Conference 7.286::digital

    just for starters...
    The principal reason some of my peers have voluntarily left is because
    they were "fed up" with lack of direction, uncertainty about prospects
    of future employment with Digital (read that as the "threat" of
    possible layoffs and the perceived lack of security), and the promise
    of no forseeable advancement within the company.
    
    Many months of this kind of abuse eroded their "loyalty", and they were
    scooped up by more promising employers.
    
    tony

    The fact that management has to ask shows just how out of touch they
    are.  For those of you in other parts of the world, the greater Boston
    area is in the midst of an employment rebound.  The help wanted section
    of the Boston Globe has been quite full for many months.  What does
    this mean for Digital?  It means that engineers with good skills can
    *easily* find other jobs at least equaling their pay.  This was not the
    case two or three years ago.  Couple this with many cutbacks and
    general lack of other benefits, and you have 'brain drain'.  I was in a
    position several months ago to hook up VMS engineering with an
    extremely qualified Digital person for a highly critical area (Volume
    Shadowing).  I asked this person if he were interested.  His reply was
    'not really, he was interested in OOP'.  I asked if he would be
    interested for a $10,000 raise, and he practically jumped out of his
    chair 'Yes - yes!!"  I passed this info on to the hiring manager.  This
    'extremely qualified person' now works for Microsoft Consulting.
    
    You get what you pay for.
    Brad.

    As Digital continues reorgs, layoffs, etc. many of our clients are
    worried (and justificably so) that there won't be anyone to support the
    applications they're betting their business on.  Thus, they're hiring
    us out from under us. :^]
    
    The people I've seen leave, as in -.2, couldn't handle the uncertainty,
    overwork, dwindling resources, and frustration.  One told me "It's
    eerily quiet.  We decide what we need to do, procure the resources, and
    do it.  I don't spend hours tracing information, procuring pencils,
    etc.  I keep waiting for someone to tell me this is all a joke."
    
    Another's wife told me "He looks and acts ten years younger.  This was
    the best move he's ever made.  It's like he's a totally new person."
    
    Another said "It's taken me time to adjust to slowing the pace while
    still getting twice as much done.  I wish I would have done this a long
    time ago."
    
    Another: "I've got training, room for advancement, and best of all I
    don't have to worry about the ax falling randomly on me.  They like me,
    they're happy with me, and I don't have to worry every day 'Do I have a
    job?'"  (He's got two young kids, by the way)
    
    If .0 isn't a hoax, then someone's wasting time doing a study.  Eat
    lunch in the cafeteria, call the people who have *already* left and ask
    them why, spend 30 minutes with your local sales team.  No mysteries
    here.
    
    The Dallas office has seen a drain of very experienced people.  It
    affects the bottom line (adversely, IMHO).

    Partially self induced brain drain?
    
    I would imagine they (upper managment) could gain some insight
    thru reviewing the percentages of Engineering Staff TFSOed to
    start.  I know of 2 or 3 very talented Engineers who were given
    the package.  We have strugled ever since to regain valuable 
    internal knowledge that was TFSOed.  
    
    This probably started the ball a rolling-in that why should a 
    person wait around to get TFSOed if there are good jobs to
    be had in the outside world?  Impending layoffs hurt morale!
    Hopefully this part of Digital's history is behind us all!
    
    9 times out of 10 the job duties which disappeared with the 
    TFSOed person still needed to get done although I do not
    believe this was really understood.  This is another reason - 
    the job still needed to get done so the remaining people 
    get swamped with not only there old job but all of the duties 
    of the 5-10 TFSOed people.      This also does not do much for 
    morale, product ship dates get pushed out, SPR processing is 
    slower, etc....
    
    Sometimes Consultant types are acquired to backfill positions - 
    the job gets done but not without alot of training and overhead.
    I am currently going thru this....   I wonder - am I training this
    person for my job and essentially  training myself out the door?
    This mentality that laying off Engineers in lue of hiring a 
    temporary Consultant does not do much for loyalities...
    
    Anyway I hope that we can turn Digital around soon...

    
    	My two pennies also.
    
    	The MidWest region is now approximately the size of what was a
    standard District four years ago (that's about 80 reps across direct
    and indirect sales). Attrition is averaging about two people per week.
    Reasons are just about what .2 elaborated, coupled with an improved job
    market in the upper Midwest, and additional opportunities with existing
    accounts/resellers.
    
    	As time goes on, this will become more of a problem. As I write, my
    manager has resigned, and his manager has resigned. Does one read
    something here? You bet.
    
    	Digital has, unfortunately, appear to have taken the tack that
    loyality is cheap; that performance has no rewards, and desire coupled
    with "street smarts" has no position in Digital, unless you are *new*
    to the company.
    
