Conference 7.286::digital

    The "higher levels" that are looking at spreadsheets and at
    presentations that "middle levels" are preparing show optimism because
    "higher levels" demand it.  It is self-perpetuating.
    
    The closest thing that I can recall to it is the "progress reports" on
    the Vietnam War.
    
    The "higher levels" who are making contact with customers and reading
    analysis that Digital didn't write or sponsor are seeing a bit more of
    the reality.

    I think those higher level people don't get it. Sales and
    sales support has been cut so thin its ridiculous. We no longer
    bring in new business because we cannot afford the personpower
    to get out and get it.  
    
    Good ideas never get implemented because there is no money to
    implement them. 
    
    We constantly fight with our customer base to keep out the HPs, 
    SUNS, NCRs etc etc instead of bringing in new revenue. The 
    best thing that DEC does is market ourselves internally, thus 
    the perpetual cycle of believing our own press.
    
    One thing I have learned from all all this and maybe someday
    this will trickle up - I don't work for those above me, they
    work for me. If as a salesperson I don't bring in revenue 
    because there are no products/solutions, there is no justification
    for those "above" to continue working. Just call it trickle-up
    economics.

    
    Re: .2
    
    > One thing I have learned from all all this and maybe someday
    > this will trickle up - I don't work for those above me, they
    > work for me. If as a salesperson I don't bring in revenue 
    > because there are no products/solutions, there is no justification
    > for those "above" to continue working. Just call it trickle-up
    > economics.
    
    This is one mindset that we have been trying to develop with the Six
    Sigma program.  Everyone downstream of you in the process of delivering
    things to customers is your next-process customer.  If you don't give
    them what they need to be successful, the final result is that the
    paying customer is not satisfied.  You are right, not only about the
    individuals above you but about the processes as well.  If the work being
    done and way we do it can't be shown to be contributing to satisfying
    customers, then there is no justifiable reason to continue that work.
    
    Steve
    
    

    I believe that many, perhaps most, people at Digital have believed that
    the company needs to make fundamental changes to be successful. The
    people at the top are seeing serious changes. Whether it's just bird
    cage reorganization or real fundamental change I don't really know.
    But it is change and it does appear that upper management feels good
    about these changes. Apparently what they do and how they do it are
    changing. And, at least in their opinion, changing for the better.

    I've been in my current group for over 8 years. We've moved between
    VPs several times. The people in the levels of management between me
    and the VP have changed even more often. I have yet to see a management
    change that had any appreciable impact on what I do and how I do it. I
    suspect I'm not alone in that. So for all my intents and purposes I
    haven't seen any change yet.

    Now I have seen other changes in things that do directly affect my
    quality of life. Pay raises are smaller and fewer between. Medical
    costs have gone up. Training that I'd like to take for my professional
    development is on hold. Things like that. I suspect that these things
    have a larger impact on me than they do some upper level manager who
    is already making a 6 digit salary. 

    I'm glad that upper management has a new enthusiasm. The company is not
    going to turn around in the people at the top are all doom, gloom and
    "protect your job at all costs." The higher up one is the more damage
    that can happen when one "gives up." 

    This is not to say that a happy upper management is all it takes. Over
    time I believe that something has to be done about the sorry state of
    morale at lower levels. I believe that there is recognition of this at
    various levels in the company. What will happen to improve the
    situation I don't know. One DVN transcript quoted a senior manager as
    saying that improved profits would help morale. I'm not sure if that
    means that just because the company makes more money we'll
    automatically be happy (unlikely) or that when we make more money
    management will do "nice things" for employees. But it does seem to be
    putting  the cart before the horse. The profits will not come before
    employees are enthusiastic again. Bad morale kills productivity.

    I also saw a promotion (new position?) announcement that said that one
    of the persons goals was to help improve morale. No clue as to how
    that was to be done was in the message. Perhaps that's to be
    determined? But at least it tells me that some people believe that
    morale is a problem that needs to be addressed.

    		Alfred


    PS: One last note. Just because management is happy doesn't mean I'm
    going to be happy. But when management is not happy it's a safe bet
    that I'll get to share in that unhappiness. :-)

    Gosh Al,
    
    Job fullfillment and professional success, sure, but happiness?  Do you
    really believe that the top managers are happy about things?
    
