Conference 7.286::digital

    IMHO   IF DEC wants to increase its revenue/employee just wipe out
    about 3 levels of mid-management (you know the ones that fabricate
    reasons why their job is neccessary) after that we would possibly not
    notice any difference, except DEC runs alot smoother.

    reply .0

    			Why have a criteria picking on people with less
    seniority than others? Isn't that a form of job discrimination? Just to
    let you know that I am not complaining because I fit into this
    category. I have been with the company almost ten years now and have
    never been rated under a 2. I just don't think that (Time Since Hire)
    should be considered as part of the criteria. I know thats just your
    opinion. 
    
    Brian

Since there's a problem with too many people in some job categories, and
not enough in others, it doesn't make sense to lay off so-so performers
in the categories when there's a shortage.  Really poor performers can
do more harm than good, but there are people whose presence is better
than nothing.

re: .2

>    			Why have a criteria picking on people with less
>    seniority than others? Isn't that a form of job discrimination?

Hmmm...am i not communicating something right?  I thought my criteria did
just the reverse of what you're saying.  That is, the second, third and
fourth pass criteria require *at least* X amount of time with the company
to be eligible for the "hit list".  Mostly that's just to insure that there
are enough performance reviews to give you the average rating that's used.

re: .1

Well, we could always apply the "pornography approach" to finding bad
management ("I know it when I see it"), and i'm sure that everybody thinks
they could pick the 5% of their own organization to get rid of.  But how
does the corporation as a whole do that?  I haven't heard of all managers
being asked to rank their reports in order of value...yet.  That would be
a prelude to one type of lay-off.
								paul

    I don't like the "average of 2.5" in performance ratings.
    
    Because our management had a meeting with us (and our large group is
    200+ people total) that because they see 1's and 2's as "inflated"
    performance ratings, all of us that have been getting them for the last
    x years will probably be knocked down to a 3.  They (our management)
    said that the "new" Corporate view is that anyone doing their job
    adequately, well, and to complete satisfaction will be rated a 3.  To
    get a 1 would require true Herculean effort (not always possible in a
    lot of jobs) and 2 would be almost always exceeding job requirements.
    
    They said that a 3 is not "just getting by" but what most do when they
    do their job well.
    
    Since I do production and design work, I could do all my jobs well,
    meet all my deadlines, have completely happy clients, try to be cost
    saving and get a 3.  The nature of my job isn't one where I can go sell
    a 10 million dollar computer to a customer and get a 1 performance
    rating.
    
    So please be careful about suggesting that people with x and with 2.5
    job performance be selected for layoffs.  We are also subject to how
    our management will give review numbers.
    
    
    Tina

re: .5

>    I don't like the "average of 2.5" in performance ratings.

Yeah, i agree with you that performance ratings may be suspect depending
on the organization.  But notice that the 2.5 number is used for people
who are mid-level managers or above (their SRI level is greater than 40)
and who are in the top 20% of their salary range.  Even the more lenient
"have to average better than 3" only applies to people who are level 36
or higher (senior or principal contributors and management, basically)
and in the top third of their salary range.

I guess my motivation was that people who are high level and near the
high end of their salary range should be doing something to deserve this
situation, and whatever that something is should be visible in their
performance rating.  If not, something suspect is going on.  Some people
tell me that managers tend to give out higher ratings the higher up the
ladder you go (don't know if that's true, but i tried to adjust for that).
There is disparity in how ratings are given out across organizations though.
My feeling was that the added criteria could help to normalize that.

							paul

    Paul,

    IMO, I see a few of flaws with your criteria.

    1) You assume that all managers rate people the same.  This is not true
       (remember, I said is IMO). 

    2) You don't take into account that people rated as threes in one job 
       are more valuable than people rated as ones in other jobs.

    3) If you layoff "Anyone with - 
                     (Organization Type is not revenue-generating)"
       how will the rest of us get our pay checks?


    I feel the company needs to remove jobs not people.  What I mean is
    every individual job needs to be put to the "What happens if this job
    is removed" question.  If the answer is the job can be removed with out
    a negative effect to the company then the job should be removed.  If
    the person that was in that job is worth keeping then then should go
    into a reassignment pool.  After you remove all the jobs that aren't 
    needed, go through and find all the people that aren't performing well
    in needed jobs and remove(lay-off) the ones that can be replaced from the
    reassignment pool.  If anyone is left in the reassignment pool, they
    lose their job.  All of this would be done on paper then one day you
    tell people they have been reassigned or let-go.  If someone who has
    been reassigned doesn't want the new job sorry.

    I guess one problem with what I have described, assumes that management
    would have to do what I have described.

    -Bruce  

    I would hope that there are very few people left in the corporation who
    have received a truly valid "5" rating.  Which after all says that you
    are not only not performing poorly, but are probably a serious drag on
    everyone else around...
    