    	It would seem that we've gone from politics as usual to politics as
    a matter of survival. It should be no wonder the "feets are on the
    street".
    
    		the Greyhawk
    
    	

I was wondering where to put this...

A coworker recently resigned.  He was happy working on our product, enjoyed
what he was doing, wasn't too concerned about the pay freeze, and only mildly
frustrated with having to chip in to buy needed software out of our own
pockets.

Why did he leave?  One morning he got a call from a VP and was informed that he
no longer worked on our product, he was assigned to something else that he
disliked and to be in MRO a week later to work there for a few days and to
expect to commute to MRO on a regular basis (We are located in Dallas). He went
to our supervisor and said, "I assume you know about my transfer." Our
supervisor said, "What?"  My coworker then informed our supervisor of the phone
call.  Our supervisor immediately got on the phone to our manager who knew
nothing about it, who in turn got on the phone to the product manager, who knew
nothing about it, who immediately started firing off memos to various VPs
wanting to know just what was going on.  That afternoon, my coworker got a call
from a head-hunter.  Was he interested in a new job?  Of course he was. In the
days before going to MRO, he interviewed with the perspective employer. After
returning from MRO, he headed straight to the head-hunter's office where he
signed on with the new employer.  The next working day, he turned in his
resignation.  His new position pays more, cuts his medical benefits cost by
more than 75%, he has the latest technology on his desk, and his new office is
1 mile from home.

The end result, our product lost a valuable technical resource, the group to
which he was transferred, lost the technical resource they wanted, and to top
it off, we lost a headcount, as the VP transferred the headcount out, but not
back.  It's caused our schedules to slip by at least 4 weeks in the short term,
and who knows how much over the long term, since our group lost 20% of our
headcount without any reduction in workload.

All this because of the arrogance of one VP.  Almost everyone in my group has
said that they would follow our co-worker out the door if they were treated in
a similar manner.  Don't worry about TFSO, just turn this VP loose:-(

Bob

    I agree with and repeat .2's comment;  If this is all true ...
    
    The very fact that they have to ask is telling commentary on its own.
    
    If I were in their shoes and had this concern, I would not delegate the
    'information gathering' exercise to layers below me. I would speculate
    that the most senior management did not go directly to the consulting
    engineers and ask for the data. Based on previous experience, I would
    wage that the most senior managers went to the next level down who went
    to the next level down until the consulting engineers were the ones
    asked.  Bad way to collect data. Every layer has an opportunity to put
    their own spin on the answer and the "report" will end up saying what
    they want it to say which may or may not be close to fact and reality.
    
    Not only does this exhibit an "out of touch" aspect to the problem, to
    me it demonstrates a rather large lack of management knowledge/skill
    concerning general employee management, reward, and recognition. 
    
    

Some ask or tell 'em how to do it at the DVN. It starts in eight minutes.

Bruce

    It should come as no surprise to the SLC, since they are the very folks
    who decided to gut the old Digital culture. If one looks across enough
    early entries here and in many, many early Notes files on a great
    variety of topics, one finds a "we against them" mentality, where the
    "we" was that loyal band of DECCIES against the "thems" - IBM, HP, SUN,
    etc. That was part of the old DEC - a bunch of half-crazed,
    Twinkee-eating, butt-kickin' technoids out to rule the world of
    computing. Once every couple of years at it's zenith, this tribe would
    gather in Boston for a party (called DECWorld) and not one of the
    members was afraid of much of anything, especially not internal
    political stuff - that was just part of the culture.  
    
    Gut that out and replace it with nothing and you end up with a bunch 
    of folks timidly toiling away with their heads down, afraid that if 
    they look up that may catch the next ax and you have the new Digital. 
    In a good economy, headhunters have a field day with companies that 
    have put their once-loyal employees through that hoop. 
    
    Some will argue that the changes were needed, and few will really argue a
    gainst the logic. The arguments that hold water are about the methodology 
    being used and about the lack of a clear vision of where we'll end up on 
    the other side of all of this change. That includes not only what 
    businesses we'll be in, but also what the new culture will be when we get 
    there. 
    
    Maybe we'll have a DVN to tell us. Maybe DVN's are the culture! Imagine
    the possibilities... 
    
	-OFWAMI-

        To any  VPs/SLT members/Mr.  Palmer, if you're reading this, an
        open letter.
        
        If you want to know what's happening at line animal level, then
        talk to the line  animals  directly.    Bypass  the  layers  of
        management and talk to the  folks  who are still trying to do a
        good  job  for Digital, but for  whom  the  outside   world  is
        looking increasingly rosy.  Those are the  people who will give
        you  the  answers  to why the brain-drain is  happening  across
        engineering, not the "good-news" suits. Ever hear of MBWA?
        
        Management By Walking Around.
        
        Try it sometime, you might not like what you hear, but at least
        you'll have some honest information to work with as opposed  to
        what some people think you want to hear.
        
