so on down the line to things like group
    profitability, group viability, individual characteristics, etc.  Now,
    the corporation ain't profitable, no way, no how, Wall Street is still
    rating us a real cautious "Hold" based on our Q2 performance, so, you
    can draw your own conclusions, we are NOT, as a corporation, meeting
    our performance goals,  Anything short of healthy, sustainable
    profitability and viability should NOT be considered meeting
    performance goals.
    
    So, the company has cut back so heavily on expenses, it's even tough to
    get office supplies.  The company has cut its workforce heavily, and,
    often, seemingly without rhyme or reason.  The company has cut back on
    benefits.  It has cut back on vacation time accrual.  It has upped the
    ante of the benefits we do receive.  There are no more Canobie Lake
    picnics.  Employee Activities are severely cut back.  We probably won't
    even get our turkeys this year.  We are told we are having tough times,
    so, please, everyone, tighten your belts, do more work for less pay, be
    thankful you still have your jobs, nose to the grindstone, and let's
    turn this company around, for our management and our shareholders, and,
    oh yeah, so you can keep your jobs.
    
    "Pay for performance".  The total spend number this year for raises is
    4.4% FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR!  You could walk on water, and those of us who
    are left in this company, ostensibly, are the solid performers... and
    still not shag more than a 4.4% raise, if you're very lucky.  Based on
    affordability metrics group to group, there may be many solid
    performers who will get NOTHING!  This in continuing economically
    depressed times.  So, you could be a 1 performer, and not even get a
    cost of living adjustment, let alone merit pay.  BUT!!!!!!  We can
    certainly find the money to award bonuses to many already highly
    compensated individuals, who, in general, also have many more perks,
    etc.  THEIR performance metrics should be the company MAKING money, NOT
    LOSING it...in current times, it is THEY, who got us into this mess in
    the first place, making the sacrifices, NOT the rank and file, and
    certainly, they should not be getting bonuses!  "Pay for performance",
    get it?  Talk about disincenting the last of us who are sacrificing,
    trying each and every day to do the right thing, and get our once great
    company turned around....please, someone, take pity on me, and explain
    to me the incentive to give my 150% each and every day, knowing full
    well I may get a virtually non-existent raise, let alone any sort of a
    bonus for a job well done...
    
    Face it, we have two distinct classes in our company, which, if you
    believe that each group is a representative microcosm of the entire
    group, i.e. our company is a representative microcosm of our society in
    general, makes sense, the "haves" and the "have nots", and the rich are
    getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class
    is being taxed, etc. out of existence.
    
    Still with me?  "Pay for performance"?  Uh huh...  in my dreams!
    
    Okay, I'll get off of my soapbox now, so that I can do something
    useful, altruistically dreaming of helping our company get back on its
    feet, and never dreaming of some reward, some "thank you" for a job
    well done...
    
    You out there, Don Quixote?
    
    Sancho Pancha

    re: .63
    
    What I meant to ask is, does GE indicate when an upper-level manager
    meets or exceeds goals that are linked to rewards?  Like, is there any
    kind of announcement or ceremony or some such?  The reason I ask is
    that there may be a precedent for Digital if other companies announce
    when upper-level managers are successful without disclosing reward
    amounts.
    
    re: .64
    
    Thanks for bringing the topic back to this issue.  One of the things
    that concerns me is management attitude IF it is true that large bonuses 
    have gone out to upper-level managers.  If upper-level management is
    telling the ranks that we need to all cut back while they are taking
    big bonuses, then there is a BIG problem.  There may be an attitude 
    problem if they feel that the REAL problem is that someone let the cat 
    out of the bag and that there should be MORE secrecy.  I am afraid that
    what I will encounter is an attitude that the actions taken (big
    bonuses) were just fine and that things would have worked out just fine
    if nobody learned about it.  
    
    Big IF here.  So far, I have seen NO SOLID EVIDENCE that big bonuses have 
    gone to upper-level management.  That's one reason that I did not
    specifically address this issue in my letter.  I focused on the need
    for public recognition so that, assuming that the rumor is without
    basis, better communication can result in increased trust and a
    refutation of any damaging rumors.  Though I feel the rumor is true, I
    hope it is not and hope that there will be a reasonable and acceptable
    official explanation.  This and perhaps a policy change towards more
    open communication about bonuses could go a long way towards improving 
    morale, IMO.
    
    If, indeed, the rumor is true, I don't really know how to make the best
    of a bad situation.  I don't know how upper-management can expect to
    lead the company if not by example.  But, if they are not willing to
    communicate openly about such things preferring a policy of secrecy, we 
    may face a much more important issue than that of undisclosed large 
    bonuses.  Thus far, I am hopeful that an improvement in communications
    will lead to a resolution that is acceptable by all.
    
    Steve

    GE does not announce whether or not managers received incentive
    compensation. 
    
    The corporation may be unprofitable, but that is no reason not to
    reward managers of businesess that ARE profitable.  If you do not
    reward the successful managers, you are in effect using the profits
    from one line of business to subsidize the losses from another.  Either
    get managers who can make the other business profitable, or get out of
    that business.
    
    I am an individual contributor who has never seen a penny in bonuses,
    stock options, etc., and I am usually the first to be critical of
    Digital policies.  However, I see nothing wrong with rewarding managers
    who run profibtable businesses, even if the corporation as a whole is
    unprofitable.   Happens in any corporation that is comprised of
    multiple business units.  

    re: A statement made many notes back about Delta
    
    	I stand corrected that Delta is about employee involvement with
    cost savings as a by-product. It is not a "stricly cost savings" program
    as I misunderstood it to be.
    
    re: linking bonuses to profit
    
    	There are many necessary overhead jobs that do not directly, in an
    easily measurable sense, make profit. What criteria do you use to give
    bonuses to people in these groups ?
    
    	Ray

Note that incentive awards for lower level employees generally ARE
announced, at least in the groups I've worked in.  Incentive award
dinners and special bonus grants of $500 were regularly announced,
along with a precis of why management felt these individuals deserved
recognition.

I've received patent incentive awards, and they were also publically
announced, along with the amounts involved.  One of my co-workers got
$10,000 for the issuance of his 10th patent!  Again, it's all public.
FYI, the patent awards are fairly new, and were instituted to reward 
key performers, convince them to stay (it takes years to get a patent
issued) and save Digital litigation money by getting more patent
protection.  It worked.

On the other hand, I once got a stock option -- and was explicitly
requested not to tell anyone.  This is apparently a type of bonus that
is reserved for the higher levels (with a bit filtering down to the
consultant engineers occasionally, depending on your group).  I'm
completely mystified about the process by which these are awarded.  I'm
sure there are a whole range of other types of awards that go to the
higher level managers, that hardly any of the rest of us even know about. (*)

So all I'm saying is that the executive bonus process should *NOT* be
secret!  We don't make salaries or performance ratings public, but the
salary and performance rating process IS public (at least in some
groups).  And the incentive awards that go out to lower level folks are,
generally speaking, entirely in the open -- why not executive bonuses?

Does management think we'd feel cheated if we found out what sort of
perqs and bonuses they are getting?  Do they think we wouldn't understand
that the people who make the decisions that cause Digital to earn a lot
of money (or otherwise meet important goals) deserve a lot of compensation?  
I think we'd understand... (**)  In any case, I think we deserve to have
it explained.

As someone pointed out, it's a matter of trust.  Opening up the process
will increase trust if management is trustworthy.  And it will help get
things changed if they are not.  And fighting to get the process opened 
can improve things whether or not they are trustworth -- the DCU fight
proved that.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- Someone a few back said he respects Steve Sherman's efforts but
disagrees totally with his conclusions.  Do you mean that you think that
the executive bonus process should remain secret, as it now is?


*  I know someone with the same name as a VP who told me that 
Corporate once called him to ask for their $5000 back... it was
a perq for VP's to pay for their tax advisors, but they accidentally
put it in the wrong account.  Why were VP's getting this perq?

**  An example of a division that is losing money but where bonusses
may be appropriate is PCSG.  We need to become a major player in the 
PC business -- it's necessary for our survival.  But we can't get there 
without losing money for a while first.  So while making money is an 
important consideration for bonuses, it isn't the *only* consideration.

I think the idea of public bonuses is BAD unless given on a unit-wide
basis.

This is the same problem we have with COE.  Only a few people win it,
the reasons are made public as to who won and why.  The problem comes
in because there are always a bunch of folks who run around saying the
winners are all brown-nosers, its political, or whatever.  A few of the people
in the group are real happy and the remainder are annoyed at best (in the
general situations I've seen. )

The consensus around here is that if you want to keep certain key people
happy, slip them a substancial bonus every once in a while and don't make
a big production out of it.  If you want to motivate a team, then give team
awards and publicize them to death.

I just do not think human nature allows a few folks to get bonuses and yet
still maintain group morale...

Re: .64: Salary Increase Spend Number

	The overall spend number of 4.4% has little bearing on what your 
individual raise will be (if your manager doesn't totally wimp out and give 
everyone the same raise). Some people will get less and some will get more 
(even double digit increases). The average for each management unit cannot 
exceed 4.4%, but in most cases the individual raises will be a different 
number.

regards,

Jim
ex-manager and very happy not to be one in this day and age

    re: .69
    
    I think you've got some good points there, Mike.  At a high level of 
    management, is it better to quietly reward individual contributions or 
    team playing?  If it is better to reward individual contributions, what 
    is it that a high-level manager personally contributes that is worth a 
    bonus over and above salary?  (A side issue, to what extent is it 
    appropriate for upper-level managers to accept rewards based on success 
    of subordinates?)  If you try to reward team players, why keep it quiet?
    
    Steve

This is a information from letter that was forwarded to me with a request 
that it be posted anonymously.  The information is said to have come from
VTX in the Hong Kong menu, item 29.

Steve


    
                                  ASIA REGION
                            SUCCESS SHARING PROGRAM
    
    Countries in Asia Region have implemented a variable compensation
    program called SUCCESS SHARING. This program is based on the concept
    that all employees share in the responsibility of the organisational
    success and hence should be rewarded accordingly. While individual
    performance is still vitally important, the introduction of this
    Success Sharing program shifts greater emphasis to teamwork in
    measuring the achievement of our overall Country and/or Regional goals.
    Adding team value to our individual accomplishments means that every
    one of us can now make more of a difference than ever before.
 
                                       
    PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
    
    Success Sharing provides each of us with an additional opportunity to
    be recognized financially for our contribution to Digital's overall
    success.
    
    Along with Success Sharing, Digital will continue, as always, to pay
    competitive salaries based on the  marketplace value of our individual
    job and on our individual performance.
    


    Success Sharing is made up of two financial recognition components:
    
    1.    ACHIEVEMENT BONUS
          
          When our Digital team achieves our profit goal, we will receive
          an achievement bonus.
          