    The other escalating criteria seem to be an attempt to remove senior
    people who are not performing up to expectations based upon their time
    with Digital (not necessarily time in job or specific position)!  Well
    these folks are probably the most expensive, but as was stated before
    not necessarily the most unneeded!
    
    What we are left with is either very few people to layoff and/or local
    definitions of what is revenue producing to protect the guilty that be
    subject to these criteria.
    
    I also agree we need to trim jobs and functions not some class of
    people based on service, performance or any other schemes.  I think
    this is what manufacturing has been attempting.  I know before the
    first TFSO package was offered, the businesses in manufacturing each
    developed a plan of how many openings they should have in each job code
    to support their business plans.  In Phoenix they then offered TFSO to
    everyone with the implication that if enough people did not leave from
    overstaffed jobs, they would eliminate excess personnel in those
    functions and offer training to fill positions which over subscribed to
    TFSO.
    
    The problem comes when you/your functions is no longer needed by the
    company but you would like to continue your employment with Digital.
    If you are a valuable resource (ie your performance is above average
    and you have needed skills), Digital needs to do everything possible
    to retain you.  Retraining and Reskilling of valuable resources is a
    mark of a caring company which Digital has always been.
    
    Unfortunately, it is not easy to locate a new position even if you are
    a valued contributor.  It is much worse if you need to look beyond the
    local area.  Your own network is the best tool available for finding a
    new position and for many people that network is extremely limited.
    
    It is always easy to identify what is not necessary in someone else's
    organization, but we all feel we are necessary in our own group and 
    even more so that our group is necessary to digital.
    
    Without strategies, business plans, and a better understanding of what
    is needed to accomplish the corporations objectives we can not decide
    what is needed and what is fluff!  We don't need many rules to decide
    who to lay off, if we decide which functions are no longer supportable
    given the current business model!  We will need plans to retain and
    redirect people we want to utilize in other functions, including the
    reskilling efforts that this might entail.
    
    One thing most people seem to agree on is a need to flatten the matrix/
    hierarchy to assists in getting quicker and cleaner decision making.
    If these middle managers are valuable resources we need a plan to
    utilize as individual contributors, then we need a plan/reskilling
    opportunities to make that happen as well.  If some of them are not
    valuable resources and/or they can not be reskilled to the IC roles
    which our movement into Systems Integration are creating, then we need
    to get them to leave for the good of Digital.
    
    What we do not need is management task forces and endless meetings on
    directions and strategies...  The make work activities which get in the
    way of doing business are slowly dragging the company into downward
    spiral which will make us very vulnerable to take over and/or massive
    restructuring for solely financial reasons.   Lets stop worrying about
    how many people we have to git rid of and start worrying about how to
    make everyone we have productive and focused on revenue generation.
    
    Paul N.
    

From VTX Worldwide news...

                       New phase of U.S. downsizing announced 
 
  Increasingly intense competitive pressure within the computer industry -- 
  business practices, technological advances and manufacturing efficiencies -- 
  are placing added pressures on the company's cost structure, in spite of 
  ongoing cost reduction efforts that focused on increased productivity and 
  efficiency and two voluntary downsizing programs.

  An analysis of the results of these efforts has been completed and was 
  reviewed this week by the Corporate Operations Committee and the Executive 
  Committee. This analysis shows that those cost reduction efforts, while 
  impressive, have simply not been enough, in light of the increased pressures 
  applied by economic conditions. 

  As a result, a new phase of the U.S. downsizing effort, involving involuntary
  selection methods, has been approved effective immediately. The decision to 
  move into a new phase was finalized yesterday. 
 
  As we move ahead into this phase, it is critical for everyone to try to 
  grasp the full impact of the intense competitive and economic forces at 
  play. Those pressures are driving fundamental changes in this company and 
  this industry. And even as business improves, we can no longer expect things 
  to "return to normal," as many of us assumed in past economic downturns. 

  This phase is different in two ways from prior phases. It will involve 
  involuntary methodology, and while a financial support package will be 
  offered, it will be somewhat less generous.  

  While we need to move ahead quickly, we also intend to proceed in a rational 
  and orderly way that will not disrupt business. This program is a U.S. 
  program. Other downsizing programs will continue to be implemented outside 
  the U.S., based upon business conditions, local laws, customs, and 
  traditions, on a country-by-country basis. 

  Regarding methodology, two primary factors will determine whether an employee
  is selected: 1) his or her work has gone away; 2) he or she is selected from 
  a larger group being reduced based on performance (i.e., the last documented 
  performance rating, as indicated on the employee's most recent performance 
  evaluation).  If additional selection steps are required, they will be based 
  on additional performance criteria (those details are being further refined 
  and will be finalized shortly.)

