Conference 7.286::digital

Paul,

        I have forwarded this memo to the top management of the Caribbean
Operations Manufacturing organization.  I believe you have captured very
effectively the concerns of many "digits".  Let me know if you ever need
any direct support.

Dick

    Amen Paul...It will be interesting to see how questions/concerns asked
    and stated so DIRECTLY and SPECIFICALLY, can be sidestepped, answered
    in vague generalities, or worse yet doubletalk!  Sound pessimistic? 
    Well, unfortunately most others have same cynical outlook.  Who can
    blame us when these same issues have been consistently brushed aside
    and downplayed.
    
    Carol

    Excellent note Paul!  Sure hope that J.Smith gets the memo.
    
    Marc H.

I agree, as Tony the Tiger would say GREAAAAAAAAAT Memo.
But, if the info that Jack gets is sanitized then don't you think that
this memo will never reach him?

- George

>> But, if the info that Jack gets is sanitized ...

   Good question.  I sent it directly to him, but then, that's no guarantee
   that  he actually saw it.  I suspect people wouldn't edit a message, but
   they  might sanitize a summary of it in a status report.  I suspect he's
   either read it, or else he has no idea of its existence.  [Oliver North?
   Never heard of him.]

    
    
    Well done Paul!!! Very perceptive!!!!
    
    
    Why stop at Jack Smith? I think this report is so good that 
    even Ken Olsen should read it....if we can get it to him in
    unedited form!

    How about you ask him next time he does a telecast?
    
    Dave

    Paul,
    
    I too want to thank you for taking the time to put together this
    letter.  I think it clearly expresses the views of most individual
    contributors and some managers in the company.  I hope that both
    Jack and Ken get your letter and start taking some corrective action.
    Unfortunately, I am still seeing management politics at work in the
    recent offering of the transition package.  I can't help but notice
    that managers seem to be exempt, even when they are currently not
    managing anything.  I am also seeing many top performing individual
    contributors being let go...is this another management mistake?
    
    Lorraine

Re: .6

   Sad to  say,  the  data I have indicates KO does not read his mail.  The
   only  way he will definitely get it is if somebody personally puts it in
   his  hand,  tho  I  understand he still does MBWA (management by walking
   around).  I don't know if Jack reads his own mail or not.

Re: others...

   Yes, I  sure intend to ask him directly if/when there's another telecast
   and if nothing changes.  I hope everybody else will have their questions
   ready too.

    Paul, yet another kudo for your memo...  You know, it would help those
    of us who are afraid that we our concerns are 'falling on deaf ears' if
    once, just once, a senior level executive would write, EVEN A ONE LINE
    NOTE, that said 
    
    "I'm here, I'm reading, and I'm going to change things!  Keep up the
    good work!"
    
    (OK, so maybe we need two lines ;-)...  I know that JUST ONE NOTE from
    Jack would make me think that all of this good work being done is
    worthwhile...  
    
    And I'd like to challenge ANYONE working within walking distance of
    Jack's office, or ANYONE that EVER gets near him, that is reading this
    Notesfile, to extract .0 (and, maybe all the replies), and PUT THE MEMO
    IN JACK SMITH'S HANDS YOURSELF, and say, "Here.  If you want to save
    this company, read this memo."  and walk away...  If he doesn't respond
    to that, then at least we'll know to start polishing those resumes...
    
    This company is in serious trouble.  And, incredibly, everyone BUT the
    management staff seems to know it!  
    
    Dave

re .10

They know it, Dave.  But it really does take time to cut through the
smoke to find the fire.

Just remember, Jack's constituency is much larger than we who participate
here regularly.  The vocal minority may appear as just that from above.
There is no way for anyone at that level to calibrate him/herself on who
accurate a thermometer we are.

We have spent a lot of time discussing this collection of issues, if you
ask any three of us what the real problem is, you will still get four
answers.  We are agreed only upon the direction the smoke is coming from,
but we haven't even decided if its a wood, chemical, or electrical fire.

Patience, 

Dick (who hopes that we don't wait too long)

    First, to echo sentiments of previous replies, Great memo Paul!!  

    Your comments are right on target, and you stated them quite
    objectively and with such eloquence.  I don't see how Jack, Ken, et al 
    can not possibly heed your comments and take affirmative action;
    unless, as .4 & .5 suggested, he(they) doesn't read it [in its
    unsanitized form].

    With respect to one point you made:
    >>MBWA (management by walking around) seems to be done by no one
    >>higher  than a cost center manager.  The perception is that anyone
    >>above a cost center manager is generally out of touch.