          The achievement bonus begins when we achieve 97% of our profit
          goal and continues to 100%.
    
          For every full percentage point above 96%, multiply your base pay
          by 1% so that at 97% of profit goal you get 1%, 98% you get 2%,
          99% you get 3% and 100% you get 4%.
    
          Achievement Bonus Example
          (Annual Base Salary of $40000)
          
    Step 1 - Calculate % Team Profit Goal Achieved
    
          Team Profit Goal:                 $30 million
          
          Team Profit Achieved:             $29.5 million
    
          % of Profit Goal Achieved:        98% 
          
          Achievement Bonus %               2% (ie 98% - 96%)
    
    Step 2 - Calculate Your Achievement Bonus
    
          Multiply "2" times 1.0%           2.0%
    
          Multiply 2.0% times:              $40000 (your base salary)
    
          Achievement Bonus:                $800.00
          
          Achievement Bonus Potential
          (Annual Base Salary of $40,000)
    
          Team Profit        Subtract       Multiply       Achievement
          Goal Achievement     96%           by 1.0           Bonus
          
             97%                1%          1% * $40000     $400.00
    
             98%                2%          2% * $40000     $800.00
    
             99%                3%          3% * $40000    $1200.00
    
            100%                4%          4% * $40000    $1600.00




    2.    OVERACHIEVEMENT BONUS
    
          The overachievement bonus begins when our team exceeds our profit
          goal.
    
          For every FULL percentage we exceed our profit target, multiply
          your base pay by 0.25%.  You can earn up to an additional 10% in
          overachievement bonus.
    
          Overachievement Bonus Example:
          (Annual Base Salary of $40000)
    
    Step 1 - Calculate % Team Profit Goal Over 100% Achieved
    
          Team Profit Goal:                 $200 million
    
          Team Profit Achieved:             $211.5 million
    
          % of Profit Goal Achieved:        105% 
    
          Overachievement Bonus %           5% (ie 105% - 100%)
    
    Step 2 - Calculate Your Overachievement Bonus
    
          Multiply "5" times 0.25%:         1.25%
          
          Multiply 1.25% times:             $40000 (your base salary)
    
          Overachievement Bonus:            $500.00
          
          Overachievement Bonus Potential
          (Annual Base Salary of $40000) 
    
          Team Profit        Subtract       Multiply       Overachievement
          Goal Achievement     100%         by 0.25            Bonus
    
             102%               2%          0.5% * $40000     $200.00
    
             107%               7%         1.75% * $40000     $700.00
    
             120%              20%            5% * $40000    $2000.00
    
             140%              40%           10% * $40000    $4000.00
    
    Putting Success Sharing Together
    
          Team               Achievement   Overachievement   Success
          Profit Goal          Bonus           Bonus         Sharing
          Achievement                                        Together
    
          100%               $1600.00       
    
          107%                              $700.00          $2300.00
    

    re:  .72 ... Funny, I was just going to write and point out that we
    have got to get away from this "reward the upper management, ONLY" for
    what is essentially a team effort across the company.  Personally, I
    think that in bad times, we ALL share the pain, ESPECIALLY those in
    decision-making positions, who, it seems to logically follow, made the
    bad decisions that got us into this seemingly unending mess, and in
    better times, we ALL share in the wealth, ESPECIALLY those in the
    rank-and-file who have worked hard to ensure success for the company as
    a whole.  It's interesting to point out, that, in Japan, who, by the
    way, has beat us soundly at our own game, capitalism, that when a
    company is in trouble, it is the MANAGEMENT who pays the price!  Each
    manager pays back a portion of his salary commensurate with his level
    as an investment in the company's future.  This sends a strong message
    to all employees about the seriousness of the situation, whilst
    boosting morale, as non-management employees, (who, in Japan are
    regarded as of utmost importance, "family", and not as hired hands as
    they are in this culture), suffer the least.  Such a move, since it
    DIRECTLY impacts managers, brings all their attention to bear on
    ameliorating the situation.  It seems sopme of the paycuts can be as
    much as 50% for very senior people.  It is their thinking that they
    NEED their rank-and-file to help get the company back on track. BTW,
    this is information I had received some years ago in my old SIMG
    Strategic Finance days, from one of our Finance people in Japan, and it
    seems more applicable than ever, in these days.
    
    Bottom line?  In tough times, we ALL share the pain, and if there are
    rewards going around, then ALL should share in them, not just a few
    privileged few...
    
    Wonder if anyone has thought of implementing something along the lines
    of .72 here in the good old U.S. of A.?  Wouldn't the ensuing boost in
    employee morale, and hence, productivity be worth it?  Huh?
    
    Aw, what the hey, just blowing spit into the wind here...
    
    Oscar-the-Grouch
    
     

This is from note 2348.0, "Transcript of 1/27/93 Engineering Update DVN":

	"On the other hand, there are a number of management values that 
	are different. Perhaps most important is the notion of teamwork. 
	In the previous administration, we believed that competition was 
	the way to get internal excellence. Bob Palmer believes that 
	teamwork is the way to get internal excellence."

It looks to me like the official position of Digital and a major change
in management includes an emphasis on teamwork as a top priority.  Per 
the discussions in note 2332.*, it seems to me that large, secret bonuses 
to individuals (IF such are happening) are incompatible with encouraging 
teamwork and hence internal excellence.  This seems substantiated by the 
assertion that large, secret bonuses to individuals emphasize individual 
performance and not team efforts.  

In order to encourage team efforts, it seems to me necessary for rewards 
to at least be visible to the team, let alone be shared by team members.  
Current policy seems to be to keep such bonuses, if they exist, secret.  
I suggest that if teamwork really is considered the way to get internal 
excellence, Digital ammend its policies to require public recognition when 
bonuses are rewarded.


Steve

    I forwarded the base note to top management and asked, essentially,
    "What the hell is going on?" Today, in response, I received a letter
    from a Sr. Personnel Consultant who had been asked by top management to
    respond. In short, he said the information in the base note is
    "inaccurate and false."
    
    Time to step up to the plate, people. Does anyone know for sure what
    the story is?
    
    
    ken
    

    I've not gotten official word either way.  When I get it, I'll post it.
    My primary concern is that, whether the rumors are true or not, bonuses
    should not be kept secret if Digital is truly interested in promoting
    teamwork.
    
    Steve

Re: .75
I have satisfied myself that it *is* true. And it's been recently
corroborated by another very senior person (*my* senior person is
more senior than *your* senior person :-). It certainly is possible
that the Sr Personnel Consultant is not aware that it is going on because
whoever *is* doing it would not like it made public. Unfortunately, for
the protection of my source, I cannot even hint as to their identity nor
how they stumbled across direct knowledge of the information.
I will choose being fired instead of revealing my source if it were to
come to that.
The bonuses were distributed around - not to senior VPs. One check went
to Kaufburen, Germany (not necessarily a $40K check).

Another new development is that yesterday Win Hindle's office called and
said now that I *can* have an appointment with Win - it is currently scheduled
for this Friday at 10am.

    This story was printed in this morning's local paper.
    
    IBM has announced that it will give bonuses to all employees of its
    Essex Junction, VT plant.  These bonuses were for meeting or exceeding
    certain goals in 1992 and will be given out in March.  Although the
    total value wasn't given by the plant spokesman because salary
    information is considered confidential, the reporter estimated it,
    conservatively, at several million dollars (the plant employs some
    6,300 people).  What was publicly announced was that the bonus is equal
    to 2.6% of annual salary and is given to *everyone* in the plant.
    
    

First off, I'm never in favor of someone making statements on
the basis of some unrevealed source. If you get a tip off and
then can prove it without revealing your source then fine,
otherwise you aren't creditable... I believe even US law says
that when someone is "on trial", they have a right to see who
is accusing them and why.

Secondly, the question of bonuses was asked directly to Larry
Walker, VP of networks at his talk at TAY2 on Jan.26,1993. Larry
said the only bonuses he was aware of was cash bonuses being given
to people *instead* of one stock option plan because over the last
couple of years, that plan had been worthless. He also said the
highest he has seen has been around the $10K figure.

Craig.

PS. In case you are wondering, I am not one of those people that
got a bonus of any kind...

    I'm also sensitive to issues where sources are not named.  That's 
    one of the first things I asked about.  But, I still take such things
    seriously if I know the people that come up with these things and know
    them to have integrity.  Paul Kinzelman is one of those people.  
    
    Also, I've seen real issues start with denied rumors.  This is exactly
    what happened with the DCU.  There were rumors about goings on that were 
    denied and later turned out to be based on fact.  To think that things 
    happen differently is naive.  It is a sign of an errant system where
    such rumors abound.  In making needed corrections, rumors need to be 
    chased down and publicly refuted or confirmed.  But, more importantly, 
    communication needs to be good enough that rumors are short-lived.  
    
    Right now, the bonus rumor is NOT short-lived.  It has not been officially 
    denied nor confirmed to my knowledge through more formal channels.  Even 
    then, my experience indicates that formal information can be faulty and 
    must sometimes be pursued until it can be substantiated.
    
    Part of the problem probably involves, as before, a conflicting mix of fear 
    as well as concience on the part of anonymous sources.  I personally saw 
    that fears were warranted during the DCU episodes.  Getting hard facts were 
    very hard to come by.  There were forces at play who determined that the 
    problem was simply that "secrets" were being let out, not that there were 
    any other real issues that needed to be corrected.
    
    At issue is communication.  As far as bonuses go, I think some consider 
    the problem to be that things are not as secret as they should be and 
    that it cannot be "right" to leak information about wrongdoings.  Others
    consider the problem to be that mistakes are being covered up and that
    the solution is to have more communication so that problems can be
    dealt with directly.  I'm in the latter camp.  
    
    I strongly feel that when Digital rewards someone for outstanding performance, 
    there should be public recognition and aknowledgment.  Exact cash figures 
    don't have to accompany it.  Established ranges for the rewards are just 
    fine by me.  If such a policy were in place and enforced, there would be no
    rumors of $40K bonuses to management during times of layoff.  It would be 
    known and it would be known why any, if any, such bonuses were given.
    
    I am also in the camp that feels that if someone really performed well
    for the company, they should be rewarded in spite of hard times.
    We need to make heroes of those that are pulling the company out of
    slumps.  In my mind, a supposed team player who insists on a quiet, 
    substantial, secret reward for undisclosed performance is less than 
    a leader, let alone a hero.
    
    Steve

    	As of very recently, the stock options would appear to be much more
    attractive then in the past few years. One nice thing about the stock 
    options is that the rewards are somewhat tied to the companies fiscal 
    performance. This in turn, will mean better bonuses when the company 
    starts making money, or at least losing it so fast.
    
    	I have heard at least one person verify that cash bonuses where
    given. They also indicated that they were given in lieu of stock
    options, coinciding with the statement made by Larry Walker. 
    
