Conference 7.286::digital

    If the bottom 3 didn't have VP in their title would this cause the same
    level of concern?
    
    For the life of me I can't figure out why so many people are concerned 
    over the number of vice presidents. In my previous career (banking),
    the top performers were given officerships (Asst. Treasurer, AVP, VP),
    in recognition for their efforts. Gaining the title put one no closer
    to the top of the food chain than they were before the title was
    bestowed. If you were a line manager to start, you were a line manager
    with an officership. Nothing in the hierarchy changed, although you did
    assume some extra responsibilities...
    
    Whenever I read strings similar to this one, I get the impression VPs
    are thought of as all but useless. Since that is probably a mistaken
    impression, can somebody explain just *what* the issue is?
    
    Edd 

    
    re .2, I think the issue is this:
 
    Banks are different. 
     
    	a) we are seeing large numbers of productive technical staff
    	   being cut, but not a proportionate cut in mgmt. [aka top heavy]
    
        b) we have seen numerous cases where managers are simply
    	   shuffled into un-needed positions when their current
    	   position is eliminated.  [aka too many chiefs]
    
    	c) after major re-orgs of unsuccesful orgs, the same faces
    	   keep showing up in the mgmt team.   [old boys club]
    
        d) if the reporting chain is too long, no correct information
    	   reaches the top. [telephone game]
    
      	e) Mgmt is different, so they must be bad [tribal instinct]
    
    It's probably bad for everyone to point the finger at everyone else,
    but I can't help being cynical when 
    
    	[the more things change, the more they stay the same.]

    In banks, frequently the local branch manager is a VP.  The branch
    might be a trailer, but nonetheless....
    
    A few years ago we exploded in the number of VP's in DEC (remember when
    area managers became VP's overnight?  The thinking was to reward them,
    and also to have more people who could talk to customers at a VP
    level.)
    
    Seems to me that one should be happy to see more big titles, as this
    means that there might be more job openings soon....more higher
    positions to aspire to..... 8-)

    So if I read the spirit of .2 correctly, the problem isn't the number
    of VPs, but the perception of extraneous layers of upper management,
    yes? 
    
    If these people weren't VPs, would that perception still exist? If
    all the VPs suddenly had the title removed, yet continued performing
    in exactly the same manner, would there be an improvement?
    
    My point, of course, is that if something must be railed against it
    should be the function, not the title. 
    
    Edd

re .4

Yes, it would.  If you read Dave's note carefully you will see that the
hierarchy DID expand.  In addition, keep in mind that there are, in some
areas, an additional three levels of managers under these VPs, so the real
situation is:

    Bob Palmer:         President & CEO
     Bill Strecker:     VP of Engineering
      Larry Walker:     VP of Networking
       Mike Thurk:      VP of Networking and Communications (NAC)
        John Adams:     VP of End Systems
         ???            Mgr of ?
          ???           Mgr of ?
           ???          Mgr of ?
            Joe B.      Worker Bee

You will have a hard time convincing me that EIGHT levels of management
above a worker bee can possibly add anything positive to this company's
bottom line.  I don't care what their titles are!

 - Ken

P.S. I can't come close to beating this hierarchy.

P.P.S. Please keep in mind that my comments have nothing at all to do with
the individuals who currently hold these management positions.

    2205.6 to see why we don't need anymore "VP"'s. We already have enough
    that have been sponging off Digital for long enough. Managers also. Not
    all are guilty...but most.
    

    
    
    Having worked in several banks before coming to DEC, large/regional and
    small/local, I can say that VP titles were often passed out but were
    done so in lieu of even small salary increaes.  The culture was that
    until you cracked the very highest echelons your most visible reward
    was your title.  AND you knew that you were of course expected to
    perform all you current duties plus whatever but seldom were you given
    additional authority.  
    
    In DEC that is quite different; VP's even those who have not proven 
    themselves worthy of that title, DO have a great deal of authority
    with respect to the individuals that report to them.  Also unlike
    banking, when a competent, creative engineer sees his/her peers
    advancing into middle/upper management and would like to join them but
    stay in engineering, there is a Catch 22 situation brewing.  Why not a
    parallel ladder like at H-P; wherein an engineer can raise through the
    ranks but stay were his/her contribution is strongest and means the
    most?
    