  The elements of the financial support package include a lump sum payment 
  based on years of service to the company; maintenance of medical, dental, 
  and life insurance coverage for a period represented by the total payments, 
  not to exceed one year; formal outplacement/employment assistance; 
  and, where applicable, five-year acceleration of any restricted stock 
  options.  This latter element is subject to approval by the Compensation 
  Stock Option Committee (CSOC).  There is no open-window period as before.

  Though the manner in which the payment will be made has been structured 
  differently than in previous programs to accommodate certain legal 
  requirements, the total payments will be as follows:

      0 - 2 years of service               13 weeks of pay
      3 - 10 years of service              13 weeks of pay, plus three weeks 
                                           of pay for every year of service 
                                           between three and ten years.

     11 - 20 years of service              37 weeks of pay, plus four weeks 
                                           of pay for every year of service 
                                           between eleven and twenty years.

                                           77 weeks of pay will be the maximum 
                                           financial bridge available.

  The progress of this program will be assessed periodically, and we will 
  endeavor to communicate relevant information to managers and employees as 
  quickly as possible through the appropriate communication channels.

re: .-1

I don't get much sense of what the algorithm is based on that.  The fact
that it's supposed to involve an analysis on a business-by-business basis
makes fear that the foxes will be designing the chicken-coop, wolves
ferrying the sheep across the river, etc. (insert appropriate animal
analogy here;^)).  You know, where 3450 people get croaked but we somehow
end up with 4053 more managers than we started with?:^)  Sorry, that's
being cynical, huh?

I hope more details are forthcoming.  Like most people, i want to believe
that we can turn this thing around and stand the rest of the industry on
its collective ear.
								paul

    all very interesting... (i wish to God it weren't happening, though)
    
    but here is a question for consideration.
    
    suppose an employee recently relocated into a new job.  and one of the
    requirements for acquiring that job was his/her agreement to a
    committment for two or three years.  and suppose that committment had
    been placed in written form and signed by the employee, his manager,
    and the relavent personnel representative.
    
    now, suppose that employee, has better than average performance ratings
    (ratings of 2 or 1), yet for some reason is STILL asked to leave.
    
    is there any recourse?  is t he written committment any sort of
    protection for the employee?
    
    tony

re: .-1

Could the employee use the ODP to make a case that a greater headcount
savings would be realized by making both the manager and personnel rep
leave rather than the employee?

Sorry if that's not helpful. :-(
								paul

    re: .3  I disagree very strongly re: even a bad employee is better than
    nobody.  I feel the same way about any process being better than no
    process.  Both my manager and I spent over 5 company days trying to do
    what's best for DEC through two inefficient, unsophistocated
    bureaucratic processes (I'll not discuss that processes are made by
    people and about those people qualities right now).  What we're doing
    is common, smart business practice in most competitive industries - it
    helps companies be more competitive at less cost.  Not only have we
    wasted all this company time trying to do the right thing, but during
    that time we haven't been able to give the best we have to offer to the
    company.  So I don't want to hear this anything is better than nothing
    stuff right now.
    
    re: .7 Bruce, you're asking mgmt to make decisions based on Qualitative
    thinking - top mgmt that's been conditioned to ONLY Quantitative
    rationale.  Maybe it's too late for something called wisdom to
    triumph??  I surely hope not.
    
    re: shortage of SW engineers - I understand through those in the STEP
    program that hundreds of qualified, apt Digital employees have applied
    for re-training as SW engineers.  If 6 months ago, we could have
    trained all these qualified, apt folks, we'd have no shortage today - 
    we (DEC) just couldn't get in full gear to supply the need with the 
    readily available resources we had at the time.  It still may not be 
    too late - unless most of the interested, qualified, apt Digital 
    candidates haven't already left the company.

    Well!! Now we know don't we.  It's layoff time.
    
    Re. 11
    
    What if a secretary or dept. coordinator (not eligible for either
    package in most groups) is laid off?   If that person is me then
    !!!!KA BOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!
    

    Three comments, if I may.
    
        One.  If previous "packages" had been made truly voluntary, I would
    hazard a guess that many, many more people would have left.  Maybe we
    wouldn't even have needed lay-offs.  
    
        Two.  On the shortage of software engineers.  I have been a closely
    involved observer/participant in the development of five V1.0 software
    products in the past three years.  ALL OF THEM have been major losers
    on the marketplace, coming no where near even recouping development
    costs.  We need a system to truly shut down projects in Phase 0/1 when
    common sense says it's a loser.  My point is, that if we got better
    at selecting the right projects, we just might have enough engineers.
    
        Three.  We need to get rid of the elitist attitude that says you've
    gotta have a degree to be a software developer.  A lot of people
    could have been retrained.  Seems the Japanese have been quite
    successful in retraining crane operators to be programmers.  Will we
    never learn?

>        Three.  We need to get rid of the elitist attitude that says you've
>    gotta have a degree to be a software developer. 