        Regards,
        
        Andy

One might also consider NOT talking to consulting engineers but to 
principal engineers.  I think the drain is highest in that category - 
long time engineers who have been shut out of promotion opportunity.

					Steve

        .11 - excellent point!
        
        Andy
        

                    Been there, done that... came up empty.

This note is very interesting. We were called into a last minute
meeting last Friday to discuss this very thing. Our (unit level)
managers knew *exactly* why people are leaving and efforts were
already underway to stem the tide. Since some of this involved
raises and the rebirth of salary planning I have to assume our upper
management knows about it. liesl

p.s. We've had a 30% attrition rate.

    
    Why would any technical person stick with a company that increasingly
    declares management its core competency?
    

    
    See also note 3345.100.
    

    * Lack of Control over Destiny: The quality of the work one does no longer
      has much relationship to job security as the continuous mandatory cost
      cutting appears to be the only real criterion and which group gets
      hit where appears to have more to do with Russian roulette than
      any well thought out plan.
    
    *  Lack of Promotability: The zero and negative growth Digital has
       experienced essentially means few prospects for promotion.
    
    * Doubt as to Digitals long term future: the company may well collapse
      due to malfunctioning internal processes, the continual
      reorganizations, the continual loss of many skills and
      lack of a formulated strategy which has been understood
      - let alone accepted - by the entire organization.
    
    * Double Standards: the 15-30% salary raises that the SLT gave itself
    while the rest of the company was on a pay freeze was "an action
    speaking louder than words" as to what company loyalty meant personally
    to the SLT.  
                                                                  

    re: -1 ... I say what he said!  It's the absolute truth.  I would add
    that it should probably be a Top 5, with the cross -functional and 
    -industrial salary inequities being #5.  And for the sales force brain
    drain, you can add not only salary inequity, but also the major
    frustration factor with ever-changing variable comp plan problems!
    
    M.
    

    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

================================================================================

  Took a class once where the consultant explained how he was
  paid an incredible amount of money for his "studies" of plants
  that needed his services.

  He explained his job:

  He walks out to the production floor and asks the employees 
  what the problem is.

  Then he writes up his report using big words, fancy graphs, etc.

  And then he laughed...  Because the company's own management 
  couldn't/wouldn't do it themselves, they insisted then needed 
  to hire him.

  We're talking the same thing here.
  And yes, he took the "filters" out by reporting the facts
  straight from the employees, not weathered up through the
  chain of command.  


   I have several other points I'd like to share:

   - I've seen some people leave that I really admired as 
     engineers.  Their output was 110%, but I also felt
     their frustrations, where 110% wasn't good enough,
     their achievements were over-shadowed or swallowed-up
     by their drive to produce output that was "good enough".
     The goal was set by their managers, who were equally
     frustrated, full of negative remarks about the company,
     it's directions, some of the friction of working through
     "opportunities" with other groups.  Feelings of downward
     negative spirals.  Stroking an ego here and there by
     management would have been so beneficial.  "Strokes"
     are like complements and some people just can't part 
     with them.

   - I've seen individual contributors, who were once managers
     who are now armchair quarterbacks.  "This is going wrong
     that is going wrong, so much was going right when I was
     a part of the gears".  Blah-blah-blah, sorry but they 
     don't seem to be hacking it with their new job description 
     and tasks.  Their bitterness is like poison to the rest of 
     us trying to get on.

   - Lastly, manager's are fighting so hard for survival or what
     they perceive as survival, that they are returning to their 
     groups as war-torn warriors, too tired to acknowledge their 
     team.  And the team too shell shocked to celebrate their return.

     A good example of this is having a manager who doesn't recognize
     the group's secretary during Secretary's Day/Week, who allows
     the holidays to go by without a group party, without so much as
     an electronic "Have a Nice Holidays" e-mail message, too busy to
     leave his office for a once a year "HI, how are you [what's your
     name?]?".  Is this the type manager you want to follow or be 
     lead by?  Nope.  This is the man who will sign my next review.
     He literally doesn't know what I do.

Most of the replies so far mirror our situation here.  I would add that employee
loyalty seems to be rapidly assuming the shape that the corporation apparently
has towards those still here.  That is more work, less appreciation, no career
opportunities, no salary compensation, etc.  Yet the elite receive what is
judged by the workers as undeserved and outrageously unfair raises.  What kind of
a message does THAT send?

Add all this together, and as outside employment opportunities come up, Digital's
formerly valued individual contributors are cheap and easy pickings for
competitors.  Then they are gone forever, leaving the work to be done by those
less able to complete it with the same high quality level.

Timing may be working against Digital.  As we approach break even, will the fact
that competitors are hiring the best remaining talent work against continued
turn-around success?  I think it might, unless conditions described in this note
improve VERY QUICKLY.