    	I'm sure more will be said about this on a group by group basis. How 
    much is said will probably depend on whether or not people in a group got
    bonuses (and others found out) AND whether it had a significant impact
    on morale (which it will in many cases). I'd really be surprised if a 
    company-wide statement was made about this. I suspect that the majority 
    of employees either don't know about this, or don't believe it really 
    happened.
     
    	Ray

    re:  .? from Ken Sherman...Sr. Personnel types are taught in Personnel
    101 how to respond, without saying anything that remotely smacks of the
    truth, especially in this company, where they are most often likely to
    be a shill for the management.
    
    re:  .80 (?) from Steve, I quite agree with you, that if there are
    metrics in place for success, and they are met or exceeded, and a
    financial reward is called for, then, let it be done, in the open,
    above board, for all to know about.  It's the secrecy of this whole
    thing that leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth...
    
    /mms

Re: .79
I don't like it (not naming sources) either, but if you gave me a piece of
information that could mean your job, would you like it if I revealed your
name? I *will* protect any source who comes forward to me with information
and can convince me that their information is correct. Fortunately, this is
not a court of law. Fairness and truth are often incidental and irrelevant
to court proceedings.

Meeting report...
I just returned from my meeting with Win Hindle this morning. The 1/2 hour
meeting took 40 minutes. Unfortunately, I don't have much to report because
I did most of the talking. He disagreed with my assessment that upper level
personnel is the fundamental problem of the employee's perception of
management's lack of credibility and integrity. He said he had no knowledge
that bonuses in the amount of $40K were given out but he said he'd look further.

Some of the ideas I suggested he agreed with, on most he said nothing but
listened intently. I left him with the following question:

"The question you and RP must answer is "Has the state of the company gotten
bad enough yet for you to abandon the traditional 'solutions' that don't
work and destroy morale, and embrace a solution that will really address
the company's problems."

Jack Smith, sadly, chose "no".
He wanted the right thing to just magically "happen" without paying the
price of fundamentally changing the system which clearly does NOT work.

I believe that we will see by management's actions in the near future
whether it has gotten bad enough yet. I've been here too long to be
very optimistic, but I'm very willing to be wrong. There's nothing more
I can do.

    Just to make a point here.  I and others are being contacted by folks
    who have first-hand knowledge of bonus abuses, but who insist on
    remaining anonymous.  I no longer doubt that there are bonus abuses at
    Digital.  However, this alone is not sufficient for change.  These
    things need to be brought out in the open.  But, that can't happen when
    so many people are afraid they will suffer retribution if they speak
    up.  Management is probably in "damage control" mode.  How do we get 
    management out of "damage control" mode and into a mode to really fix 
    the problem?  Any suggestions?  I'm already pursuing it with Corporate
    Employee Communication.
    
    Steve

    My contact with Corporate Employee Communication has rendered an
    opinion to me that there is not much chance of any change in policy
    regarding any sort of public acknowledgement of reward.  This is not to
    be regarded as any sort of "official" response in this matter, but
    seems to mark the end of this formal channel regarding this matter.  
    I may now formally submit a suggestion for policy change to Worldwide 
    Personnel.  I'm told to expect 6 months to a year for an official 
    response. 
    
    My next step will be to go over Orange Book policy and see how exactly
    changes might be specified.  Then, forward those changes to the suggested 
    contact.  In other words, as things are going now, I cannot be expected 
    to get anything fast done by myself.  I'll do my best to propose change, 
    but if the facts can't be brought out in public there may not be much more 
    that can be done.  Skeptics have logical basis for denying there is a
    problem in the absence of evidence.
    
    This is different from the DCU situation.  There, Phil Gransewicz and
    others were able to get access to real information that could be used
    to bring issues out to the light of day.  Here, it is possible to get 
    the information, but not to bring it out unless there is a policy
    change or some other way of opening up communication between management
    and the rank and file.  I have no doubt that people care from notes,
    e-mail, phone calls and personal contact.  But, for any change to occur
    some window has to open, something needs to happen to shed light on the
    situation.
    
    Steve

    The following topic has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    (Please post this as a reply to Digital conference note 2332.  It is
    anonymous, because it's no one's business that some of my people got
    bonuses). 
    
    As one who knows all the facts, I've been watching this topic with
    increasing irritation.
    
    It's very troubling to see so much employee energy poured into
    uninformed speculation, and so many self-serving theories about what
    compensation policies and openly-available information about other
    people's compensation would be "best for Digital". 
    
    Here's the facts, and some advice.
    
    Cash bonuses were given out in 1992.  In November.
    
    They tended to be in the 4-digit and 5-digit range.
    
    They were incentive awards, given to top performers, who had notable
    achievements, made exceptional contributions to the business goals of
    their organization, or helped drive positive change. 
    
    Most cash went to the real worker bees, not management, in my area.
    
    I gave out some cash awards to my people, in the four-digit range.
    
    I helped to arrange several other cash awards, one in the 5-digit
    range.
    
    Based on the amount of money available, and the awards I know about, I
    don't believe that the higher level managers got anything. 
    
    These awards were a replacement (perhaps temporary) for the incentive
    stock option program. 
    
    The incentive stock option program has been in place for many years,
    perhaps for decades.  It has always existed to reward top performers. 
    This is nothing new.  REPEAT, this is nothing new. 
    
    What is new is that the incentive stock options had become a
    de-motivator to our top performers, since most past awards are now
    "under water".
    
    Two principles apply:
    
    	- We want to continue reward our top performers and provide
          incentive for continued performance.
    	  
    	- We do not want the rewards to de-motivate them.
    	
    So, the Old Incentive Stock Option Program was replaced by the New
    Incentive Cash Bonus Program.
    
    These awards are compensation.  Under company policy and normal United
    States social norms, this is private between management and the
    employee.
    
    Ergo, what someone else got is not anyone else's business.
    
    That's the FACTS.
    
    Here's some ADVICE.
    
    	- Stop whining.
    
    	- Stop ignorant speculation and theorizing and rumor-mongering.
    
    	- If you want a cash bonus this year, do the work and have the
    	  behaviors that will earn you one.
    	  
    	- If you don't know what would earn you an incentive award, ask
    	  your manager to tell you what achievements and behaviors might 
    	  qualify you for an award.
    	  
    	  Incentive awards have been around for a long time.  This is
    	  nothing new.  They are not black magic.
    	  
    	  SOME level of management in your organization can explain this to
    	  you.  Ask them.  They owe you an honest answer.
    	  
    	- Then get back to work.
    	
    thanks for listening.
    /bye
    

    
    
    I do not know any "worker bee" who ever got any type of bonus.
    Does anyone know of such a person?
    
    just wondering...

    
    I do have a friend (now TFSO'd) who received a substantial (low/mid 4
    figures) award of stock. There was hell to pay trying to get the taxes
    figured out, and they ended up just accepting a partial because of the
    taxes. Taxes were taken back as stock (I think, don't quote me here)
    and they kep the rest.
    
    As for the reccomendation that people seek out their mananger and ask,
    "What can I do to get a cash bonus/stock option/incentive?" well, I've
    asked similar questios in the past and been told "Don't worry, we can't
    tell you what we're looking for, but we'll know when we see it....".
    
    Granted, there are some "standing" programs available to (most of) the
    general population (let's not turn this into the 'I hate COE
    because...' topic) but in many cases the programs, guidelines, and
    awards are not public knowledge for the group or groups to which they
    apply.
    
    IMHO,
    
    Java

>    (Please post this as a reply to Digital conference note 2332.  It is
>    anonymous, because it's no one's business that some of my people got
>    bonuses). 
 
	I tend to believe that if no one knows who gets bonuses that no one
	has an incentive to try for one. For the simple reason that in that
	case bonuses become some sort of fairy tale. Something that happens 
	to other people. This is why sweepstake runners always advertise the
	"real people" who win "real prizes." Something that is unreal to most
	people only motivates the favored few who get the prizes.

   
>    They were incentive awards, given to top performers, who had notable
>    achievements, made exceptional contributions to the business goals of
>    their organization, or helped drive positive change. 
 
	Sounds great. So why are people ashamed to admit that they were given
	out? And why are people ashamed (or unable?) to explain what sort of
	things earned these awards?

>    Ergo, what someone else got is not anyone else's business.
 
	I don't think anyone is asking who got how much. They're asking for
	management to be honest about the awards being given. And for examples
	of what behavior earned them. I remember when I was in Software Services
	some 14-15 years ago. Some award was put in place, I forget what it
	was called, but when it was explained to us, management said that if
	a name was announced as winning the award and everyone didn't agree
	that it was earned that management would have picked the wrong person.

	So I'm sorry but based on what good managers have told me in the past
	if you don't feel good about saying "Foo got an award for doing ..."
	(without telling how much) then I'll have no choice but to wonder what
	people are doing and if the awards are really being given on merit.
    	Perhaps the awards were deserved but I'll never know that will I?
    	It's "trust me". Well, trust in management is not that strong right
    	now. One only has to look at our stock price to know that. Or read
    	this conference to see how employees feel. 

			Alfred

  

    I agree with Alfred.  And, I agree that it's not really necessary to
    know exact dollar figures.  Ranges for awards are probably okay.
    I haven't really heard from anyone that said, "he got an award and I
    didn't and that's not fair."  Mostly, it's been along the lines Alfred
    indicated having to do with trust in management.
    
    Steve

    
    
    re. last several
    
    
    I personally know an individual who received a cash award.  I will not
    name the persons name, as I do not have their permission.  I can tell
    you all, because of this persons work Digital save >$1,000,000.00 of
    real money.  This was in addition to that persons normal "Do IT All"
    type of job.
    
    Jon Aller.
    
    

Hoarding information does not benefit the company.  It sounds like 
.86 would like to use bonuses to pay off people for shutting up,
which I know happens because it happened to me (not with a bonus 
but with a raise).

If I were running a company, I'd make sure that employees knew were
every penny came from and where it went.  I'd post salaries where
everyone could see them.  If they are fair, why shouldn't they be
known.  I'd make sure employees knew what their fringe benefits cost, 
too.  I wouldn't give bonuses to individuals, but if there was a profit,
everyone would share, and if there was a loss, everyone would take a
cut.  Since everyone would know exactly how the cash flow went, I'd
have the brainpower of everyone in the company working on how to
improve productivity and optimize costs.

Instead of giving cash bonuses to individuals, I'd make sure that
individual and team accomplishments and contributions were lavishly
and frequently recognized and praised throughout the company.  I'd 
also make raises and promotions known throughout the company.  Again,
if they are fair and deserved, everyone should be able to recognize
it.  I'd get input from everyone on the salary planning process.

If I started to see anonymous notes or heard of rumors and people
grumbling behind my back, I'd move quickly to get pertinent
information out into the open.  I'd encourage everyone to bring
up whatever problems they saw, particularly if they thought
something unfair was going on.