    You know CCMs that (still) actually do this?  At the risk of burning a
    bridge(s), I'm compelled to say that the CC managers of groups (org.'s)
    in which I've worked (and others that I'm familiar with) haven't done
    this either (even though in a former group it was suggested to the
    mgr(s)).  Hence, it was the general perception that the CCM also was
    somewhat of out of touch with the "pulse of the organization".
    Moreover,  when people used the "open door" policy trying to enlighten
    the manager(s), their efforts typically were, shall I say, in vain. 
    Yet, at least the supervisor(s) tended to be tuned-in, for the most
    part anyway.  

    -don 

>>    You know CCMs that (still) actually do this?

   Yes, my  current  one  does.   (Why do you think I'm still working after
   that  memo  8*).   He  even  bought  his  whole  CC  the  "In  Search Of
   Excellence"  book  a  few years ago.  Even the managers above my CC have
   been  known  to  occasionally.   I also know their door really is always
   open and I've used it now and then.  If the above weren't true, that's a
   good  indication that it's time to move to one that is.  Even ducks know
   to fly south for the winter 8*).

    RE:a few back
    
    Yea, wouldn't it be great to ask a question and get a "Yes" or "No".
    
    Ben

    
    	i'm not sure if Mr. Smith can/will respond immediately to your memo
    since it is a somewhat complex problem that cannot be simply addressed
    overnight. I do however agree that he should at least acknowledge re-
    ceipt of your memo. I recently (within last 2 weeks) forwarded something
    I wrote on cost savings directly to Mr. Smith and  was surprised by
    his quick response (within 2 working days) although this is something he
    committed to doing in his last telecast. It would seem that he has
    evidently prioritized his correspondence based on things that he can
    accomplish now (quick wins) and things that need to be done but will
    take some time to implement. My memo suggested something that will have
    an immediate return and can be done rather easily (one suspects anyway)
    hence his quick response. I have a feeling your memo has not fallen on
    deaf ears based on my experience but one never knows. Perhaps you
    should send it on to ideas_central as well as KO?
    
    
    
    /Ray.

    Normally I wouldn't have written a reply just stating: "I like it".
    But Paul's memo deserves special attention.
    Knowing that only a minority reads these notes and even less write
    to it, I'd suggest that we keep track of distribution.
    So, how about replying by stating for example:
    
    "I am a first line, CC, manager and have distributed it to my group
    of 18 people plus 4  peer and one level up manager"
    
    BTW this is my case and I got already a few "dam right" comments
    within the hour of posting....
    /fred

    I agree that Paul's memo is very special, and must get to the top.  
    Perhaps if several hundred people forwarded it to Jack, whomever
    filters his mail would call it to his attention.
    
    It is being widely distributed.  I've received at least four copies
    this week.
    
    Unlike Paul, I had the opportunity once in 18 years to evaluate a
    manager along with everyone in the CC.  He was summarily relieved at
    4 P.M. that afternoon, but unfortunately not fired.  This action only
    came, however, after over a year of dozens of complaints to an
    ossified personnel function, several resignations, many transfers, and
    group morale so low that finally management took notice.  It should
    be easier than that.

    Paul's memo should be sent to K. O's secretary at the Mill... her name
    I think is Ann Jenkins... she would no doubt direct it to him if
    requested... I distributed among my group and it certainly deserve to
    be read by our BOSS too.
    

    In my organization I've seen a wide distribution of "The Memo"
    within the "worker bee's" but not within management. In response
    I've sent it on to all of the management within my organization
    as well as a few others. It was good to see that Julio's memo
    was forwarded to me by my management. Perhaps there's hope!
    
    
    Russ

    Paul,
    This note describes my Sales District to a "T". THE problem is out of
    touch management.
    Regards,

    	
    I am a cost center manager with 21 people who distributed this memo
    to my group.  Ok, I didn't send it to my boss, but I will after this
    reply.  To add a minor addition to Paul's excellent suggestions, how
    about a qualification test to give to managers before promoting them
    to some pre-determined level?  Why not have that level be the same one
    that requires review board approval of engineers and consultants?
    
    This test could have sections covering knowledge of:
    
    		employee relations
    		technology awareness
    		strategic planning
    		budgeting
    		DEC policy
    		awareness of customer/client requirements
    		participation in cross-functional leadership efforts
    
    This test would simply be a tool among many ways to identify minimal
    competence, not necessarily high quality.  Given the horror story
    histories, ensuring minimal competence would be a step in the right
    direction.
    