    Assigning additional layers of management without a perceived increase 
    in productivity, renenue, etc., at the heart of it all hurts those who
    of us who know of a solid, productive "worker bee" with a family who 
    was shown the door after being given four days to find another job and 
    that is about 99.9% of us.  
    
    The people who occupy these VP position may be competent, hard-working,
    productive men and women and I don't mean to discredit them but somehow
    objectivity is dimmed when filtered through the pain of how TFSO is
    being conducted.
    
    Just my $.02 worth.
    
    
    

    re: previous comment on banks
    
    Banks are *very* different.  You need a large number of officers
    empowered to sign things (loans, trust agreements, etc.) so you
    end up with lots of VPs.  A lot of them don't make that much.
    
    Being a Vice President in our industry is another kettle of fish.
    For one thing, if you look at those "Industry Salary Surveys" that
    Personnel uses to set "competitive" pay ranges, you will find that
    being a VP directly translates into a higher competitive salary
    rating than just being a so-and-so manager.  This topic came up in
    discussion back when Area Managers were made into VPs, but it was
    glossed over because the Company was doing well and it was perceived
    that the Area Managers deserved both the title and the money.  But
    times have changed.
    
    When the layoffs first started, I sat down and had a nice talk with
    a manager I really respected.  He said that what the company really
    needed to do was to rebuild the internal management structure to
    achieve three goals:
    
    	1) Put authority and responsibility in each job
    	2) Eliminate matrix management and management by committee
    	3) Define the right jobs and put the right people in them
    
    This manager saw the New Management System as a total contradiction
    to the first two goals, and that, while DEC had a surfeit of senior
    managers, few of them were in jobs that delivered any useful return
    to the company for what we paid to have them there.  The handwriting
    was on the wall, so this manager bailed out to one of our biggest
    competitors.  No package, no tears, just the realization that things
    weren't going to "work out".  Bob Palmer has a shot at making things
    better, but he doesn't have an unlimited time to do it in ...
    
    Geoff

      Re .5
    
     Whooooa... That's Org. list ain't all that bad!
    
     When I started at Digital in 1980, I had ONE LEVEL (Yep!! A SINGLE
    manager!!) between me and the V.P. of the Group. Things got done!
    Profits were made! Products were shipped. (And THAT organization was
    part of a multi-country Group....yes---International Logistics even!!)
    
      Now, how-some-ever, I have EIGHT levels between my manager and a
    Junior-type V.P.!! And we're convulsing currently with a second 20% or
    so of the "do-Bees" being trashed out the door....and another one of
    these lovely 'downer-sizing' scenes on the horizon for next year!!
    
      Wonder who'll do the work when ALL the "do-Bees" are TFSO'd??
    
      JM

    The goal is to downsize the work before we downsize the people.  :-)
    
    However, since nobody can describe the work of many people, we downsize
    the people first and try to pick up the pieces later.  :-(
    
    Seems like old times, Fire, Aim, Ready!
    
    Dick

    I have no idea home many people are in the food chain above me, other
    than it must be at least 2, my manager and Rober Palmer.  My manager
    reports to someone who SERPed and came back on a contract which I
    believe will end soon.
    
    Bob

Re: .7

In engineering there *is* a parallel career structure.  It goes up to
Senior Corporate Consultant - these are usually also VPs.

jb

>    Bob Palmer:         President & CEO
>     Bill Strecker:     VP of Engineering
>      Larry Walker:     VP of Networking
>       Mike Thurk:      VP of Networking and Communications (NAC)
>        John Adams:     VP of End Systems
>         ???            Mgr of ?
>          ???           Mgr of ?
>           ???          Mgr of ?
>            Joe B.      Worker Bee

Here's some arithmetic for you:

There are eight levels between Bob Palmer and Joe B in this management
chain. If each of the managers in this line has only five direct
reports, and all of Digital has the same, then there are 5^8 employees
at the *bottom* level of this tree (never mind all of the managers).
That's 390625 worker bees.