    This attitude exists at Digital? Must be new. I've worked with at least
    three software engineers over the years who didn't have degrees. Two of
    them were/are Principal Software Engineers. I also know of several
    people who have moved from secretarial jobs into software engineering.
    I don't know their education level but I believe that computers was
    not part of it prior to Digital. 

    			Alfred

re .15:

I was talking with some fellow DEC software engineers last night about
the layoffs and the reputed shortage of software engineers.  One said
that there wouldn't be a shortage if "silly projects" got canned.  We
all agreed that we worked on non-silly projects.

I can think of one project that seems to be doomed to fail, but it's so
well-connected politically that it'll go out the door no matter how late.
I predict it will fall flat on its face.

It you were to look across DEC engineering, especially some of us from the
70's (I'm dating myself) you would find a fairly large pool of "uneducated"
high level talent (yes, I'd include myself here).

And that does not stop with Principal engineer.  Many started soldering PDP-6s
and such "low level" tasks and advanced both in hardware and software.  The
feeling I get is it's what you can do, not necessarilly how many sheets of
what quality paper you can hang on the wall.  It just depends on education
in the broader sense, outside as well as inside the class room.

Heck, my son (12 years old) can wright better code and solve tougher problems
than some of the "educated" people I've met (I dont exclude ANY type of degree
in my digression).

"wright better code"

  ^^^^^ My lack of education is showing }8-)}

I kind of like it -- "code-wright -- one who creates code."

re: .20 

>I kind of like it -- "code-wright -- one who creates code."

or, depending on the product, maybe "code-wrong"
;-)

    Or one who writes right code
    

    I know Westinghouse had a policy of not hiring non-degreed people for
    exempt positions. This surprised me when I was there, since I perceived
    that their professionals were quite average, on the average. Their
    reasoning is that the want to create a work force which is more easily 
    "promotable". 
    
    In the field we see many non-degreed people telling our Phd. customers
    how to run their business, and very effectively. Many of our sales
    people and sales managers were once sales secretaries. 
    
    Is this a wise message to send, to "sift" our population to become 
    proportionately more educated?  

    Speaking of Government Business:
    
    Firms such as Westinghouse bidding on Govt. Contracts "sell their
    bodies" based on percieved worth. The Government evaluator on a
    contract will look at the resumes (yes, they are submitted) of the
    Staff proposed on the contract. The salaries of those people are
    (together with overhead, etc) are broken out. The Government may choose
    not to accept an individual in the bid based upon the percieved lack of
    qualifications or simply the cost of that individual is too high. Since
    this is all done at arms length, the Government has no choice but to
    use "defacto" metrics in this selection process. Westinghouse then
    would opt to hire people who they are able to sell and, if MBAs are in,
    that's what they'll target. In the end of course, it's all the other
    folks (regardless of their "credentials") who have to deliver.
    
    Kinda like trying to sell VMS because it does the job better but, if
    the customer is set on Unix, that's what you better sell.

Many (most/all ?) government RFP's REQUIRE degreed professionals for such as
computer/scientific projects.

I bid on a government contract many years ago and after being told the
price ($3000) was too low to do the job (a particular software port I had
done TWICE before) I rebid the job at $10000.  This wold have worked out to
an income of $5000 a month worst case in 1971 (time of the bid).

I lost because of:

	1) The bid was still too low (the contract went to a large company
	    for $100,000)

	2) I wasn't viewed as competent since I didn't have a degree (I was at
	   the time still working on one) even after letting the bid reviewers
	   evaluate the previous two ports between OSs and ventor systems that
	   I had already done.

	3) I didn't bid a long enough interval to get the job done (convert
	   5000 cards of fairly portable FORTRAN that were the result of me
	   resolving most of the portability issues).  The target of the
	   govt port was to a system I was familiar with.

And one wonders where the government money goes.

             <<< Note 1336.23 by ODIXIE::LAMBKE "Lipodistrophy" >>>
                               -< RE: Educated >-

>>>    I know Westinghouse had a policy of not hiring non-degreed people for
    exempt positions. This surprised me when I was there, since I perceived
    that their professionals were quite average, on the average. Their
    reasoning is that the want to create a work force which is more easily 
    "promotable". 
    
Sometimes, it's a matter of credability with unions. Westinghouse
in San Jose, for example, is a heavy union shop.

Education does not make a better engineer; it does show a
potential employer that this person has the "stay-ability" to do
a job because that person stuck with the school to earn the
degree. I was test manager for an electronics firm back when it's
fashionable to job-hop. I found that some boot-strap folks are
lacking in their stay-to-it-ness when it comes to depending on
these folks.

Who am I to talk? I'm looking for work.

calvin

Another question that is worth thinking about, since i believe someone
here quoted Jack Smith as saying that a mechanism would be put in place
for people to rate their managers, is should the rating given managers
by their direct reports factor into layoff criteria?