    - Laurie Orlov
    

    Re: .22

    An idea to be listened to.  Except:

    I think the review board should be composed of Managers of the level
    to be attained and above as well as a senior (Consulting or at least
    Principal) engineer from the area to be managed.

    Before this, some management credentials should also be developed
    before the review (maybe not publications, but by some level you should
    have visibility, etc...)

    This would closely resemble the review that must be passed to go from
    Principal to Consulting Engineer.

    Also, when you hire in a more senior manager, you hire them as
    "Member of Management Staff" with a requirement that they meet the
    certs and reviews within a fixed period of time.

    Bill

Re .22

Nice idea, but...when you have incomptents  appraising incompetents results are
not liklely to change.

The task is not so simple. It is of the order of magnitude of a Martin Luther 
reforming a well-established "religious" ethos. This takes a striking 
individual, with charisma, and a mission to bring about change. Martin Luther
believed he was mandated from above. This individual should be mandated 
likewise in order to bring about the necessary changes, perhaps with assitance 
from consultant organizations external to the company.

    
    Proving leadership is not necessary for promotion upward in management
    in Digital.  If it were, personnel would do "sensing" of ALL direct
    reports below a current manager being considered for further promotion
    upward in order to REALLY determine if success of the group was because
    of actionable, demonstrated leadership of the manager rather than IN
    SPITE OF lack of any real demonstrated leadership and even in fact
    demonstrated beaucratic self-centered meism to fulfill personal
    ambitions.  No person would be promoted when said sensing showed the
    latter rather than the former.  Maybe corporate should consider looking
    more closely at those being promoted, especially considering the
    semi-annual reorganizational musical chair event.
    

    
    The idea stated in .22 exists in one form or another in at least two
    field organizations - it is the Management Development Committee (MDC).
    Whether it is as effective as it could be/should be or whether it is
    done in such a manner as to satisfy everyone who wants to supply input
    on a person's qualifications to manage, only each person can answer
    (perception you know). The concept of peer and 'report' review is
    certainly sound ... I'll submit to it but only if my boss will too. The
    concept that we can elect leaders and somehow have perfection is a
    little squishy to me - we don't exactly have perfection in the USofA
    and we elect our leaders!
    
    I have managed folks (ie got the work that neede to be done, done by
    the folks available to do it) for about 12 years at DEC and in various
    forms elsewhere before. There is no way in he** that everyone who has
    ever worked for me can say that they enjoyed it or that I am their best
    manager ever ... but there are a large number who will. Like everything
    else, I have my ups and downs and conflicts with where the organization
    is or isn't going and those things affect how effective I am at
    managing and or leading ... I am human first, a Digit second and a
    manager third.  Can I make things better by letting someone else take
    over my unit? I doubt it. Can I be a better manager? You bet. It is up
    to me to balance who's definition of being a better manager I try to
    fulfill - I'm pretty sure that I can't satisfy both directions all the
    time!
    
    Just thought you might like to know that there is more than one side to
    the story!

    If we do get serious about improving the overall quality of our
    people-managers, .22's suggestion of a competency test may be one of
    the very few objective ways of doing so.
    
    Such mechanisms do exist outside Digital.  However, it seems to be very
    important the a personal propensity evaluation is also important to the
    success of such an endeavour.  This evaluation centers on the inherent
    characteristics of an individual which contribute to how he/she
    manages/treats people/subordinates/managers.  After all, if it isn't
    native to a person's personality or character BEFORE they manage
    others, it's unlikely to materialize afterwards!
    
    Much against our Digital-cultural concepts, not everyone has it
    naturally in them to do everything WELL ENOUGH to be successful for the
    whole.  SO DON'T ACCEPT THAT IT CAN'T BE DONE, IT CAN.

I'll go out on a limb and describe how the major difference between how
management differs between certain groups in Digital from other
companies I've worked for. [Please note that this does not apply to the
Retail Banking Group where I now work.]  Another thing I should point
out is that it seems the management problems in the field are quite
different from those in GMA. 

In the other companies I have worked for my manager knew what I
was working on on a day to day basis.  My 2nd level manager knew what I
was working on on a weekly basis.  My third level manager knew the major
projects I was working on.  My 4th level manager would stop by
relatively frequently to see how things were going.

In certain groups in Digital...

Your direct manager has no idea what you are working on.  Your second
level manager not only has no idea what you are working on but does not
even care....

As long as the numbers are coming in who cares?  Often it seems that the
only qualification to be a manager in Digital is to have the ability to
paint a rosy picture to the next level of management.