The conclusion one could draw is that, since this is not the case,
there are too many levels of management.

This is, of course, just playing with numbers, because it makes some
assumptions which aren't true. But it was fun, anyway.

   President & CEO		Bob Palmer
   VP & COO			Jack Smith
   VP - US Sales & Service	VACANT (formerly Don Zereski)
   VP - US Sales		VACANT (formerly Bob Hughes)
   VP - Eastern States		Tom Colatosti
   Account Group Mgr.		My bosses boss.
   PSSM				My boss.
   Systems Sales Specialist	Me.

I expect this to collapse (by one level anyway), once BP is done
sorting out the rest of the VEEP's.

- Andy -

          
In Channels things are even more interesting.
              
   President & CEO		Bob Palmer
   VP & COO			Jack Smith
   VP - US Sales & Service	VACANT (formerly Don Zereski)
   VP - US Sales		VACANT (formerly Bob Hughes)
   VP - US Channels             John O'Keefe (his other boss)
   VP - Western States		Cecil Dye (his boss)
   Account Group Mgr.		My bosses' boss. (their boss)
   PSSM				My other boss.
   Account Set Mgr.             My boss.
   Software Consultant I        Me.

 Technically PSSM's also report into Bob Schmitt's orgainization too.  
    Yet another VP.  I don't know what the hell he does.
    
    Who says matrix management is dead?
    
    -Ed


          

    
    I forgot Dick Keaton, VP TOEM sales.
    
    -Ed
    

    
    
    
        I say we all quit, set up beach chairs at OGO, PKO and other such
    places, (I know it's cold, maybe we could do a "tailgate") kick back
    with a cold brew, and watch "management in action".
    
        The rate the "worker bees" are being cut, and management is being
    shuffled around, ( I have personally seen this in no less then 5 cases)
    it's only a matter of time anyway. So we might as well sit back and
    have a few laughs.
    
                                     Phil... :^)

    Re .0 and the heirarchy in Networks...
    
    I wouldn't be surprised if this particular chain changes again.
    
    Larry Walker just got added and he got more than just NaC.  He will be
    making changes to meld the organizations together. I believe that these
    changes will have the effect of flattening the current organization.
    
    Steveg

WRT jettisoning individual contributors without proportional management loss:

     The image that always runs through my mind is that of pulling all the
leaves off a tree and being confused when it doesn't grow better.

Yeah, heck of a way to do your pruning, eh?

When you add in the matrix orgs to the feeding chain,
it really turns into a tangled web!
The worst part about is that nobody seems to be accountable
except at the bottom!

    Did I read .0 right? We have a VP of networking *and* a VP for
    networking and communications? I'm saying nothing about the guys
    filling these jobs but this would seem to the casual observer to be a
    bit much,eh?
    
    The_other_Ken

    Re .-1
    
    Yes you heard right. Also when Larry Walker gave a talk to NAC I asked
    him how many levels of managers he wanted to see between himself and
    workers (not including project leaders). He didn't give me a number
    but answered the question very directly by saying he wanted to see a
    span of control of 7 ie 7 reports per manager.
    
    That equates to 3 levels of manager under him ie:
    
    Larry Walker	 1
    
    Level 3		 7
    Level 2	       ~50
    Level 1	      ~350
    Workers	     ~2450
    
    Since there is nowhere near 2450 in Networks Engineering at present he
    has plenty of room to grow to 2,450 people with only 3 levels of
    managers. Sadly today his organization is way off that mark (read .0).
    I'm watching and waiting. In a few months time I fully intend to follow
    up on my question and the answer he gave. He impressed me as a very
    forthright guy who said what me meant. I hope he implements the answer
    he gave to my question. If in 3 months time I see any more than 3
    levels of manager between him the non managers I will be disappointed.
    
    I'm a first level manager (ie I don't manage managers and yes my span
    of control meets his 7 benchmark). In my chain up
    to Larry Walker there are 2 people and an open slot. Therefore I'm
    expecting to see one of those layers eliminated. Other parts of
    Network Engineering have even more layers so multiple layers to
    consolidate there.
    