I'm thinking about how this might work for any layoffs that might be
needed NEXT fiscal year.  For instance, if the rule is that managers
will evaluate their reports (say from best to worst, in order) with the
worst N% becoming candidates for a layoff, should a manager's being
rated poorly by his/her subordinates be sufficient to invalidate such a
methodology for that organization (forcing some more exhaustive manual
review/audit by people outside the organization)?
								paul

    Remember that each of our entities works as a team. If the team gets
    cut, the manager has no one to manage. If a manager has no one to
    manage, he/she no longer has a job. By the same token, if the team's
    manager gets eliminated, does the team have a job?

re: .28

>					If a manager has no one to
>    manage, he/she no longer has a job.

Unfortunately that's not so clear in some organizations, where managers
may have 4 or fewer reports (let's assume that the norm used to be 7 or
more reports per manager and that it's now desirable for it to be 15 or
more reports per manager).  There probably are organizations where there
are managers who have NO real reports on board, just a couple of open
reqs.  Situations like that should be subject to the highest scrutiny in
these times.
								paul

    Another question to all this speculation --
    
    I received a famous 3 from a very incompetent managers (proven fact)
    and I submitted a formal complaint against him and his manager and
    contested the 3rating. This has not been resolved as of yet. I left
    Digital to work for Digital in Switzerland. I do not see as my review
    complaint as being solved until I receive a memo saying so. Do I
    get a lay-off slip because I received a 3? 75 people of the group
    believe that I should get a better rating.
    What do you think of this?
    
    Reading all the comments - it's frightening. I have been with DEC
    for 10 years and have enjoyed working for DEC, until the last three
    years. These have been unpleasant years due to the fact that we
    had too many incompetent managers fighting with each other.
    
    I hope people who deserve to be layed off will be and the rest can
    soon concentrate to get this company back on track in todays world.
    
                                                           Ruth

    What's wrong with a 3?  That means you're doing a good job, and meeting
    all expectations.  I think the days of rating inflation are just about
    over anyhow.  I've rarely been rated above a three, and have managed 
    to survive 19 years and about seven promotions.
    
    I've never seen a "1".  What do they look like???

re Note 1336.31 by COOKIE::LENNARD:

>     I've never seen a "1".  What do they look like???

        You know -- the folks who cross rivers without using bridges
        or boats.

    The 1s I've gotten were a result of solving high visibility
    technical/customer satisfaction problems that management knew we had to
    solve, but didn't know who in the organization could solve them, or how
    they would be solved.
    
    Being good at what you do is part of it; having a fairly unique
    interdisciplinary background helps; and being in the right place at
    the right time counts for more than anything else, imho. 
    
    I read in a job hunting book years ago that the way to get a job isn't
    to agree to do what you're told, but rather to analyze the
    organization's goals, needs, policies, and problems and to present a
    solution that isn't obvious.  
    
    This writer suggested that the way to get the best jobs was to do your
    homework about the organization or company sufficiently well from the
    outside that the hiring manager was impressed that you could gain
    an insider's view of the company and its problems from the outside. 
    The book stressed that this would not be easy, but if you could do it
    successfully, you probably are one of the brightest and the best.
    
    This made a lot of sense to me.  
    
    I just wish there were no quota system in place.  I think there are a
    great many more people in Digital deserving of 1s and 2s than get them.
    It's pretty demotivating to do great work, and then find yourself
    defined as average when fitted to a bell curve because a manager can
    only give so many 1s and 2s.
    
    Holly

    Re: .33  You mentioned that QUOTAs were still in place! 
    
    Is that for real? Is it limited to any groups or organizations? Is it
    formal or "informal"? 
    
    This really bothers me, and I'm not sure how much of what has been said
    on both sides that I believe!
    
    Thanks,
    Dave Scoda
    

    A manager told me that they can only give so many 1s and 2s, and that
    most people should expect to be rated 3 most of the time.  
    
    I was also told that in some groups, salary planning is accomplished by
    all the managers bringing their list of recommended 1 and 2 performers
    to a meeting and ranking them as a group.  The managers then have to
    negotiate among themselves for the 1 and 2 'slots' that exist, with the
    remainder of the people getting curve-fitted into 3 ratings.
    
    I believe that part of this has to do with a finite monetary 
    "pie" being divided up into only so many "1" raises and "2" raises.
    
    Would someone who is actually a manager and who reads this file care to
    comment?  I've never participated in the process myself, so I'm not
    speaking from first hand experience.
    
    Holly 
    

    In my first organization within DEC, I was not only told that there
    were metrics around ratings, I was also told "First year people don't
    get 1s and 2s." - !  I joined the company in '87 and understood that I
    barely got in before the hiring freeze began and that there wasn't much
    money for raises.  (My previous company gave me several double-digit
    raises, 3 promotions, & the only bonus ever given to an Operations
    staffer, all within 4 1/2 years!)  But when I was told it wasn't even
    possible for me to get the pat on the back of a deserved rating, it
    *really* deflated my motivation!  Due to the relative security of
    working for DEC, I stuck it out, and have since worked for
    organizations that do reward my efforts.  
    BTW, the metrics around ratings information was relayed to my group by
    our manager's manager in a full staff meeting.
    