    Mark

>    Job fullfillment and professional success, sure, but happiness?  Do you
>    really believe that the top managers are happy about things?

    I'm not Al, but I'll answer anyway. I think that in general the
    companies top managers are happier about things than they were six
    months ago. My manager and the layer or 2 above him may not be happy
    yet but I think they'll be happy before I will. I believe that top
    management believes that the changes that have been made are the
    changes that needed to be made to make the company a success and are
    happy about it. Me, I'm reserving judgement. :-)

    		Alfred

    Re: .0
    
    I'd consider the source and question the motives.  Someone wants to
    shmooze the DEC Elite.  It's copyrighted garbage.
    We're going to hell in a handbasket, and guys like this are filling
    our basket with flowers!
    

            <<< Note 2364.4 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>

>    I also saw a promotion (new position?) announcement that said that one
>    of the persons goals was to help improve morale. No clue as to how
>    that was to be done was in the message. Perhaps that's to be
>    determined? But at least it tells me that some people believe that
>    morale is a problem that needs to be addressed.

>    		Alfred


 Not only that but if we are thinking of the same announcement - it's a lawyer
that's going to help improve our morale!

> Not only that but if we are thinking of the same announcement - it's a lawyer
>that's going to help improve our morale!

    Different announcement I think. This was a Personnel position. I was
    going to say more but I think I'll leave it at that. :-) I'm going to
    try an not judge people unfairly just because they're lawyers or 
    personnel people.

    			Alfred

    
    I think we should give upper management the benefit of the doubt
    (he says, while covering his head with his arms).
    
    My guess is that they've got information that shows a significant
    turnaround; information we don't have.  Does anyone know what's
    been happening with "inside" trades on the stock?  What are
    the corporate officers doing, buying or selling?
    
    Glenn

    From "Digital Today", Feb 8, 1993 -- Interview ith Susan Stevenson,
    responsible for Digital's Entertainment Industry Group.

    dt: You sound and look very confident.

    Susan: We are confident! We're going to make some significant profit for
    Digital, and we're going to be directly responsible for a significant
    increase in the price of Digital stock! This is not brag, it's fact!

    dt: What kind of an increase in the stock ?

    Susan: We want to drive it up by 100 points.

    dt: By when ?

    Susan: Within 12 months.
    

    Gee, sounds happy to me. It did when I read in in DIGITAL TODAY as
    well.
    
    		Alfred

>    dt: What kind of an increase in the stock ?
>
>    Susan: We want to drive it up by 100 points.

	Don't we all? How does Susan plan to make her "want" into reality?

				Tom_K

    
    
    Well at 15:35:16 today, the stock was 43 7/8.  If they can get
    it up 100 points, that would be 143 7/8.  I could sell some of
    that "older" stock and not loose megabucks.  YAAAAAA, GO, GO, GO!!
    
    I'M GETTING EXCITED ALREADY.
    
    

    Re: .11
    
    That's Entertainment!

    they must plan to teach pigs to sing.

    stocks never recover as fast as they go down.  It'll take at least
    four years to get back over 100, if ever.  and a lot more than
    someone's enthusiasm.  Major profits for over a year.

    I can see why there is enthusiasm at the top and gloom at the bottom.
    Fact is that those at the top, say making (not earning) over $100,000
    still have the folks at the bottom to blame for their mistakes.  The
    folks at the top are still making the decisions as to who will be
    TFSOd.  When will senior management realize that the process is flawed?
    
    It's just too easy if a group is short of revenue goals, if managers
    are exceeding their budgets, if managers are making big mistakes to cut
    employees.  That is the easy way out.  The big fish are still eating
    the little fish.
    
    There are many managers who manage their business units well, but there
    are some that do what is right only for themselves.
    
    
    

    Oops, sorry Alfred.  Bad assumption on my part about nicknames.
    
    My point was that managers do have a tough job.  How can you possibly
    believe that it's a happy task to cut projects and people and still
                        -----
    achieve the goals?  It's gotta be done, though.  Digital is still too
    large.
    