    Dave
    
    
    
    Workers

re: .22

Maybe i didn't follow the logic right, but are you assuming that everyone
who reports to a non-line manager is a manager?  That's probably not a
desirable situation...at least some of those people should be consultants
to handle the manager's special projects and firedrills, so that his/her
reports with people responsibilities don't get distracted by that crap (as
seems to happen all too often currently).

Even so, ideally i'd say a ratio of about 1:12 or 1:15 would be more
desirable...with about 3-4 of those reports being consultants.

								paul

    When we get to this, I will be happy...
    
    	Palmer
    	 VP
    	  District Mgr
    	   Unit Mgr
    	    me
    
    Anything extra is overhead, pure and simple.
    
    Brad.

Re:<<< Note 2224.24 by SMAUG::GARROD "From VMS -> NT; Unix a mere page from history" >>>

>    As the base noter I'm happy to report that my management chain now
>    makes sense ie there are the right number of levels:
>    
>    	 Dave Garrod	- 1st level manager of 8 people
>    
>    This seems right to me. 6 levels of manager which at a span of control
>    of 7 gives room for 117,649 individual contributors. I'd say 5 levels
>    including BP is too few and 7 levels is too many.
    
I'd be concerned if I managed only 8 people.  There is "restructuring" going on 
in the CSC right now in order to have managers have more direct reports.  For 
example, in my district, unit managers will each be managing about 25 people... 

That type of span means *far* less management layers for the number of people.

-  David

My current management chain:

	Bob Palmer		- President and CEO
	 Bill Strecker		- VP, Engineering
	  Dennis Roberson	- VP, The New Software Group
	   Jeff Rudy		- Manager, Software Development Technologies
	    Leslie Klein	- Manager, The Languages Group
	     Becky Will		- Manager, FORTRAN, GEM, Pascal
	      Bruce Foster	- Supervisor
	       Paul Winalski	- Software Engineer

My management chain in 1980 (shortly after I joined DEC):

	Ken Olsen		- President and CEO
	 Gordon Bell		- VP, Engineering
	  Bill Johnson		- Manager, Software Engineering
	   Bill Keating		- Manager, Software Technical Office
	    Bill Segal		- Manager, Methods and Tools
	     Steve Gutz		- Manager, Development Methods
	      John Hrones	- Supervisor
	       Paul Winalski	- Software Engineer

Same number of management levels, slightly different titles.  More 
significantly, the organization is MUCH larger than it was in 1980.

--PSW

    .-1

    Eugene, this is really amazing, you still know how your management 
    structures was 13 years ago !

    i think this is a very good feat. i bet more DECees than not dont know 
    their management structures in this details right now let alone 
    how it was back in 1980.

    \bye
    \nasser

    That's nothing Nassar, twenty years ago mine was;
    
    	Ken Olsen		Pres
    	 Pete Kaufman		VP Mfg
    	  Jack Smith		Plant Mgr
    	   Lou Gaviglia		Bus.Mgr
    	    Bob Johnston	Mfg.Eng.Mgr
    	     me			Grunt
    
    Of course there was less to remember and my head was clearer! ;^)  mwr

RE: .29

My name is Paul, not Eugene.  My NOTES personal name is a pun on a song by Pink 
Floyd titled "Careful with that Axe, Eugene".

--PSW

    Mine used to be "Careful with that Vax, Eugene"
      

    Actually I believe its a line from a P.F. song titled `One of
    these days' which was used as the background music to a great
    animation flick titled `French Windows' shown as part of one of
    the old International Animation Festival movies (I forget which
    year).

	Mike

    Nonsense.  "Careful with that axe, Eugene" is from Ummagumma,
    "One of these days" is a more recent composition, whose
    entire lyrics read "one of these days I'm going to cut you into
    little pieces".

"One of these days" is basically an instrumental, the one line is a garbled
"one of these days etc etc" at the end.  You had to listen "real hard" to make 
it out.
 

Interesting how the talk on VP's has drifted to "axes" and "cutting heads" 
Hmmmmm?? 8^)

	Bob Cohen