Some people think that hoarding information increases its value, but
I think just the opposite is true.

Also, I'd hire only nice people.

So, who would like to work for my company?

Mac

    Re: .92
    
    Everything was OK until that last little line...  I doubt that I could
    qualify as 'nice'.  And I wouldn't even have minded if *everyone* knew
    my salary - though it would take a while to stop checking my fly when
    co-workers giggled as I walked by.  Oh, well.  Another promotion I
    can't have.
    
    Don
    

    
    In 20 years, I have no first-hand knowledge of anyone who has received
    such an award.
    
    I appreciate the information provided in .86. Ten years ago, I would
    probably have accepted Anon.'s word that most if not all awards go to
    worker bees. Ten years ago I would have lapsed back into total
    ignorance on the subject and waited patiently for someone to decide
    that I deserved such a reward.
    
    Things have changed in ten years. I have come to realize that I am my
    best and sometimes only champion when it comes to raises and
    promotions, and I strongly suspect the same is true for bonuses.
    For raises and promotions, I can effectively be my own champion
    because I have access to some data; for example, the requirements for
    various job classifications, the salary ranges for those
    classifications, and (when the wind is right) the spend plan for a given
    year and distilled information about others in my classification.
    
    To do the same with regard to bonuses, I need similar information; what
    are the classifications and ranges for bonuses, what are the
    "requirements" for earning one, what is the "spend plan" for bonuses in
    my area, and distilled information about bonuses awarded to others in
    my category. Without that information, and with only rumors and
    fragments of conversations hanging in the air to form my opinions, I am
    forced to believe that bonuses are somehow different from normal
    compensation; that they are the secret handshake of a quiet clique to
    which management need only apply; and with all due respect to Anon., in
    the absence of hard data, I an disinclined to believe protests to the
    opposite.
    
    Anon., please don't brush this off as whining. If you would have me
    stop ignorant speculation and rumor-mongering, work with me to make
    available the hard information to take its place. I dearly want to do
    the work and exhibith the behavior that will earn a bouns; work with me
    to describe the work and the behavior, and give me some proof that
    it will not be in vain because the bonus system is largely political.
    

re: .93

Nice people are the kind of people who care about doing a good job,
who care about their co-workers, and who care about their customers.
It doesn't occur to them to withhold information that might help
co-workers do a better job, or that might make their job more 
understandable, more interesting, or more fun.  They don't have
any secrects because they don't do things they'd be ashamed of
other people knowing.  They know how to get along with others
and they practice common courtesy with everyone and don't say
nasty things about people behind their backs (or even in front
of their backs).  They are quick to speak up when they see a
problem, but they know how to do so diplomatically.  They love to
solve problems and make things work better.  Customers feel
uplifted after talking to them.  They are secure and self-confident,
and of course they get lots of support and training from the
company to help them stay that way.


Mac

    
    Seems the real issue is trust and confidence, or lack thereof IMO.  
    
    People are told to trust A PROCESS they do not know and have no real 
    information to personally evaluate to develop that trust.  Since no 
    information has been forth-coming, people must then trust THE PEOPLE 
    at various levels in the company that implement the process.  It is 
    clear that there is a problem in that area also these days.
    
    DEC must recognize these serious problems if it is ever to regain its
    momentum and success IMO.  Treat all employees as partners in the
    process, work with them.  Let the trust and confidence of both process 
    and people develop and grow.  Being given edicts which negatively
    affect peoples' personal and professional lives, which then get
    reversed/modified works against this.  Being told to stop complaining
    and whining and get back to work is another dodge of the real problems.
    
    I think people are very frustrated about this issue because of the
    secretive aspect of it, but also because of all the sacrifices we have
    all been asked to make to get the company back on track (reduced or
    eliminated benefits too numerous to mention).  While it is important to
    reward deserving employees for performance, during times like this, it
    will be perceived as a transfer of benefits from some employees to a
    few.  This may not be a fair perception but I believe it occurs.  So
    the question becomes, do you risk alienating a large group of
    hard-working employees to reward a relatively few employees?  Or do you
    risk demotivating some employees to prevent a more wide spread
    demotivating factor?  And how does the decision affect teamwork within
    the entire corporate environment?  I would assume/hope that all of these 
    questions were considered.  
    

re: .86
I have a problem with *anybody* getting a $40K bonus for *anything* when
projects on which the company is betting its future (like alpha hardware)
can't buy paper for the laser printer, not to mention pencils. What about
a person doing something for the company just because it's the right thing
to do and he's proud of the company? And maybe get a $500 or $1K bonus?
After all, any engineer that finds a bug early that would have delayed the
ship of a product could save the company potentially much more than $1M,
but that's just his job. There are lots of people who do this. What about
them?

Sorry, I'm not whining, I'm saying that something is seriously out of whack.
I think Phil in .-1 put it just right. It is an issue of trust and confidence
in the old-guard management - primarily in personnel. Personnel is the
organization that should be chartered with facilitating the relationship
between management and the worker-bees. In DEC, that facilitation is
known as "intimidation and retribution". And .86 must know about
being intimidated or he/she wouldn't have felt the need to post anonymously.
I suspect you only fear the wrath of this file. Turn that around and try to
feel what it would be like to be in fear of your job and ability to put food
on the table and you will have stepped into the shoes of many people who have
sent me mail thanking me for speaking out and for expressing how they feel
too.

What you're saying is to trust the system. That's the standard cop-out for
those who want to keep "transactions" in secret for their own gain.
It's simply *amazing* how
much stuff fixes itself when it has to be done out in the open. You need
fewer rules, just because people will tend to do the right thing because
they know others will find out about it.

There are many of us who
*know* from personal experience that there are severe problems with the
current system and the people responsible for those systems do *not* want
to fix the system because they benefit from their system.

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






I'm not in the USA. However, I was responsible for nominating two members of
my team for Individual Performance Awards which they received in one of their
pay packets in Q2. I was also a member of the management team that arbitrated
the selections within my function.

I am not personally aware of any manager that received an award. All the
awards given in my function were to exceptional individual contributors
alone. The extent of the awards were either 5% or 10% of annual gross
salary; guidelines would allow us to go as high as 20% in exceptional
circumstances only.

Both winners far exceeded the performance specified on their JP&Rs and did
exceptionally good work that resulted in a continuous flow of unsolicited
positive comments (and purchase orders!) from customers. One of my two
was a secretary. Both people receiving the awards received amounts in four
figures.

The only disadvantage of these awards is that while they are motivating to
the individuals concerned, they can, without care, jeopardise team morale. I
consider all my people to be excellent!

Individual and team recognition and reward is probably a science in it's own
right. Another way of contributing to the note would be to suggest alternative
ways of compensating people, or cases where another corporation has a good
program we can copy.

re.91:

>I can tell you all, because of this persons work Digital save >$1,000,000.00 of
>real money

OK, I've done that, how do I get my cash award?

Dave.

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to SCAACT::AINSLEY, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Bob


I received a "bonus" last year. It came to about $1000. in the
form of stock "grants" (vs. options - I could cash these in and
did not have to pay for them).

I am a worker bee. The explanation given was that I had done great
things on a project we were doing for a big-time customer, had been
putting in 90 hour weeks, lots of travel, etc. and management wanted
to recognize that in some way. Thus the "bonus".

I appreciated this a great deal. It came out of the blue, showed that
management appreciated the extra effort, and that Digital was being
creative in how it rewarded good work (I, like others, still have
options for $150. which we'll probably never get to cash in).

This was done discretely, between my boss and I. No one else in the
group knew, at my managers request. Some of them may have received
similar rewards. If they did it is none of my business, just like it's
currently none of my business how much they earn in salary.

So here's anectodal proof that at least one worker bee got a "bonus".
It may not be a great deal of money, but I appreciate it. I'd like
to see every manager have the ability to reward "above and beyond"
efforts in this way.

Back to the hive.

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to SCAACT::AINSLEY, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Bob



Back in 1991 my section head awarded me stock (grants not options) for
exceptional performance. The amount of the award at the time was a bit
over $1000. This award was given for being ranked the highest in the
Circle of Excellence awards list, lets not get into that rathole please.
My section head wanted to give a little something extra for that 
performance. The award was a complete surprise, but a very pleasant one.

Worker bees can get these awards. My only wish is that it were more
common for them to get it.

Now I have to ask...Why are people so afraid of identifying themselves when they
announce that they have received a bonus????  Is this a case of management
intimidating everyone to keep quiet?

When I won COE (I know, not the same as cash, and I would have rather had cash),
my manager announced the award, AND THE REASON I HAD WON, in a group meeting and
also sent E-mail to other managers asking them to forward the announcement to
their people.  It made me feel good, and showed the others in not only my group,
but other groups as well, that you could get recognition for excellent
performance.

Bob

    Just to go on the record, I have won cash awards for patenting and
    publishing (details furnished to those who have interest).  This 
    hasn't involved formal ceremonies, but has involved mail messages and 
    such passed around the group.  The team was made aware of it all, as far 
    as I know.  It has been a good motivator.  It shows also that it is not 
    necessary for there to be a great deal of effort in order for recognition 
    to follow reward.  I am aware of no "need" for secrecy in such matters.
    
    Steve

    The SCO Q/R organization has been giving out awards at 
    quarterly group meetings for several years. They range
    from $50 'sixth player' awards to $700 'weekend getaway
    for 2' awards. One senior manager has received an award
    (for being part of the team that qualified HLO for ISO
    9000). The rest of the awards have been exclusively for
    worker bees. I know of several instances where secretaries
    and clerks have won $500 or $700 awards.
    
    - Dave (member of awards selection committee)

There is no reason that I can think of why a manager can not use part of their
budget for recognition/awards/rewards etc.  There is no policy or practice 
that discourages this from happening.

Several people have mentioned team awards vs. individual awards and what
motivates people to excellence.  Here's something for everyone to think about.
Not a single member of the Dallas Cowboys' Football (American) team was deemed
'good enough' to be voted 'All Pro' and thus appear in the Pro Bowl.

However, they have the #1 rated defense in the NFL, won the Super Bowl
yesterday and many observers think that the key series of plays in the game
were when the Dallas defense held the Buffalo offense to only 3 points despite
Buffalo TWICE having the ball 1st and goal inside the Dallas 10 yard line.

How's that for teamwork?

Bob

Interestingly enough, one of the principles of Pavlovian "training" is
to RANDOMLY reward good behavior.  This minimizes cost without
reducing the effectiveness of the training protocol.  In fact, the
reward ratio can be reduced almost to zero before there is a significant
decrease in productivity.  [I am not equating productivity to job
satisfaction or any other metric.]

It seems perfectly natural to me that the job "market" is set up
so that the probability of reward for performance can be optimized according
to economic principles and that a 100% reward ratio is not the optimum.