    I'm glad I got past my discouraging introduction to DEC.  In the long
    run, I have found it to the most compassionate employer I have ever
    had.  I guess sometimes it just takes a while to find the right part of
    the company to work for!
    
    dlw

    re: .35
    
    You description of the salary planning process seems pretty consistent
    with my experience.
    
    As far as metrics regarding 1's and 2's go, I have yet to see hard quotas
    "handed down" to managers at my level.  I suspect that a fair amount of
    attention is paid to them at some higher level but little is done.
    There is a lot of heat generated by peers if any of the managers at my
    level ranks his or her employees off the curve. If you can justify
    them fine, but you better be sure that your ranking can stand some
    serious scrutiny.  A presentation by our Personnel Consultant at this 
    years salary planning meeting revealed a little tidbit in that it showed 
    a strong skew towards higher perforamnce ratings as salary levels 
    increased.  Not suprising.
    
    It's my conviction that, if you take a 'sufficiently large group' (and
    I'll not try to define that here...), performance ratings should fit a
    normalized curve.  In fact, I believe that the very _definition_ of
    performance ratings _is determined_ by examining a sufficiently large group
    of employees.  There are no independent, absolute standards which can or
    should be applied.  It seems obvious to me that 'average' defines
    'meets expectations'. 
    
    Al
    

    re:.35
    
    According to our manager,there is no such thing as a "1 raise" or a "2
    raise" You can be a "1" and at the top of your range therefore you get
    no raise.
    
    Ken

    re.37
    
    I agree with you about the 'sufficiently large group'.  A group of 500
    employees would probably shake out quite accurately to a bell curve.
    
    In my personal opinion, an excellent manager who has excellent
    performers with proven track records in other groups competing to work
    for his or her small group is more likely to have a group skewed
    towards the 1s and 2s.  It seems unfair to fit that kind of small, top
    notch team to a bell curve!
    
    The example about highly placed people being rated pretty high doesn't
    surprise me.  I would hope that technical individual contributors can
    be seen in the same light if they deserve it!
    
    An analogy would be that in large college lectures the grades usually
    fit a bell curve, but we would have been horrified if that had been
    done in small 800 level seminars in graduate school.  
    
    Re .38
    
    I think this means on the average.  If you add up all the 1 and 2
    raises and average them, the number will usually be higher than the 
    average of the 3 raises.
    
    Holly
    
    

As a former manager, my recollection is that what .37 and .38 state are
pretty much accurate.  Across a large organization there may be "quotas"
for the number of 1's given out.  Also, there should not be a gross
disparity between the number of 1's and 2's vs. 4's and 5's.  That does
not say that smaller groups within an organization may not "break" those
metrics--they just have to be able to justify it to their peer groups
(so they need strong managers pushing it and credibility among their
peers).

The method i have seen used is to rank all contributors across the
span of groups involved in the salary planning decisions--that may
not be the method used in every organization.  And the ranking may be
based on "value" to the organization vs. current level or performance
against duties (so a "good" performer with a rare/critical skill may be
ranked higher in "value" to the organization than some "excellent"
performers in less critical skill areas).

The goal is to get people to a state where their level and salary range
position approximates their "value" to the organization.  This means
that someone already at a high level who is high into their salary range
may get a mediocre raise (or an extended interval between raises) vs.
someone lower down (in level and/or in the salary range) who may not be
rated any better.  It seems unfair at first glance, but it makes more
sense if you understand that managers may be trying to correct historical
inequities (especially but not limited to those of an EEO variety).

Ideally managers would have 3 or 4 planning years to even out these
one-shot inequities in the interest of a longer range "pay equity" model
--but unfortunately both managers and individual contributors move on to
other jobs often enough that this may not be the reality.

I wish Personnel would be very open and publicize the salary planning
objectives each year--to everyone, not just to managers.  It takes a bit
of digesting, but it really is fairer in its intent than the more
simplistic approaches that i see some folks here advocating (e.g., fixed
intervals between raises for everyone, cost-of-living raises, raise
percentage strictly proportional to current rating, etc.).  What salary
planning does try to recognize is that not everyone may have been fairly
treated in the past--and it gives managers some leeway to correct that.

The unfortunate fact that discombobulates this, however, is that the
current method of giving out performance ratings does not match up with
the concept of "value" to the organization.  So every few years we do a
Job Leveling or JEC or Workforce Balancing project to try to re-adjust
for that.  What we should do is use the same criteria that were used on a
JEC form (yeah, i know: "yecchh!";-)) as part of each performance review.