Incidently, we lost 6 very capable people out of about 40 over the past 2 weeks.

    The other factor behind all this is simply that doing an excellent job
    is absolutely no guarantee that you will keep your job. (I know that
    from personal experience - mine and others). Be in the wrong group at
    the wrong time and you are history.
    
    For me that is even more influential than salaries or 'career'
    opportunities. 
    
    I consulted at a major car manufacturer at the time they had to make
    some drastic cuts in white collar workers. It was refreshing to talk to
    some of the obviously very talented people there who had the attitude
    that the company recognized their talents and they 'knew' they would be
    taken care of. And they were. In several cases their programs were
    closed down, and they found new positions. Digital used to be like
    that, so it was okay to go work on a risky project which might not
    survive, because, if you were good, you could move on. No more. Not for
    a while anyway.
    
    So the reward for working incredibly hard and taking risks is you get
    the same paycheck you got before with no more assurance you'll be here
    next month. I'll feel better about working here when this dynamic gets
    fixed....if it can be fixed.
    
    th 

    The following reply 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

    ===========================================================================
    
    As my own departure is imminent, I'll add a few observations in the
    hope that somehow, someday, upper management recognizes the problem and
    saves some young, up-and-coming idealist who wants to set the world  on
    fire and (naively) believes that a good job will be rewarded - from
    going through what I have.

    For far too many years it has been apparent that the so-called parallel
    career track is rigged to favor the managerial vs. the technical.

    The party line that a technical path is 'equal' in compensation and
    opportunity to the 'managerial' in not just a _myth_, it is a con game.

    Too, too many times I've worked to see managers with little or no idea
    as to what the work is going on, who did little or nothing to support
    the work going on, get promoted due to the good work of individual
    contributors, er, serfs.

    Work like a dog, against the odds to accomplish something and chances
    are your manager will be moving on - leaving you with a 'new' manager,
    whose main focus is to move up & on. Rewarding 'past' excellence is not
    usually a priority unless you need the same ICs to rise once again to
    the challenge - long enough to get you promoted onward and upward. Fool
    me once... Fool me twice....

    Often times, I have seen the management of groups made up of the cream
    of crop in talent treated as stepping stones for managers earmarked
    from above to be  moved up. Often they [new managers] are appointed
    just as the fruits of a long development effort are being completed -
    and they stay just long enough for it to look like they were somehow
    responsible.

    In the old days, the best of the best technically were given a shot at
    managing if they wanted it - which if handled properly is just
    engineering on a broader scale. You had the advantage of having
    managers who were elder statesmen in engineering field - that you could
    go to for advice. There was an obvious  career path for all... role
    models to emulate......

    But somewhere along the way we bought (or were sold) this paradigm of
    the 'administrative' manager. Technical resources became just valuable
    draft  animals to get the 'manager' where he/she wanted to go.

    If I had to sum up the reasons for leaving, I guess I'd have to say
    that I  tired of having no control over my career or opportunity for
    advancement in a company that thinks managers with a B.A in business
    are its core competency. I'm well aware that the managment track is
    where there $$ are -  and I don't expect a lot of change - after all -
    how do you think the *current* middle management got where they are ?

    I want control of my career and the rewards that should come with it.
    This rat is tired of the maze. You won't fool me Thrice.

    Rattus Incognitus

    

I could have written the first, second and final paragraphs
of .21.  Since I didn't, I'll just thank Tim.

I've got the solution!!! It's time for a resignation freeze! Nobody can quit! If
you want to leave, you'll have to wait until the freeze is lifted!

Steve

Resignation freeze <==> instituting slavery

Sorry folks!

I forgot to put the smiley in for those who would take my "resignation freeze"
seriously...Please insert Mr. Smiley face in reply .24 :-).

It was basically my warped commentary on all of the freezes that we have endured
these last few years. 

BTW I think that the Brain Drain is a REAL problem that has been ignored for too
long. We've seen some really talented people leaving to work for Intel around
here. 

Steve B.

    Had the base note been written on the 16-Jan-1993 I could believe it.
    But asking me to accept that "our most upper levels of management" had
    no idea of a brain drain is a wee bit too much to believe.
    The base note almost seems like a "unofficial leak" to get engineering
    speculating on what "Rip Van Winkle" will do now that he has woken up.. 
    
    JC.

    
    Actually, the base node was an early indicator of a profitable quarter.
    
    It signified the SLT moving from basic survival up to the next plateau in
    their Hierarchy of Needs.
    

    You mean - justification of another raise?

    > It signified the SLT moving from basic survival up to the next plateau in
    > their Hierarchy of Needs.