What this means for us worker-bees is simply that life is a gamble.
The only way to win is to play as many hands as possible, bet
the good ones, fold the losers, and hope for good luck.

-steve-

The granting of restricted stock options has always been confidential,
and everybody knows this. Whether this is good or not, I don't know,
but why are people suddenly bothered just now that such awards are
confidential? Why did nobody complain during the 20+ years these awards
have been granted?

re: .107

>What this means for us worker-bees is simply that life is a gamble.
>The only way to win is to play as many hands as possible, bet
>the good ones, fold the losers, and hope for good luck.

yeah, but, as one gambler once said "you've got to know when to hold them
and when to fold them".

(-;

- George

re: .108

O.K.  Why are the granting of Restricted Stock Options confidential???
What about stock grants?  Are those confidential too?

Bob

    RE: .108 Just because you didn't complain and you don't know of anyone
    who did doesn't mean it didn't happen. I've never though it right and
    have said so in the past.
    
    			Alfred

    The bonus program is under scrutiny now because some feel that 
    current practice and policies are detrimental to company morale.
    
    Steve

    
    re. .108
    
    	Twenty years ago DEC was not losing XXX Mil/yr, nor were groups
    subjected to the current cost control.
    
    				fred deady
    				wbc::deady

Digital was losing money a year ago, and the discussion back then was
that since restricted options were no longer an effective reward,
perhaps we should go to a cash bonus.

If I received such a bonus, I would want to consider it a form of
one-time raise, part of my compensation as a reward for performance,
and nobody's business but mine and my manager's.

If you have to ask what sort of behavior would merit a bonus, it means
you don't know. Bonuses are given to top performers who know what to do
without having to ask.

    Csh versus stock is a debatable issue that seems to involve arguments 
    on the side of increasing the stake in the company versus maximizing 
    personal increase.  And, I'm not asking that exact amounts be disclosed.  
    Ranges for the amounts are appropriate and, in many cases, ranges have 
    already been disclosed.  
    
    It's given that a person might ask about things they don't know about, 
    such as what merits a bonus.  But, as to top performers who know what to 
    do without having to ask ...  It's a bit much for management to expect
    folks to be successful without clear leadership and example.  
    
    Currently, the rank and file hasn't a clue as to even IF there are top 
    performers, let alone whether or not top performers are really rewarded.  
    They need a few examples, people who have done well for the company and 
    stories of how they did it.  This information is, under current policy, 
    kept secret.  
    
    It's not that folks need to be held by the hand to become top performers. 
    Intelligent people do their homework.  They search out facts about who has 
    been successful and how they did it.  Unfortunately, with the intentional
    "hoarding" of facts that kind of thing is almost impossible at Digital.
    So, who do they look to for inspiring examples and role models at Digital?  
    Nobody.  As far as many are concerned, there are few heroes at Digital
    because they seldom if ever hear any facts about them.
    
    Steve

    At a group meeting last fall, our group (SDT, part of TNSG) announced
    awards, some to project teams and some to individual contributors,
    for special achievments.  As had been done in the past, the awardees
    got a framed certificate and thanks from management.  Unlike the
    past, the awardeees also got some unspecified cash bonus, the amount
    of which was not disclosed (nor do I think it should have been.)
    This was said to be part of a new "Rewards and Recognition" program
    put into place in TNSG.
    
    I think this is a good idea; if people do something that really
    is "above and beyond the call of duty", it should be recognized,
    and with something more than a pat on the back.  I don't know if
    I'll ever find myself on the receiving end of one of these awards,
    but the fact that they exist make me feel better about "going the
    extra mile" for Digital and our customers.
    
    I disagree with those who say that bonuses should be forbidden
    when the company is losing money.  An attitude like that means
    that we'll stay in the red forever.  Of course, it would be foolish
    to go crazy and hand out large bonuses for minor achievements.
    But if a little carrot can encourage us all to work harder, I'm
    all for it.
    
    					Steve

re: .116

We also have recognition awards in my organization (US IM&T CNS).  In
all cases these are publicly presented at the organization manager's
quarterly staff along with a description of what the contributors did
to merit the award.  You get a certificate and a small cash award.  I'm
pretty sure that this method was arrived at by surveying the workers in
US IM&T CNS and asking them whether they wanted to see fewer recipients
and larger awards or more recipients and smaller awards.

I don't think it makes sense to ask what you can do to get a bonus,
since it tends to be for things over and beyond the call of duty.  I
think it's an adjunct to the salary program so that inequities in "pay
for performance" that may be due to the lag time in salary planning vs.
actual performance can be remedied by management.  So i got a stock
option one year when my raise was not so large and i couldn't get a
promotion--this was just another way for management to recognize that i
performed better than anticipated when the salary plan was approved.

It would seem that awards or bonuses should come out of an organization-
wide awards "bucket", and that the less profit an organization creates
for the company the smaller this overall bucket should be as a percentage
of the organization's budget.  If that's the way it works out in practice
then i don't see why this could be considered unfair or "morale-busting".

								- paul

    re: .105
    
    One would think so.  But when the very highest levels of the
    corporation feel that they (or their direct reports) must be personally
    involved in $50 third-party software acquisitions, it would appear that
    the atmosphere is not especially conducive to such free-thinking.
    
    Managers and individual contributors who are truly _empowered_ and
    _accountable_ could handle this responsibility (and kick some serious
    ass in the process).  I've seen no evidence yet that this corporation's 
    management pays anything but lip service to those two notions.
    
    Al
    

    
.114> If you have to ask what sort of behavior would merit a bonus, it means
.114> you don't know. Bonuses are given to top performers who know what to do
.114> without having to ask.
    
    Or perhaps it means you know what sort of behavior merits a bonus, or
    at least you think you know, and you believe you've been exhibiting that
    behavior for years, but you've never seen a bonus, and you can't verify
    that anyone you've ever known has seen a bonus, but you hear that 4- and
    5-figure bonuses were just handed out, and you're starting to wonder if
    you really know what behavior merits a bonus, or if behavior matters
    at all, and then you start thinking about all the people who are now
    expected to be on standby without pay, who can't even get a second job
    to make ends meet because they might be called in at any time, and you
    think about the twenty-year veterans who can no longer accumulate as
    many years vacation as a person who just walked in the door, and you
    reflect on the fact that you can't even get a decent #2 pencil from the
    supply room, and you try to make sense again of 4- and 5-figure bonuses
    shrouded in secrecy, and you start to wonder who's in charge at the
    asylum...
    

    
    Rewards should be given as regular and fair salary increases according
    to your performance and contribution.  You want to stay home an invent
    things?  Fine, do so at your own expense.  You work for Digital, so
    what you come up with is what you are being paid for.  I think regular
    increases on regular intervals would make the workforce more happy and
    more productive.
    
    
    Mike

>    Rewards should be given as regular and fair salary increases according
>    to your performance and contribution.  You want to stay home an invent
>    things?  Fine, do so at your own expense.  You work for Digital, so
>    what you come up with is what you are being paid for.  I think regular
>    increases on regular intervals would make the workforce more happy and
>    more productive.

One can reasonably argue that signs of long-term improvement/productivity,
etc., should be rewarded with pay increases, but that short term "off the
curve for the person" performance should receive a corresponding reward
for that extra effort.

    I think the recognition practices described in .116 and .117 should
    basically be expected and enforced within the company.  
    
    Steve

	re  .120:

>    reflect on the fact that you can't even get a decent #2 pencil from the
>    supply room, and you try to make sense again of 4- and 5-figure bonuses
>    shrouded in secrecy, and you start to wonder who's in charge at the
>    asylum...

	Ah, now you don't qualify for a bonus. We don't award them to
	unstable people.

	re .121:

	Some of have noticed that (over the last 15 years at least)
	many of those who have risen fastest and furthest have been
	precisely those who neglected their assigned tasks in order
	to do something more visible.

	So which is it to be, people? Doing your assigned tasks well is
	goodness? Or exceeding your assigned tasks (whether you actually
	do them or not) is goodness? You can't have both.

	/Tom

    re: .124
    
    I agree with the point about assigned tasks.  That has been my
    experience.  My bonuses were related to work that I initially did on
    "my own" time.  I did (still do) midnight hackery to develop things
    that became useful during my "regular" hours.  Nowadays, my regular
    work is software development on Ultrix and VMS.  But, after hours I
    work with my PC at home, getting ready for Windows NT (and investing 
    personal resources to do it).  As before, I expect to eventually bring
    this "back in" to my regular work to Digital's benefit.  In short, my
    experience has been that you are paid to do your assigned tasks.  It is
    in your "free" time that you do the things that can result in other
    rewards -- at least at the "grunt" level.
    
    Steve

Re: .116:

   Steve, I don't think that most people are upset over bonuses in general,
but rather the claims of some 5 and 6 digit bonuses.

   And even then, if they could be shown to be going to individuals who had
demonstrated as was said, "being off the curve", I doubt someone would have
a problem with it either!  (Suppose one super hardware engineer pulled in the
delivery schedule for the next generation Alpha processors by a year or
more somehow.  Heck, that might even be worth 7 digits! ;-)

   My concern, which is also I believe the concerns raised here, is about
"upper management" giving big bonuses to "upper management".  I'm something
of an anti-establishment kind of person, so somehow I have a very hard time
believing that the VP in charge of a piece of Digital which happens to show
a profit is (often) directly responsible for the organization's success and
therefore deserves a large cash award.  If our organization structure and
communications were better, I might believe that someone at that high level
was enough in control of their organization that they can take credit for
a big success like that, but frankly our organization in Digital is
minimal and somewhat chaotic.

   That is a Good Thing, but I personally believe it precludes being able to
fully attribute success or failure of an organization to its head.  Given
our complex and chaotic environment, it is usually individual contributors,
whether on their own, or acting together as part of some team, that are
responsible for the successes in this company.

					-mjg (who got a bonus a few years
						ago, but several orders of
						magnitude smaller than the
						ones being discussed here
						:-(

    In a company that has ethics and integrity, the truth ought to matter.
    What is the truth about these bonuses?

    I've read a number of notes and they form a pattern:

    If the bonuses were less than $10K, awarded for extraordinary
    performance that contributed to Digital's profitability, etc.
    then they are probably a good thing.

    If the bonuses were more than $10K, given on the basis of
    back-scratching political relationships, etc. then they are probably
    not a good thing.

    The reason for these notes with 100 plus replies in that in the
    absence of a clear confirmation or a clear denial, people abhor the
    abstraction and start constructing scenarios.

    From these scenarios we get anonymous and contradictory hints that
    scenario of reply sixty-something is close to the mark, and the
    scenario of reply ninety-something is an exaggeration.