Each performance review should include not only job performance vs.
duties but some rating of the content of those duties vs. the duties
of other people with the same title.  For instance, when i was a Senior
Programmer/Analyst, there were other Sr. P/As who worked on DECsystem-10s
pushing COBOL code in a fairly mundane way, whereas many of the Sr. P/As
who worked on PDP-11s also did system management, crash dump analysis,
patches to the operating system, etc.  Similarly, today, you can find
managers who have 15 reports and responsibility for critical products
and other managers at the same level who have 1-2 reports whose claim to
fame otherwise is their ability to make diagrams of how the office area
should be laid out and where the copy-machine should be.

Measuring the value of job content would also give people a clue as to
when their career was heading down a dead end.  In the last few years i
could be getting a 1 for supporting RT11 or DECmail and then find myself
suddenly obsolete and eligible for TFSO.  (Actually maybe there should be
a two part "content rating": value of my duties vs. other people at my
level and value of the skills i can demonstrate vs. those needed in the
future.)  The last thing we want to do is obsolete good performers by
letting them go blissfully down a career dead-end in the interests of
satisfying our organizations' short term needs.  Sure career planning
belongs 80% to the employee, in theory, but let's not neglect our 20% as
managers.

								paul

    As multiyear IC and fewyear people manager, I must admit that I still
    haven't figured out the "ideal" fair system which is perfect for the
    employee as well as the company.
    In theory and as tought in the books, management courses it is just
    a matter of applying formulas and metrices, bottom lines etc.
    ...Just run the folks thru your 2020 or other spreadsheet, check
    the bottom line and you got it made..
    Works fine because
    -the group has clear measurable objectives
    -the group is composed of 10% top performers, 10% low performers
     80% average performers...
    the ranges move in parallel with inflation and industry 
    the top performers are low in range 
    the low performers are high in range
    the high performers are your best friends anyway
    the low performers are your worst ennemies, but they are docile
    and happily accept 0 reviews...
    Your own management gives you complete freedom as to the bottom-
    line.
    Your collegue managers all have low performers.
    
    You see, it's really easy to apply "pay for performance".
    Just as easy as grabbing a partition of Mozart's xth symphony,
    (it's all wriiten down there)
    and hammering it away on your Steinway for the first time in your
    life.
    Sounds great as long as only your dog listens to it!
    /fred 

    I am not saying a '3' is bad, however, at that time I did perform
    1 1/2 + job and worked my 50-60 hours a week, to get all the work
    done. The work was done correct, therefore a 2 or 1 should have
    been in place. If I had know that quotas were in place, and the
    result would be a '3', maybe I would have stopped working long hours
    and maybe I would have done just my job.
    Well, I hope I don't get a pink slip. It's hard enough to work here
    and get used to the CH culture without having to find another position.
    Good luck to all!
    Ruth

    Great Fred...I Love it!!!  Anyhow, in my 19 years with DEC (12 as a
    people manager), I NEVER even heard of a quota system for ratings.
    There is kind of a "natural" quota system in that I always knew that
    the higher I rated someone, the more that rating would be questioned.
    And I think that is good.  I did the same thing to the managers that
    worked for me.
    
    I also strongly feel that different organizations have different rating
    cultures.  I was in Ed Services, and a "3" was common.  In Engineering
    people tend to expect ones, and want specifics of what is wrong is they
    don't get it.  They also want very specific lists of things to be
    accomplished in order to get a "1".  I think it's something they carry
    with them out of the academic environment, i.e., and A is an A is an A.
    
    I always refused to provide said "lists", as I felt there was a
    significant subjective component to any rating system.

    re .44
    	"You always refused to provide it"
    
    I have a problem with managers who refuse to tell an employee what
    it is they would have to accomplish to be rated a "1", almost as
    much as I have with managers who have never seen a person who can
    and should be rated a "1".
    
    The requirements may not be strictly objective (i.e make 150% of
    budget, etc...), but the manager should be able to express to a
    person what it is they are doing which makes them average and
    what they would recognize as significant contributions beyond the
    scope of the current requirements.  (and I don't mean working
    80 hours a weeks or being my best buddy...)
    
    When an employee asks what he or she needs to do to improve their
    perceived performance, it is the manager's job to help them find
    out how they can improve their perceived performance, anything less
    is dodging a clear management responsibility.
    
    If the manager is saying "I don't know what it will take to rate
    you a "1" because I don't know what I will need to convince my
    manager that you are a "1" and I am no willing to go get the answer".
    I beleive that both managers have failed to perform their responsi-
    bilities, first the junior manager for not doing his job, and second
    the senior manager for allowing his employee to fail in doing a
    primary management responsibility.
    