    I'd say that it's the engineers that are moving up their Hierarchy of
    Needs.  During the hard times at Digital and in the Greater Maynard
    Area, Digital management knew that engineers would settle for just
    survival.  They set the environment so that is all you got.  Now
    that times are better in the GMA, if not in Digital, the internal
    environment has not changed much.  Engineers are hearing from
    ex-colleagues that their needs can be better met at another company.
    Knowing there are jobs out there means that you don't need to think
    about survival anymore.  Thoughts turn to the higher needs that
    Digital no longer can meet.

    My 1/2 cent worth.
    
    Where I sit ( in the bowels) of Digital; I see the field engineering
    staff cut to the bone.  I see my own engineers here in the CSC leaving,
    or being TSFO'D.  What I am getting at, is more people leaveing,
    more work coming;  Where is the ACCOUNTABILITY? 
    
    In my group, we are held accountable for our work, or lack there of.
    People are being fired for not doing their jobs.  I can only agree
    with policy.  But these "non" performers have been around for a 
    long time.   What I would like to know is why those individuals who
    have let this kind of activity occur much let set precedence with this
    kind of activity,  Where is the ACCOUNTABILITY?
    
    Rewards and Recog.; Yep, same story line. But an empty package.
    I've seen people work their tales off only too see the "good ole' boy"
    network reward those with cranial-rectal problems.
    
    I have already said way to much...WAY TO MUCH!
    
    Jeff
    
                                                    

    
    A friend of mine quitted a 5.000 people company , he was a technical
    guy supporting operations in a services business. Not very high in the 
    food chain but still an important but not critical resource.

    He got called by a VP and interviewed about reasons for leaving, VP
    wanted to know if things were going OK in his company. 

    I guess the point of the story is that some VPs just don't know how to
    fill their time.
    

>>                      -< Time for expensive poll again. >-  
      
>>    A friend of mine quitted a 5.000 people company , he was a technical
>>    guy supporting operations in a services business. Not very high in the 
>>    food chain but still an important but not critical resource.
>>    He got called by a VP and interviewed about reasons for leaving, VP
>>    wanted to know if things were going OK in his company. 
>>    I guess the point of the story is that some VPs just don't know how to
>>    fill their time.
    
      Are you suggesting that a VP is wasting his time doing that sort of
    thing? Considering the other notes in here about how out of touch the
    SLT is with what's going on 'in the trenches', I think this would be an
    excellent way for some of ours (heaven knows we seem to have enough of
    them! What DO they do all day?) to fill their time. It has a particular
    advantage in that someone who is leaving anyway is much more likely to
    give honest and direct answers than someone who intends to stay,
    because they will not be concerned about any possible retribution. That
    doesn't mean that the VeeP will listen, or do anything with the
    information, but at least they would receive it relatively 'unfiltered'
    by layers of management, external survey companies etc.
    
    Ken

I've recently read a book called "Built To Last" which is about visionary
companies and one of the biggest things that differentiated them from the rest
was their CULTURE (something Digital USED to have a strong supply of in the
'good old days').

Anyhow, one visionary company it talks about is Johnson and Johnson which as
part of its culture has a CREDO everyone lives up to in which it's stated that
their order of priorities are: 

		Doctors, nurses, hospitals, mothers and anyone else
		who uses their products

		Second are workers

		Third is management

		Fourth are the communities in which they live

		Fifth (and LAST) is to the stockholders!  While business must
		make a profit, that is NOT their first priority.

It then goes on to say that in the early 80's, the CEO stated he estimated he
spent 40% of his time communicating the credo throughout the company.

There are zillions of other examples of senior management getting involved in
the culture of their companies and NOT just worrying about profits.  Theirs are
the companies that seem to stand the test of time AND turn big profits as well.

-mark

    Re .34, and to summ up for the old DEC and Johnson & Johnson, with a
    paraphrase from a movie:
    
    	"Build the people (Customers, EMPLOYEES)
    		and they (PROFITS) will come"
    
    \Bill
    

    .33, Ken, maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, since I don't
    actually know the author of .32, but I got the impression that the
    comment (VPs don't know how to spend their time) was sarcastic.  I
    thought the point he was making was that *our* VPs don't seem to see
    any value in that, when, in fact, it could prove extremely valuable.
    And .32, if that's not what you meant, don't tell me!  I like my
    interpretation better! ;-)
    
    Susan

        Just today I met an old collegue, who got a packet about a half
        year ago. Very skilled person, worked in Digital about 15 years.
        I asked him how he felt his new job, and he told me that for him was
        difficult to realize that they really listen him and get a value
        for his opinions...

        	Asko

    The following reply 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

===============================================================================

Here's my take on why front line engineers are leaving.