    This note can happily continue until every has exhausted their
    imagination in creating scenarios and our anonymous sources fear they
    have revealed to much.  The issue fades away and the damage to employee
    morale is done.  What's confirmed is the suspicion that the company is
    divided between a group of bonus-getting elites and bonus-ignorant
    non-elites.  (What a way to inspire us all...)

    To me, the problem isn't the bonuses per-se, it is the perpetuation of
    the old model of Digital employee communications.  Hey, new senior
    management team -- haven't you gotten it yet?

    There's no more "valid employee concern" than compensation, just tell
    the truth and take your lumps.
                                                  

RE: .127
    The following quote found in an other conference seems to tie in very
    well with your comments.
    
    		Alfred
    
              <<< SIETTG::DISK$OPS$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 1038.1383     Media Bias - TV, Newspapers, Magazines, etc      1383 of 1383
VICKI::PAHIGIAN                                      19 lines   4-FEB-1993 09:17
                            -< A great quote, imho >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I just read this in a structured-analysis textbook, of all places.
    "Modern Structured Analysis" by Edward Yourdon, Yourdon Press,
    Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, copyright 1989.
    
         Obviously, a man's judgment cannot be better than the
         information on which he has based it.  Give him the
         truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance
         to be right, but give him no news or present him only
         with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant,
         sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and
         deliberate falsehoods, and you destroy his whole
         reasoning process, and make him something less than a
         man.
         
         			Arthur Hays Sulzberger,
         			from his address to the
         			New York State Publisher's
         			Association, 1948.
                                               

    
    A question, particularly to those who have participated in planning and
    awarding bonuses:
    
    How did those bonuses get funded? Where did the money come from?
    

    re: .126
    
    I basically agree with you.  Secret 5-, 6- or 7-figure bonuses during
    time of business loss should be cause for great concern.  In fact, I 
    believe it when I'm told that such bonuses were given.  But, I have no 
    official confirmation, so I can't really make an issue of it.
    
    What I can make an issue of is the idea that the bonuses of some should
    be accompanied by recognition and that all details of others should be
    kept secret.  This current practice has been (almost officially - but I
    was told that all communication in that channel was informal) confirmed 
    to me as the way things work at Digital.  This clashes with the idea that 
    when Digital makes proclamations like that of last September or recently 
    about rewarding for performance and encouraging teamwork ...  well, aren't 
    we all supposed to live by the same rules?  If I work for a company where
    there is a "lower class" of "little people" who have to live by the rules 
    and an "upper class" that does not, we are talking about "us" versus
    "them."  Not a team.
    
    It seems only reasonable to me for us to all live by the same rules.  
    That's why I'm in favor of policy that requires recognition with reward.  
    The same rule can apply to ALL the members of the Digital team.
    
    Steve

    
    The problem with bonuses is that they perpetuate a myth.  It is
    very unlikely that Digital can clearly establish a link between
    person's awarded these bonuses and a clear, measurable, success for
    the company.  We simply don't have the infrastructure to gather
    and analyze data that could show us that.  Deming debunks the idea
    of individual performance appraisals and rewards or punishment
    based on it.  I think the truth is that if there was a success
    worthy of recognition, it is more likely the result of a process
    involving a number of people and not the result of one "heroic"
    manager.  In this view, you could have substituted anyone in the
    "hero's" spot and quite possibly had the same result, but because
    we have very little control over our processes we simply don't know.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .131
    
    I believe that, for the most part, public accolades and their 
    commensurate rewards should go to teams of people who produce 
    profitable products and services.  In the modern world, it is 
    difficult in the extreme for one Homerian hero to produce 
    something of lasting, sustainable value.  
    
    In another topic people are discussing Dave Cutler with a mixture 
    of awe and derision.  That debate was started by an article that 
    could have been written by his publicist; my question is, what 
    about the multitude of people upon whom he depends for his 
    success?  They labor away, willingly, under the shadow of his 
    ego, with virtually no credit.  
    
    So what's my problem?  The media is still enthralled with the
    image of the lone American hero riding in to save the day. 
    It just doesn't work that way in practice.  It never did.
    As someone (sorry, but I forget where I read this) recently
    wrote, the wild west was not settled by "heros", it was
    settled (for better or worse as your political persuasion
    demands) by wagon trains full of ordinary people, who *worked 
    as a team* to do extraordinary things.  The Apollo moon landing 
    was accomplished by a *team*. The VMS operating system was 
    developed by a *team*.  
    
    Until reporters stop believing in the single hero theory, our
    magazines and other media outlets will continue to influence
    society by iconifying the single hero.  This iconification is
    more than a mere annoyance; it is dangerous.  It allows a
    voting public to heave a sigh of relief when we elect a new
    president with fanciful ideas of how he'll solve all
    our problems without us having to participate; it allows a 
    group of business people to hire an expert (consultant, manager,
    CEO, etc.) that they *fully* vest with the reputation of
    "turn around" specialist; it allowed us to swallow, with hardly
    a gulp, the nonsense that corporate raiders and financial 
    manipulators were people we should emulate.
    
    In my view, the only people who *really* deserve hero status,
    and the commensurate rewards, are the ones who help put 
    high performance teams together, who zealously buffer them
    from the bull****, who give them their head to succeed, and
    who give them the credit (and rewards) when they do succeed.  
    Find me some of those people, and they can have their bonus 
    as far as I'm concerned.  As far as I can see, there aren't 
    many of them around.
    
    Glenn
                 
    

re Note 2332.132 by BOOKS::HAMILTON:

>     In my view, the only people who *really* deserve hero status,
>     and the commensurate rewards, are the ones who help put 
>     high performance teams together, who zealously buffer them
>     from the bull****, who give them their head to succeed, and
>     who give them the credit (and rewards) when they do succeed.  
  
        You mean a leader (as opposed to a manager)?

        Bob

    
    Re: .132
    
    I'm with you, but for reasons you state, I don't have much confidence
    that enough people are listening.
    
    Re: .133
    
    You got it.  There *is* a difference.
    
    Steve
    

    Someone asked "How are bonuses funded?"  I imagine that most groups do
    what we do here.  Here's what our manager told us:
    
    The Company has a planned amount for salary increases.  In Corp.
    Marketing (since that's where I am) BJ and the managers decided to keep
    back a small percentage.
    
    Mark

    
    	re .86 (Anon)
    
    	>thanks for listening
    	
    	>/bye
    
    	Hey! I know somebody that signs off just like that! I wonder...
    
    	;) ;) ;)

    .136

    you mean iam the dude who wrote .86 ?? 

    if i write like that i go work for the new York times paper or
    write president speeches or something like that. no, i think it is 
    obvious it was written by a manager, because it has a lot of 
    manager kind of words in it.

    plus i never, i say ever, got any bounces or anything like that
    or even seen one or even know what it looks like or how it feels
    or anything related to this issue and related matters.

    but thanks so very much for thinking i did it, i really appreciate
    the thoughts.

    if you dont think it was me, then never mind.

    hope this helps.

    \bye
    \nasser

    
    	Nasser, I've always admired somebody that can 'bounce' between
    	phrases such as "to clarify a possible ambiguity in the matter"
    	and (to paraphrase) "i never even seen or felt a bounce".
    
    	John

    Re:  .132
    
    This one word covers it for me:
    
    		A M E N !!!!!!
    
    Nice to hear a voice of sanity in the wilderness...

    The following topic has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to ROWLET::AINSLEY, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

The following note is Win's reply when asked to clear up the details of
the "bonus" issue in this notes file.

From:	NAME: Win Hindle                    
	FUNC: Administration                  
	TEL: 223-2338                         <HINDLE.WIN AT PNDVUEA1 at MLMAIL at MLO>

The purpose of this memo is to respond to questions you raised 
at our recent meeting in Hudson concerning the payments of cash 
awards (bonuses) to individuals last year.

There were two cash award programs conducted worldwide last 
year from August to November 1992, which were related to the 
Company's FY92 performance.  These two programs were the same 
as those conducted in 1990 and 1991, with the exception that 
the 1990 and 1991 programs used stock awards instead of cash. 
These programs followed our established pay for performance 
philosophy which is that even when the Company has a poor 
performance year, we still have outstanding individuals who 
should be rewarded (however we expect many fewer high-
performing individuals in poor company years).

One of the two programs is called the "Top Performer" program
and this applied to individuals in typical bonus-eligible jobs 
in the marketplace.  These positions are identified when we do 
external compensation surveys and is comprised of higher level 
individual contributors, middle managers and above.  However, 
it must be noted that Company Officers were not eligible and 
did not receive any awards from this program.  This program was 
funded at a minimum level and approximately 10% of the typical 
bonus eligible population participated with individual awards 
only 25% of what a "normal" bonus would be. There have been 
rumors of large bonuses being paid, but I can tell you that 
there were no $40K or $30K awards made from this program.  The 
highest was a $18-20K range.  The average award has approximately 
$6500 and approximately 800 employees participated.

The second program was called the "Recognition" program and 
this applied to all employees (but again not Officers) not 
covered by the Top Performer Program.  This program did not 
replace the current recognition programs being conducted 
locally, but was in addition.  Approximately 3500 employees 
received awards from this program, and it was equal in dollar 
size to the Top Performer Program.  Again a complete analysis 
was done on this program and a summary presented to the 
Executive Committee.

We believe these types of variable compensation programs play 
an important part in rewarding Digital's outstanding performers, 
and we expect that they will continue in future years.

smv

I spoke with Win Hindle on April 8, 1993 and he said he had found up to $10K
bonuses were given out. I suggested he had some more looking to do. He agreed.
The previous message (.140) says that $20K was the
magic number. One explanation is that Win found the larger bonuses between
the time we spoke and when .140 was done. 

It's also possible that the $40K was billed as an "incentive" rather than
a bonus so perhaps Win hasn't been able to find it yet. I don't know.

    FWIW, I've been basically blown off.  The personnel rep that I spoke
    with (when last we spoke) informed me that the function of the rep was
    to render to me an opinion.  The opinion was that there would be no
    reconition requirement with the granting of bonuses.  Further, I was
    informed that I could pursue suggesting a policy change but that it
    could well be 6 months to a year before I would even hear back.
    
    Given the previous notes, it would seem that so many folks are getting
    bonuses in the company, even during poor times, that requiring some
    form of public recording would be "cumbersome."  At least, that's
    an argument I might anticipate.
    
    Steve

    	Gee...I wish I was a top performer...or better yet, perceived as a
    top performer so I could afford to fix my leaky roof and rotting
    plumbing...Maybe someday...

>                     <<< Note 2332.143 by STAR::DIPIRRO >>>
>                             -< I have a dream... >-
>
>    	Gee...I wish I was a top performer...or better yet, perceived as a
>    top performer so I could afford to fix my leaky roof and rotting
>    plumbing...Maybe someday...