    Every time I was rated in the past ten years, I asked what could I
    have done to improve my rating both objectively and subjectively.
    I have not always gotten an answer and sometimes I have put my manager
    in a very uncomfortable position becuase he had not thought about why
    he rated me a "2" instead of a "1" or a "3".  On several occasions it
    opened a better dialog about what his expectations were and what he
    was beiong measured on that I could affect thereby helping him sell
    a higher rating.  These were my best managers.  I believe I have been
    very fortunate at digital and I never confronted someone who told me
    it was his/her evaluation and I would have to live with it.  But then
    maybe I approached it correctly, most of the time!  I genuinely wanted
    to know what my faults were and how the manager thought I could correct
    them.  We made action plans to work on the issues, some of them worked
    and some didn't.  I still have too short a fuse for perceived incompe-
    tance...  and I still talk too much...  So I'll quit now.
    
    Paul N.
    

    Hell's bells...........I talk too much too.  A final point if I may.
    
    I never had a problem working closely with people on how they could
    improve their performance, and making specific recommendations to that
    end.  What I had a problem with was creating a check list of items
    that, if accomplished, would automatically qualify a person as a "1".
    
    Like I said, a significant piece of anyone's evaluation is subjective,
    and you can't put that down on a list.

re Note 1336.44 by COOKIE::LENNARD:

>     In Engineering
>     people tend to expect ones, and want specifics of what is wrong is they
>     don't get it.  They also want very specific lists of things to be
>     accomplished in order to get a "1".  

        Right -- a "1" in engineering is treated as the expectation
        -- anything less is falling short of the mark and needs to be
        accompanied by a plan for improvement.

        Bob

    This can go on forever, but I strongly disagree that a "1" should be
    the standard expectation in engineering.  This is an 85% world, and
    striving for perceived perfection is stupid.  That's part of our
    problem as a computer vendor.....we are too hung up on our excellent
    engineering (in our opinion), and not listening to the customer.

I am writing this reply before reading the entries .36 through the reply
before this one, so if this is superfluous, please forgive me.  

Re .35

>    I was also told that in some groups, salary planning is accomplished by
>    all the managers bringing their list of recommended 1 and 2 performers
>    to a meeting and ranking them as a group.  The managers then have to
>    negotiate among themselves for the 1 and 2 'slots' that exist, with the
>    remainder of the people getting curve-fitted into 3 ratings.

Once upon a time, I was a senior technical contributor to a group, which
I will not name, and, as such, was asked (er, actually directed) to take
part in exactly that kind of meeting.  I believe that ratings should
based upon standards, not upon relative merit comparing people to their
peers.  Theoretically everyone in a department could deserve as '1',
just as everyone in a class of students could score 100% on a test,
unlikely though that may be.  The hard reality, though, is that some
department managers do have a quota for 1- and 2-ratings.  So when I
was in that group, I fought to get a 1-rating for a candidate in the
group I worked in.  (I got it.)

Dave C.

    Metrics are different, depending on work group.  I was told by
    a former manager in the CSC that to get a 1 rating I *would* have
    to be able to walk on water!
    
    There are 11 categories in the Job Plan on which I'm rated; during
    my transition from one manager to another 2 weeks ago...my (now)
    former manager told my new manager that I was "probably" the
    closest thing (yes thing) he had reporting to him who was a 1;
    unfortunately I had missed 10 days of work in the spring with
    bronchitis....fairly obvious to anyone around me and duly docu-
    mented with $200 worth of visits to the doc's office....but I 
    was told that my absence negatively impacted my team....thus I
    was given a 2 rating.......but he smiled and said I was a
    "solid" 2 :-)  It's a little hard to provide sales support via
    phone if you sound like Kermit the Frog.....and eventually the
    voice goes :-)
    
    Lots of us are anxious about the 2 ratings because (I know we
    shouldn't pay too much attention to the rumor mill), but rumor
    has it that when the next cut (not TFSO) hits......3 performers
    could be at risk.....as previously indicated....a 3 rating 
    indicates that the person *is* doing their job all of the time
    and occasionally exceeds expectations......something is wrong
    with the picture if this rumor turns out to be true :-(
    
    Karen
    

>    I was told by
>    a former manager in the CSC that to get a 1 rating I *would* have
>    to be able to walk on water!
>    

When my wife was a manager for Digital, she said that to an employee, and
the employee complained *in writing* to Personnel that it was a blasphemous
statement and offended her religious beliefs!  It really happened!!  (^: 

Steve

re: .-1

Hey, what's blasphemous about that?  I walk on water all the time...



in the men's room, of course!

						;^) ;^)  paul

    you got it .51, except it will be politics first...all the rest
    secondary.

    According to the womannotes conference, people have been notified today 
    that they are being laid off. 
    
    I've no other information then what was posted there.

Looks like it's happening for sure; see note 1361.0

Lee (sigh)

    Why was 1361 entered in the first place?  To announce the beginning of
    the layoff?  To find a terminated employee a job?
    
    I bear no ill will to the person in question, and I wouldn't wish a
    layoff on anyone.  However, regarding note 730.*, I wonder if there will 
    be a simimlar scramble to get a job for all of those who are terminated.
    
    Mark.