There are, of course, the obvious reasons why engineers are leaving. For 
starters, salaries are low and benefits poor, especially the 401K program, 
in comparison with the industry.  Then there's the other reasons mentioned 
here and elsewhere like time consuming, poorly designed or worthless work 
processes, no or slow procurement of necessary tools and equipment, poorly  
defined and articulated company goals (this seems to be changing from the 
top down, but very slowly), and/or department and project goals, adoption 
of personell policies without employee input, no or poor advancement 
opportunities, poor employee morale, no job security etc.

For me, middle management would be the biggest reason I'd leave for another  
company.  Simply put, the Digital middle managers I've personally encountered  
have been the worst I've ever seen in my entire career.  Here's some of 
problems with the middle managers I've worked for:

Insulated within Digital, they didn't keep up with developments in the  
rest of the industry.  Their positions seemed due more to nepotism than 
qualifications.  Lacking a broad industry perspective, they wasted development 
resources focusing on unprofitable products or products out of step with where 
the rest of the industry was going. 

They either didn't set organization goals, or set them without feedback 
from the front line to assure that everone was working towards and willing 
to achieve common goals.  They did not use mechanisms for measuring progress 
towards those goals.  

They hired front line managers who lacked basic management skills (who, 
through lack of management skills or lack of exposure to rest of the industry, 
themselves hired unsuitable front line engineers and wasted development
resources.)  They hired support staff and assigned them to projects, but
did not give the project leader the ability to select the best candidate
for the job and reject unsuitable candidates.  They ignored feedback on the
poor productivity and value of their support staff.  When TFSO time came,
they tfso'd productive front line contributers instead of unproductive
support staff.  

They never sought feedback or ignored feedback from front line engineers 
about problems with the front line managers.  They themselves or with 
front line managers punished front line employees for "rocking the boat" 
with TFSO, demotion, or unsuitable or unpalatable assignments. (That is 
the reason I have submitted this note anonymously.)  When offered solutions 
to problems they did not originate or understand, they were adverse to change, 
and allowed problems to run unaddressed.

Their entire focus seemed directed towards upper management.  They did not
pass up or down information relevent to upper management, projects or 
employees either through ignorance or a desire to control the flow of 
information.  When projects they managed could have been enhanced by 
collaboration with other internal Digital groups, they blocked interaction 
to protect their own turf.

Of the six managers I have based my observations on, three continue to work 
within Digital.  I have no explanation why their performance or shortcomings 
have not been identified and addressed by upper management.

I have come to the conclusion that when new projects are initiated, upper 
management in conjunction with the development staff should jointly identify 
middle management job requirements and set metrics for them.  Both should 
then jointly select a candidate from an internal pool of managers.  Both 
would then be certain the best qualified candidate compatible with the 
engineering staff was selected.

    The following reply 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

==============================================================================

Lets review what's happening in some 'profit making' organizations.

The middle mgmt. has taken back all power from the frontline managers for
salary, special adjustments, stock grants, and promotions. The middle managers
think they *know* who the high performers are and a variety of incentives 
have been given to them so that they don't leave. Obscene amounts (10 to 30K 
in cash or stocks - not options) have been distributed to these select few.
Sometimes, they wait till someone announces that he/she has a job offer and
they match it if they want them to stay. But for most of the other, day-to-day
hardworking folks, who don't try very hard to establish that direct link to
impress these managers, but contribute significantly to the product revenues,
get may be a 4% raise after adding the 6 months to their review time.

This, in my opinion, is one of the main causes for a brain drain in the profit 
making organizations. Market is hot. Why tolerate an iffy 4% raise when some
so called *high performers* make out tens of thousands? Bottom line is that 
middle mgmt. has obtained too much power. They give and take it away as they
please.  

What we need is a profit sharing plan on top of the annual salary plan.
This way, if a manager wants to reward a so called high performer, her base
pay increases compared to rest of the team. Also when the time comes to
share the profit, based on their salary, they will get higher amounts compared
to the rest. But atleast this scheme won't completely screw 90% of the other 
hardowrking folks that contribute to the turnaround of this company. 

It is quite frustrating actually. They are taking away all avenues for an
engineer to make decent wages. Ofcourse that engineer is going to find another
job which pays much better. And then when the numbers get bad enough, they
go out and hire similar folks, sometimes with less experience, for much higher 
wages. Talk about stupidity!

    The following reply 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

===============================================================================

	Why does anybody ever leave a company?  They look for money, benefits,
opportunity, security, respect, a sense of accomplishment or are told to go.
I believe all of these are included in the decisions that people are making to
leave.

	Money is an issue.  The pay freeze was lifted, but there doesn't seem
to have been much money released for salary increases.  I guess that makes
this a virtual pay freeze.

	Benefits have been reduced so that we now pay more to get less.