Steve, That is no way to talk about your office! DEC will of course do
what it must to help ensure that your working conditions (including your
morale) are top notch. You only need to submit in quintriplicate the necessary
forms to the appropriate people to get  that roof taken care of. Please don't
make the mistake of including two  requests on the same forms since that will
complicate the signature loop  routing even more. Of course you know that
Digital has very simple signature loops.

The virtual reality matrix management facility support teams will meet as soon
as the forms have cleared the signature loop to schedule your work.

    	Well, while you're at it, John, the lights above my office have
    been out for over a year. At first, I thought it was a hint...but I'm
    still here. I realize that management wants to keep me in the dark, but
    squinting at the screen is starting to hurt my eyes.
    	In any case, from what you've said, it sounds like I won't be
    needing that big cash bonus afterall. Phew! That's a relief! Looking
    around me, I can see people who are a lot more needy than I. It must be
    very expensive to keep those BMWs, Mercedes, and Saabs running at top
    performance. The wheels and body are rusting off my Fred Flintstone
    mobile, but I wouldn't be concerned.

    re: .145
    
    Am I missing something here?  You seem to equate "need" with 
    eligibility for bonusus.  Need (or lack thereof) has nothing
    at all to do with getting a bonus.  (I won't pursue the rathole
    about job performance not having anything to do with it either,
    but job performance is *supposed* to be the reason one gets
    a bonus.  Not need.)
    
    Regarding the lights that have been out for over a year: have
    you tried calling the building maintenance folks?  They may
    be assuming you *want* the the lights out; some people prefer
    dim light.
    

    	I was implying no such thing relative to need. *I* think bonuses
    should be given out in terms of height or sense of humor. Shorter
    people (sorry - vertically challenged) should get larger bonuses to
    compensate for their "shortcomings." And tightly-wrapped individuals
    should get smaller bonuses than people with good senses of humor (since
    it will infuriate those individuals even more, forcing many to become
    postal workers).
    	By the way, we did call the facilities folks about the lights over
    my office about 6 months ago. They did confirm that the lights are,
    indeed, out.

    .-1

    >	By the way, we did call the facilities folks about the lights over
    >my office about 6 months ago. They did confirm that the lights are,
    >indeed, out.

    hi Steve,  

    since we work in the same floor , i can show you a cube that is empty
    near me and has all the lights working on top of it, it would be
    easy to put a chair on the table in the cube, climb up the chair, reach
    out and take one bulb from the light up above since no one needs
    it now any way and just take it over to you cube and put it up
    where you need it more.

    if you want me to show you where it is iam near the coffee station
    as you turn right when you get out of the stairs.

    \bye
    \nasser

    How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
    
    
    
    
    		None, it's a hardware problem.
    
    
    
    How many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
    
    
    
    		None, it runs diagnostics fine.
    
    
    How many mice does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    
    
    
    		Only two, but I don't know how they get in there.
    
    
    
    This joke is almost as old as I am.
    Judy ;-)

    Just one engineer.
    
    
    And facilities, and purchasing and a VP signature to buy the light
    bulb.
    

Here is something I received back in '86, and the original dates to '83.
(sorry for the all caps; this is how I received it):


QUESTION:  HOW MANY DEC EMPLOYEES DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHTBULB?


ANSWER:
	
	2 PEOPLE - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON CONCEPT OF CHANGE

    	1 PERSON - DEVISE AND WRITE FORMAL BULB ARCHITECTURE

	2 PEOPLE - FEASABILITY STUDY AND TIMETABLE OF EVENTS

    	2 PEOPLE - PRODUCE FOUR UTILITIES TO REDUCE SCREW-IN TIME
    		   (IN ADDITION TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY)

    	1 PERSON - MAINTAIN ISO AND DEC STANDARDS
    		   (SOCKETS, VOLTAGE, AC/DC)

	4 PEOPLE - COMMONALITY TASK FORCE ON BULB CHANGE

	15 PEOPLE - CHANGE BULB

	5 PEOPLE - PERFORM BULB FUNCTIONAL TEST

	2 PEOPLE - PERFORM BULB LOAD TEST

	3 PEOPLE - PERFORM BULB REGRESSION TEST

	1 PERSON - PERFORM BULB PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

	1 PERSON - PERFORM BULB BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS

	1 PERSON - FOLLOW-UP STUDY (BULB MERGE FEASIBILITY)

    	1 PERSON - INTERFACE WITH UTILITIES COMMISSION

    	1 PERSON - INTERFACE WITH USERS (DID THEY WANT INCANDESCENT
    		   WHEN WE ONLY SUPPLY NON-TUNABLE FLUORESCENT POINT 
    		   PRODUCT, BAX (BULBS ARE EXPENSIVE)

    	5 PEOPLE - PERFORM BOSE (BUILD OTHER SOCKET ENHANCEMENTS)
    		   COMPATIBILITY ARCHITECTURE/STUDY

    	3 PEOPLE - PERFORM VIA (VOLTAGE INCREASES AMPS) PHASE 2
    		   COMPATIBILITY ARCHITECTURE/STUDY

    	2 PEOPLE - ENSURE FORM (ROUND, SQUARE, CLEAR/FROSTED)
    		   FOLLOWS FUNCTION (WATTAGE, 120/240 VOLTS, 
    				     VISIBLE/ULTRA-VIOLET,
    				     FLASHING, FLOOD/SPOT)

    	3 PEOPLE - IMPLEMENT TEMPORARY ALTERNATIVE BULB SOCKET FOR ALREADY
    		   EXISTING, SUCCESSFUL, AND PROFITABLE SOCKET (BULB-IN-ONE)

    	5 PEOPLE - DETERMINE HOW TO MARKET/PACKAGE/DISTRIBUTE TEMPORARY
    		   ALTERNATIVE BULB SOCKET

    	10 PEOPLE - DETERMINE HOW TO PERFORM BULB CHANGE PRODUCT SPLIT
    		   (CONTROL -- SWITCHES, DIMMERS 
    				VERSUS 
    		    IMPLEMENTATION -- SCREW-IN TORQUE, RECOVERY STRATEGIES )

    	1 PERSON - INTERFACE WITH UTILITIES COMMISSION QA GROUP

    	1 PERSON - SUBMIT TO BDC (BULB DISTRIBUTION CENTER)

    	1 PERSON - SET UP BPR (BULB PROBLEM REPORTS) SYSTEM

    	10 PEOPLE - ANSWER CUSTOMER BPRS

       11 PEOPLE - FOOTBALL TEAM TO CHALLENGE BULB CHANGERS



Fri 29-Jul-1983 16:37 EDT

    
    Wow!  How things have changed over the years!
    
    Now we just outsource the entire project! :-)
    
    Ken
    

	The real question is, how many DEC managers does it take to change
	the logo on the lightbulb. (Remember, light bulbs give off their
	own warmth)

						mike

        I've always  liked that breakdown, but nowadays it just doesn't
        ring true -  it  mentions  "people".    In modern day DECspeak,
        we're "resources"... 
        
        

    I ask your forgiveness in advance, for a stupid question.
    
    What is an employee worth to Digital?
    
    BP called employees "our most valuable assets"
    
    Wall street quotes Digital at a small premium above its asset value,
    meaning tangible asset value.
    
    When a stock sells below book, the company gets bought and most of
    the people get replaced.  So I'm tempted to guess that, if a company
    manages for stock return, employees are worth what they return on the
    stock market.  
    
    Can anyone run the numbers?  Does Wall Street value us above or below
    "tangible assets + yearly payroll"?
    
    /Rich

    >What is an employee worth to Digital?

    hi /Rich,  i think i heard the number to be 100,000 bucks a year
    sometime up to 150,000 bucks a year, this includes health insurance
    and office rent cost and salary and every thing. this is an average
    number.

    hope this helps.

    \bye
    \nasser

    	Those numbers Nasser "heared" apply to software engineering.
    However, they vary from group to group, coast to coast, country to
    country, and between software and hardware engineering and other job
    titles. I think the average number for software engineering is around
    $120k per year per employee, but there are groups that run considerably
    lower than this and others that run higher.

    Did I misunderstand the question???
    
    He ask - "What is an employee WORTH?"  you are saying what an employee
    cost.  What we are worth would be something like profet per employee,
    or productivity per employee.  I do not know those numbers.
    
    Besides, the company clearly sees employees as a liability, not an
    asset.
    
    Judy
    

    Actually, I think that employees are viewed by Digital as liabilities.
    It is the COST CENTERS that value the employees, not the Company.  
    
    I dunno.  Of late, I've been rather obsessed by that.  I suppose part of 
    it has to do with the fact that I no longer get notified when my patents 
    clear.  Or, maybe it has to do with having to pay all my own expenses when 
    I present a paper at a technical conference.  My management has been pretty 
    much forced into this position because the ONLY things that I do that count 
    are the things that benefit the cost center directly.  The things that I 
    do for Digital ("do the right thing" and all that) don't bring money into 
    the cost center and are therefore frowned upon of necessity.  
    
    I understand the economics of this, but somehow I am still having difficulty 
    accepting it.  The basic dogma is that what's good for the cost center is 
    good for Digital.  Upper management wants control and all that.  Funny how 
    being a team player basically only counts as far as supporting your cost center 
    is concerned.  I think that's one thing I miss about the "old" Digital
    and what still appeals to me about some other companies.
    
    So, if you want to know what your value is, you need look no further
    than your own cost center.  If you have to rely on the value assigned
    to you by Digital you may be in for some disappointment.
    
    Steve

    Judy, Judy!

    an employee worth is certainly closely related to his or her cost !

    let me amplifies.

    when you go to the shop and ask how much is this candy worth to
    the owner, the owner will charge you how much it cost the owner
    plus little more to cover expenses, that is what we are saying, 
    a DECeeee is like a candy , his worth to DEC is like the cost
    of the candy to the store owner, a DECeee cost plus a little more, which 
    is why the number that Steve so reliably pointed out is 120,000 bucks 
    on average which varies from place to place.

    certainly a DECeeee cant be worth much more the he or she costs the 
    owner DEC !

    hope this helps,

    \bye
    \nasser

	nasser,

	Based on that model, we (and other computer companies) would 
	not have been getting the markups we used to get previous to the
	commoditization of computer equipment in the past few years.

	If running your business costs you $500,000, and by having that
	"candy bar" it will only cost you $100,000, you'd be willing
	to to pay close to $400,000 for it, regardless of what it
	cost the vendor to make and sell. And that's the way it used to be.
	But now, there are companies offering a similar "candy bar"
	at a small margin over cost to make. So the buyer is going to
	buy that one, but only because it is available at that price,
	not because it isn't worth more to his business.

					Tom_K

    
re: .162
    > an employee worth is certainly closely related to his or her cost !

    There is no correlation between worth (price) and cost except for:
    	if worth is less than cost => you will soon be out of business.
    