    "The process is flawed"?  Why, of course!  If things were so simple,
    then we'd just write up a checklist and you could TFSO yourself.  Don't
    anyone assume that if you lose your job, then you are a bad person. 
    Good people are getting layed off.  Digital would rather not lose good
    people, but there is no other choice.
    
    Mark

>    My point was that managers do have a tough job.  How can you possibly
>    believe that it's a happy task to cut projects and people and still
>                        -----
>    achieve the goals?  It's gotta be done, though.  Digital is still too
>    large.

    1. I have a friend, a manager at an other company, who genuinely seemed
       to enjoy cutting people and projects. Sure most managers don't like
       to do it but some don't seem to see it as a big deal.

    2. Most managers don't spend all that much of their time cutting
       projects and people. The rest of the time I think they like what
       they're doing. If it was all that bad they'd quit or go back to
       being a "worker bee."

    3. I listed reasons in a note past for believing that managers are
       happy or at least more optimistic.

    4. I disputed the "Digital is too large" notion 10,000 people ago. I
       still think the problems are far more related to people doing the
       wrong things than there being too many of them. But maybe I just
       have a different idea of what Digital can be.

    			Alfred

    Or as Ben Franklin said,
    
    "Either we all hang together or we'll hang seperately."
    
    Jim C.
    

    Alfred,
    
    Maybe your idea of what Digital can be is wonderful, but what good is
    it if it's not the same idea as the Board of Directors?  Clearly, they
    are calling the shots and Bob Palmer's crew is carrying out the
    directive.
    
    Someone else mentioned the need for unity, and I agree.  Somehow we
    must all come to grips with the direction that has been set for the
    Company and be a part of it.  The Alpha program is the obvious rallying
    point.  Find a banner to carry, and promote Digital's Alpha.
    
    Mark

    Ignoring, for the moment, the opinion that the people "at the bottom"
    may have a more realistic perception than the people "at the top", I
    can't get over how stupid it is to release a statement to the press
    that there's gloom and doom at the bottom and enthusiasm at the top. 
    The only thing that this statement does is make outsiders wonder who is
    right.

	RE: .23 Digital was not the one who said that there was gloom at the
	bottom and enthusiasm at the top. It was a third party.

			Alfred

                          <<< Note 2364.11 by 31763::RAM >>>
                           -< folks, you saw it here first! >-
    
      >> From "Digital Today", Feb 8, 1993 -- Interview ith Susan Stevenson,
      >> responsible for Digital's Entertainment Industry Group.
      
    RE: .24 
    	Looks like one of "ours" to me.
    

    If DEC keeps its foot to the floor with layoffs
    and gets ahead of expenses, we'll have room to 
    breath -- and maybe save the jobs that are left.
    The re-org of the company looks clean and "accountable."
    The product mix is good, but making a Alpha real
    success story will be an uphill battle.  The marketplace --
    outside DEC shops -- is pretty skeptical.  Marketing, advertising,
    and PR are key.  Keep your fingers crossed, and vocalize your
    ideas.
    
    Cheers,
    Dean (Who still thinks we've got what it takes to succeed)

>    RE: .24 
>    	Looks like one of "ours" to me.
 
	I read the article. Where does it say there is doom and gloom at the
	bottom?

			Alfred

	You're talking abotu two different articles, folks. The "gloom and
	doom" is mentioned in .0, and quotes a "Boston analyst." The quote
	from "one of our own" was the ridiculous idea that we can get the
	stock to $100 in a year.

	Roy

    Charles Casale, the chairman/analyst, commented on both ends of the
    spectrum of morale at Digital.  He alluded to a spirit of enthusiasm
    at the top, of which note .11 serves as a good example.  (Whether you
    agree with it or not is another matter.)   The opposite end of the
    spectrum should be apparent to even the most casual observer.
    When a company pares 25% of its employee population in as many months,
    the rank and file are understandably distressed.
    Everything we do or say as a company, either now or in the recent
    past, has had this implied subliminal message.  (doom and gloom)
    
    Mike

re: .26

	If we should get ahead...I predict we'll buy another company to
	do something we (Digital) should be doing in the first place.  
	Then we'll have the necessary head count to award more layoffs
	for.