	In order to understand what the opportunities and their risks, we need
to understand the direction the company is going.  There is some debate, in
the ranks, as to what this company is going to be making.  Internal divisions
do not seem to be supporting the other divisions.  Walls seem to be growing
between divisions and groups within divisions to protect their jobs. People
who go to a new group are the most likely to be let go in the event of a
layoff.  Layoffs happen in every group.  There is no opportunity without some
level of security to try something new, information about the existence of
opportunities and an attitude to let inexperienced people to try them.  There
is no ability to assess the risks without understanding the direction the
company is going.

	Respect is too big an issue for me to attempt.  There are too many
instances where the company has shown a lack of respect to go into.  I can
not begin to do justice to the subject.  I.E. it shows disrespect to replace
full time employees with full time temporary or contract workers doing the
same work.

	The single most consistent message that we have been getting  for
years in DIGITAL is that the employees are not wanted in DIGITAL.  Every time
we have lost money, upper management has quickly responded with "we need to cut
headcount", maybe the sale of some assets, and maybe some different ideas on
what to do to make money.  We just announced a profit.  Many people worked
incredibly hard to make that happen. The message is that management was
successful, customers like our technology and that we have too many
employees.  The single most heard message from Wall Street, the news and
management is that we need to reduce our headcount.  Could it be that those
good loyal people are doing what they have been told to do, so many times, for
so many years, "LEAVE". One of the things touted in the new financial report
and as a direction for the immediate future is the reduction in headcount.
The message there is that the brain drain is helping the cost structure.


Quinn

IMO the real reason for most voluntary departures is the lack of fun in
your job. When you stop having fun at work, your not so happy mood
spills over into your private life and you look for ways to compensate
this or to simply change job to have more fun. If you can get a raise at
the same time, the better.

Some of us accept the opportunity to improve our market value in lieu of
salary increase. But the irony of it is that when the company does help a
small percentage to brush up their skills those individuals typically
discover that they can have a lot more fun outside of Digital. Some have
lost faith in Digital's committment to their future and are just fed up
with seeing collegues (and themselves) loyally do non-resume enhancing work
and subsequently get dumped.

I don't think that restoring salary increases or benefits will help stop
the bleeding of key people. The bleed won't stop until we can make this a
sustainable fun environment to work in. And that requires more fundamental
things like a vision, clearly articulated strategy, accountability and
a recognition that our staff should be treated as our biggest asset.

>Per

    I can buy my own fun.  Compensation has turned from a motivating factor
    to a strong de-motivating factor.  Speaking for myself, I don't stay or
    leave a job based solely upon salary, and I do prefer a job I enjoy,
    but when the work I do is not recognized in the form of compensation
    (ie. regular salary increases based upon performance and contribution
    to the corporation, bonuses for "above and beyond" stuff, et.al.) then
    the rest is superfluous. 
    
    IMHO
    
    Chuck

I have received several mail messages from well-meaning noters pointing out
that there is a name at the bottom of .40.  I questioned the author before
posting the reply and they informed me that it was being used as a pen-name.

So, thank you to everyone that was concerned about .40 remaining anonymous.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

> I don't actually know the author of .32, but I got the impression that
> the comment (VPs don't know how to spend their time) was sarcastic.

I know Wlodek, and I assure you that as a loyal employee of Digital, he
does not employ a sense of humor while at the office.  (Nor, of course, do
I.)  Therefore he couldn't possibly have been being sarcastic.

___Pete

    
    	Having just returned from the Digital partners executive Conference
    in Palm Desert, CA and having just read the Enrico SBU DVN, I'm not the
    least bit surprised at all. 
    
    	Never in the DVN, nor at all the presentations at the EC, did
    Digital senior management mention people. The three top focuses are
    expense control, completing the reorganization, and then "growing"
    their respective businesses.
    
    	To get #1 under control, most of us non-manager types are
    completely expendable. C'est la vie, sports fans.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    After having attended two 'sessions' of the 'change forum' that MCS is
    putting on, I have to say that MCS does seem to care about the people. 
    Having been with Digital for a good long while (and still like to call
    us 'field service'), I believe upper management sees that people do
    make the difference and that if your people aren't having any fun any
    more it is pretty difficult to not to fail.  I hear what you are saying
    about contract employees and I have somehow lived through the last
    three years of performance paralysis.  But there is a significant
    investment being made by MCS to bring back the old spirit and I am sure
    that some of the messages in the change forum would be different if
    they didn't think it was important for us to enjoy it and dive in.
    
    Bob

    re .46: I agree with the noter. MCS(D in my case) is using whomever
    has the experience and/or expertise to design the work and hold them
    responsible for working that way and improving it. 
    
    We have not seen those big increases/bonuses yet, however, we are
    well on our way to positioning MCS for major cost/quality improvements
    and revenue opportunities. When we succeed, perhaps we'll be
    remembered? This is a hint, btw.
    