    In a truly competitive environment, price will approach cost, but this
    is a side-effect of supply vs. demand.
    
>    certainly a DECeeee cant be worth much more the he or she costs the 
>    owner DEC !

    Oh no?  How do you think Bill Gates got so rich?  (Hint - its not
    because he likes cheap wine.(1))  In fact, this is the basic reason why so
    many people have gotten rich in the USA in the last, say, 200 years or
    so - because something CAN be worth much more than it costs.
    
    > "iam tired of eating fish"
    
    Too bad it is truly not brain-food. (2)
    
    
    Wayne
    Footnotes:
    (1) American cultural reference - well-known TV commercial years ago.
    (2) Cheap shot - but I couldn't help it.
    
    

    re .164: "There is no correlation between worth (price) and cost except
    for: if worth is less than cost => you will soon be out of business."
    
    	This is beginning to get to the nub of my original question about
    employee worth.  I'd like the economists out there to get to some
    numbers, as well as some theories.  How would YOU propose to convince
    a financial officer to accept a certain $budget number for bonuses?
    
    	Here's a start.  Numbers a bit inexact.  $14B/100K = $140K sales
    per employee.  That's an "employee sales value".  
    
    	But stockholders, get-$$-this-quarter BOD's, etc. must be thinking
    of something else, because stock is often quoted as $price per
    $earnings.  Clearly our earnings are negative ("employee earnings
    value" is negative).  
    
    	Well, stock priced below "breakup value" causes all sorts of
    disruptions.  Companies in that position get sold, raided, broken up... 
    So let me hypothesize that if the stock price is above some number,
    consisting of the company's "asset value" plus its "employee value" (if
    employees are "valuable assets"), then there is potential for stability
    instead of disruption.  And, if you subtract the "asset value" of the
    company from the market value (price X shares outstanding, roughly),
    and divide the difference by 100K employees, I hypothesize this as the
    "stock employee asset value" which should by .164 should be greater
    than "cost".  Is it?
    
    	Sometimes companies strive to match some "return on assets" rate.
    I would guess that few companies count employees as assets, as this
    would drive down a desirable return on assets rate.  Most financial
    officers ignore "return employee asset value".
    
    	From all of the above, employee cost must be minimized to get good
    financial numbers.  By what formula, then, could a financially-oriented
    manager call employees a "valuable asset"?  I personally find the
    "market value > payroll cost + physical asset" compelling, except that
    the measures are mixed: I'd need to replace payroll cost with some
    "stock employee asset value", by treating the repeating payroll cost as
    some form of depreciation describing the employee asset value.  Many
    companies would seem to be in trouble if accountants applied my approach!
    
    	

    At least one high level executive received a bonus in 1993.  Quoting
    from the 1993 Proxy statement "Cash Incentive Plan"
    
    "Because financial objectives and performance targets were not
    achieved, the Corporation did not fund the cash incentive plan in
    fiscal year 1993.  No awards were made under the plan to individuals
    who were executive officers during fiscal year 1993.  However, in
    recognition of outstanding performance, a cash award was made to
    William D. Strecker, the Corporation's Vice President of Engineering
    and Chief Technical Officer.  This award, noted in the Summary
    Compensation Table on page 12 above, was made in recognition of Mr.
    Strecker's contribution to the Corporation's product and technology
    strategy which resulted in reductions as well as efficiencies in the
    Corporation's research and engineering spending."
    
    The amount of the award from Page 12 is $60,000.

    Re: .166
    
    And, here is Mr Strecker's three year salary curve:
    
    1991: 281,941
    1992: 305,019  (+ 23,078)
    1993: 357,704  (+ 52,685)
    
    

    1991: 281,941
    1992: 305,019  (+ 23,078)   -- an 8+% increase
    1993: 357,704  (+ 52,685)   -- a 17+% increase
    
    					andrew

    must be nice getting bonuses that are quite a bit better than some of
    the worker-bees salaries...!
    
    I wonder if these folks can sleep well, at night, knowing their well
    over paid...?
    
    It's no wonder morale is in the dumpster these days..!!
    
    Well, all's I can say is, I really hope they enjoy it while they can.
    Cause in the end, when this company falls..., the higher they are, the
    harder they'll fall.!!!! 
    
    Congrates for your bonus.. I hope you (he) thanked the grunts, who
    really earned it for him..!
    

Several distasteful euphemisms that come to mind!!

compare and contrast with Digital Japan

so from 91 to 93 he got 27% when the company and a lot of its employees
me included got -2%!!! 
And he gets a $60,000 bonus well isnt he the lucky one!!

    Strecker is VP of Engineering and Chief Technical Officer. He delivers.
    He deserves his bonus because even our competitors concede we have
    leadership products. The reason he makes so much is because he could
    walk out the door and make that much elsewhere. The reason "workbees"
    make so little is because that's the going rate for low-value-added
    jobs. Drones are a dime a dozen. Queens get the good treatment because
    no one else delivers like they do.

    .171
    
    > Drones are a dime a dozen.
    
    hi,
    
    what is a Drone please?
    
    and how does one know if he or she is a Drone?
    
    thanks!
    
    \nasser
     
    

>>The reason he makes so much is because he could
>>   walk out the door and make that much elsewhere

Well whats good for him must be good for me !!!

Is that a job I see thats offering X% plus a Y% bonus???
well I think thats better than -2%.

Maybe they want me to leave? is this cheaper than TFSO?


It may do wonders for Bill to get paid so handsomely but we out here
arent all "dime a dozen worthless drones". Your comment cuts no ice and infact
makes it worse. You have failed to contrast this with the CEO in Japan 
who no doubt could get an equally well paid job. Perhaps I have missed something
in American society ? does not responsibility come with privelege? You expect
me to respect someone more just because he has more money? Sorry I must come
from wrong culture.

		A drone

    re.:.171...
    
    WHAT...!?@@$#$#$
    
    
    "low-value-added".. WHO IS THIS REFERING TO.. ALL workerbees??????
    
    I can bet the folks working for this VP had a VERY BIG hand in helping
    him achieve his status in life... Did they get a part of this bonus, I
    would dought it..!
    
    So, we pay the VP in order to bribe him to stay... Yet, we do not care
    if the grunts leave, 'cause they're a dime a dozen... 
    
    All I can say to that is..., if this is Digital's real, new, attitude,
    GOOD-BYE DIGITAL....!!!! This company will not last past this kind of
    attitude..!!
    
    So much for valued employee status..!
    
    How does this go..?.... Poppy-cock..!, Ballderdash..!
    
    Simply incredible..!
    
    Bob
    

    
    I think folks are beating up on the wrong guy.  By all accounts,
    Strecker is a *major* asset to this corporation.  We lost
    David Stone, we lost Pier Carlo.  These were damaging defections.
    Losing Strecker, IMHO, would be similarly damaging.
    
    We're all frustrated, but there *are* good executives still
    here.  Also, while I'm at it, there are good middle managers
    here too.  I know many of them.  Not everyone over the level
    of IC is deadwood.
    
    Glenn  
         

    
    For all the good Strecker has done of late, you gotta admit there have been
    some really stupid things his organization has done over the years. 
    
    -Ed
    

RE: .172 

>>    what is a Drone please?

According to my Merriam-Webster dictionary a drone is:

	1.  a male honeybee
	2.  one that lives on the labors of others : parasite 
  
I think whoever mentioned drone meant it to be #1 (in other words a
worker-bee).  Or am I mistaken?  Parasite just didn't fit.

>>    and how does one know if he or she is a Drone?

Looks like #1 eliminates females from being a part of this.  ;-)

Why is it anyone's business, other than the BOD, how Bob Palmer compensates
his direct reports?

You want the pay, earn your way up to the same level, with the same risks, and
the same responsibilities.

And if you think you're underpaid or undervalued at Digital, your resignation
will drive that point home rather nicely.   Otherwise, its just talk.

Bob

    
    Ask the SEC.  Executive compensation must be disclosed to all
    shareholders.
    
    -Ed
    

    
>Why is it anyone's business, other than the BOD, how Bob Palmer compensates
>his direct reports?

    By federal regulation this information, the compensation of the top
    5 most compensated employees, must be presented to the stockholders
    every year. The stockholders, in theory at least, *own* the company
    and that gives them some rights.


>You want the pay, earn your way up to the same level, with the same risks, and
>the same responsibilities.

    Trying. :-)

    			Alfred

    re: several
    
    Please don't take "drone" as a sign of disrespect. I was just following
    up on BSS::Grover's term "worker-bee". It's a good thing I didn't
    follow up on his other term for employees at Digital, "grunts". 
    
    To me drone means the many, many bees that surround the queen.  I didn't
     mean to exclude women or include parasites. Unfortunately I was
    extending a poor metaphor.
    
    re:173 
    
    >So to make more I must be in demand, not work hard and be loyal?
    
    Yes, that's why you make more than the guy at McDonalds (even though he
    may work harder and even be more loyal). Supply and demand.
    
    >"dime a dozen worthless drones"
    
    By putting this in quotation marks, you imply I said it. I never even
    suggested that drones are worthless. Individually, each is less of a
    contributor than the queen, but still of value.
    
    >You expect me to respect some one more just because he has more money?
    
    No, I suggested one deserves more money if he or she contributes more
    value.
    
    >Sorry I must come from wrong culture.
    
    Agreed.
    
    Really, my only point is that Strecker's organization seems to have
    met some of its goals. He (and I hope others in his organization) were
    rewarded for what they achieved. That is only good.

    RE: .181-
    
    >Really, my only point is that Strecker's organization seems to have
    >met some of its goals. He (and I hope others in his organization) were
    >rewarded for what they achieved. That is only good.
    
    	Perhaps they did meet their goals. Meanwhile, many are unsure of
    their goals due to an ever increasing workload and a matrix of
    contingencies for determining performance that are often beyond contol
    of the individual contributors. I've been told that meeting goals is 
    "meets job requirements" performance. This has been made into a moving
    target for most IMHO.
    
    Phil
    

    re.:.181
    
    BSS::GROVER was attempting to point out that there are folks who work
    for these VPs who are probably more deserving of bonus than the VP him
    or herself.....
    
    Giving bonus to anyone when the company is still doing poorly, smells of
    bad decision making!
    
    I've busted my butt for 12 years... I haven't had a raise in 4 and 1/2
    years.... I still bust my butt and some VP gets a bonus that coulda
    been a raise for MANY a folk in the trenches...! I've been told not to
    expect a raise for awhile..!@#@$@?????
    
    This topic makes me sick!!
    
    Bob
    

    RE: .171
    
    This attitude is exactly why we are in trouble.
    
    Marc H.

re .171 I have taken his advice... bye

Anyone interested in what Digital may do about variable pay in the future 
for non-sales staff, might like to check out topic 820 in 
ROCKS::UK_Digital, which describes the UK approach just announced.

Dave.