Conference 7.286::digital

    If with the 'large title' comes a large paycheck, plus perks, plus 
    stock options, plus 'performance' incentives, plus bonuses, then
    there is no question, it is a definite
    
    				Y E S 
                                =====
    
    Also, more important Michael Hammer in his book Reengineering the
    Corporation warns not to do re-engineering for re-engineering sake.
    And not to say you are doing re-engineering when it is ONLY another
    advertisement (Lip Service).

    in some companies,like Intel,this is not true.In Digital it is true and
    institutionalised.In fact,asking whether it is true or not in Digital
    is a pretty stupid question-certain VPs insist that they and their
    staff do not even speak to customers.Hang on-maybe their added value is
    keeping out of the way??

    
    i think titles like any thing else one should take at there face value
    and not over do it, a title can mean many things to one person and
    little things to another person, i think as the say goes "the value
    is in the budding" meaning anything is ultimately judged by what it delivers
    to those who need it. 

    but overall titles are needed, they are needed so that not to assign
    values of those who hold them, but for an outsider (customer etc..) to be 
    able to know who you are and what you know and not know very quickly 
    and by just reading your title.

    i think titles are a good think for what they mean and not more, over
    abuse of titles is not good off course, titles are not just used
    inside companies, there are social titles also, also in the army they
    have doodles of titles, i think may be there have a hundred titles or
    more from the ordinary soldier to the head of the army, and each title
    may be subdivided into different grades etc..

    so, in conclusion, titles are needed, but abusing titles can lead to
    problem.


    \nasser

The old Digital is certainly indicative of the quote in the base note. 

I am actually starting to see some things change.  For example,  Ed Lucente,
Gresh Brebach, and a few others of that stature have had meetings with my 
customer; at the customer's offices no less.

Unfortunately, there's several layers of middle management dreck between me
and them whose sole function is to preserve the Digital of the past.

I've got a proposal.  Let's count up all the individual contributors in the 
company, divide by 15 and voila you have the number of managers we need. Using 
that simple equation, I bet we can drop to the magic 65K headcount without
negatively impacting sales, customer satisfaction or any other valid metric.

We probably would have to downsize a few cafeterias however.

    re: 2650.6 
    
    I totally agree! Any idea of just how many managers there are?
    
    .mike.

    I admire a small company (to be unnamed, but probably true of most
    lean/mean organizations) that has workers who carry multiple business 
    cards, each with a different title.  Everything from VP of Software
    Engineering to VP Accounting.  They wear whatever hat is required,
    depending on their audience.  
    
    All this specialization in large companies can lead to isolation from 
    the true business issues.

Re .7

	I'd say if you counted the number of individual contributors and
	multiplied by 1.3 you'd have the current manager population.