    Al
    

    Brain drain?  What brain drain?  I thought the folks leaving were
    doing so to help the companies bottom line.  After all, if you
    make conditions poor enough, people will leave without a package
    and Digital won't incur another restructuring charge.  Brilliant
    piece of bean counting if you ask me, although incredibly stupid
    for the long term viability of the company.
    
    The people I know that have left (which is more than the number of
    people I know that were TFSO'd) have left for multiple reasons. 
    Clearly money, benefits, and recognition are a part of it.  But I
    think more significantly is the total feeling of helplessness. 
    Most felt that they had little chance at affecting Digital's
    bottom line.  The company's direction has vascilated so much or
    been so poorly articulated that seeing a link between good
    individual performance and company performance is essentially
    impossible.
    
    I also find it unbelievable that this brain drain is either
    unexpected or unintentional.  Instead of moving quickly 2-3 years
    ago to stem the red ink, we chose to bleed the company to death. 
    Triage should have been performed 3-4 years ago and allowed those
    remaining to get on with rebuilding.  Sure, hindsight is 20-20 but
    blinding, starving, and shooting your employees over a 3 year
    period of time certainly has a predictable outcome.
    
    -tl

                           vascilated => VAXillated
   

I can't help but notice that the SLT is widening the gap between the real
workers and themselves.  For instance,  I believe Lee Iaccoca of Chrysler 
accepted a $1.00/yr salary when the company was experiencing rocky times.
The Digital SLT,  on the other hand,  awards themselves (with BOD approval)
handsome raises while the rest of us peons are rewarded with salary freezes.
(The salary increases for the SLT was published in VNS a while back.)   

I can only say that I was INCENSED.  It is this very behaviour by our exalted
ones that undermines the confidence and to a certain extent,  the self worth
of us DECies.   Although an isolated example,  it is indicative of the 
pervasive malaise within Digital,  and certainly contributes to the exodus
underway through out Digital.

I work hard,  usually only gripe through the NOTES files,  have added
responsibilities due to TFSO's,  and without a salary increase in sight.

What's to become of Digital?

    re MC(Field)S... I'd like to know what you are hearing that is new
    exciting or different, all we hear is the same old lines. Do more with
    less, faster! and "Meet BOB, he's our new sub-contractor working at
    <mumble>". I fear the axe has not yet hit the ground, and the
    executioner still has his hood on, for that is one large consequence of
    the flailings we have endured, I will trust no one, pretty much ever
    again. 
    
    .mike.

    re. 50
    
    Don't be so naive.  Lee Iaccoca would no more work for one dollar than
    you would.  It was probably one dollar and a hell of a lot of options. 
    Options that he cashed in a year or two later and made a fortune on. 
    The options were probably set up so that he could not possibly lose. 
    Lee is a good marketeer and no doubt he marketed himself to you very
    well.
    
    I will be willing to bet that Lee Iaccoca has made and will make more
    money off of Chrysler than Bob Palmer will ever make at Digital.  And
    you can bet that Iaccoca laid off a ton of auto workers and middle
    management.

    I also believe that if upper management wants to know what is going on,
    they need to get out of their offices and in to the pits with the rest
    of us.  
    
    My recomendation to any of the upeer management types who might be
    reading this:
    
    Take off your suit, and get into your old engineering uniform and come
    sit down and handle phone calls with us.  Walk into the cubicles, lines
    and whatever, and ask questions one-on-one, you may get what you think
    you want from large meetings with us, but it won't be what you need to
    put a stop to the hemorage of talent that I see happening.  
    
    Please hurry up and do this.  I am rapidly reaching the point, as are
    others on my team where our sense of ethics around customer support
    will cause us to leave.  If you really ask you will find out what
    training, equipment, documentation, and people we need to get this job
    done for us, our customers, and for you.  consider it the trickle up
    theory of business.  
    
    meg

    This note largely has the look and feel of
    "engineering-and-support-are-all-there-is"...  I'd also recommend that
    anyone wanting to know what is REALLY going on out there get hold of
    some of the people in the FIELD offices, since the drain here has to be
    as bad as in engineering and/or support.  Of course, that may not be a
    portion of the corp that Enrico is concerned about?  If anybody does
    give a damn, I'm sure there are LOTS of people that'll be glad to
    answer their phones and tell whoever asks why DC or SI or whatever we
    are has places where 70 -80% have left voluntarily in the past year.

    I might add that actually going to "field" office does not preclude
    going to an "MCS" office (remember "Field" service?) and actually going
    along on a few service calls. I think that hanging out with the real
    people in the trenches would open some eyes.
    
    .mike.

    There is a good article in this weeks Fortune magazine, entitled
    "Abandoning Corporate America, Why American businesses can not attract
    the best and the brightest"  
    
    If you want to understand the brain drain not only in our company but
    across the other Fortune 500 firms this article pretty much sums it up.
    
    Maverick