To quote Oscar Hammerstein

"Happy talk keep talking happy talk...."

    The suggestions in the previous replies each may have some merit, and
    may improve the quality of management at Digital.
    	- competentcy testing
    	- peer review
    	- review-by-subordinates
    	- mandatory training, etc.
    
    However, even these will not compensate for the lack of coaching,
    counseling and mentoring that appears to exist at Digital.  It is the
    hiring manager's RESPONSIBILITY to coach, counsel and mentor the newly
    promoted manager in their new assignment.  I see very little (i.e.
    None) of this occuring at any level within Digital.
    
    BTW, if you don't take the time to coach, counsel and mentor the new
    manager, how can you fairly evaluate their performance?
    
    +Don                                                

    re: .24

    Your first point is right on... that's part of the problem today. 
    Similarly, (trying to be somewhat charitable here ;^) poor managers
    often tend to hire (promote) poor managers (or supervisors) below them,
    thus propagating the problem; although certainly not always.  Yet, even
    when such a manager does promote someone who would (will) be a good
    manager, this person is often rendered less effective as well, because
    they don't get the necessary effective support from above.  

    This leads me to propose, in addition to the suggestion for a review
    board of some type for managerial appointments, managers (at all
    levels) be required to take appropriate training courses.  This should
    apply to current (long-time managers as well.)  Even someone who has
    been a manager for years should be required to take refresher courses,
    assuming s/he has had earlier training, or take base-level courses if
    s/he has never taken any.
    
    Regarding the idea of an external consultant, I definitaly agree with
    this also.  Though, Paul's suggestion about cross-group evaluation is
    also a sound idea.
    
    -don

	.0 and the others of you who believe the memo is great.

	I have done some thinking about this memo ever since it landed on
	my desk a few days ago. Here are my thoughts:

	. No where in the memo does Paul give any credit to the management
	  for the past success of the last 30 years.

	. The memo points only to management not to the real problem I see
	  as a lack of entrepreneurship through out the corporation both on
	  the side of individual contributors and management.

	. We need to clarify the difference between managers and leaders, the
	  definitions are not the same.

		Managers do things right ....
		Leaders do the right things ...
	  
	  If anything we need to balance the mix of leaders and managers, both
	  need to exist to make thins happen.

	. Leadership here at DEC comes, I believe from mainly the individual
	  contributor. All of our leadership products have come as a result of
	  someone having a good idea and getting the idea approved through the
	  system. Here we need to streamline the system so as not stifle any
	  of this creativity. 

	. Lastly we all know that when times are bad it presents to us many
	  opportunities to do things that in good times would not have been
	  possible. The industry is changing and so are our customers, we 
	  can best position ourselves for a turnaround if we look at what our
	  customers need, and begin to plan for this in all of our strategies. 
	

   I'm not  really  that happy with random CC cross audits either, but like
   Jack said, it's WW2 and we need to do something NOW and see how it turns
   out,  then  modify  it later when needed.  We need something that'll get
   thru  16,000  CC's  relatively  quickly.   Perhaps  they could go to the
   master personnel file, do a sort, and pull out all managers (or at least
   CC's) with 4 or fewer employees and look at them first.

Re: .27:
   Just wanted  to  emphasize that having people not agree with you doesn't
   make  you  a bad manager.  I've certainly disagreed with managers that I
   respect.   Having  disagreements doesn't really mean anything about your
   quality  of  management in my mind.  What the disagreement are about and
   how you resolve them is the key.

   I still haven't heard directly from him or anybody close to him.

    Maybe part of the problem with our managers is the lack of a real
    centralized personnel/career planning function.  In a lot of companies
    you enter on a management track (if that's what you want), and follow
    a prescribed series of assignments to prepare you for management.
    In DEC, too often, you just fall into it.
    
    I know for a fact that when I worked for IBM Field Service, newly
    appointed managers attended lots of training courses, and seemed to
    be perpetually enrolled in mandatory self-study courses.  Also, there
    was no way that you could become a branch manager without having
    spent a few years as an instructor at a Field Service training center.

    re: the last 7 or 8 or so

    Having managed in and out of DEC, I do not believe that the MDC, or _any_
    "board" is appropriate for promotion, except maybe to consulting engineer
    (people like Russ Doane, who have been around for a long time and have
    really contributed to our sucess, and who are now looking at how to insure
    our future success).

    A board is a committee. Have you ever noticed that whenever a committee
    makes a decision, _no_ _one_ _is_ _accountable_?

    If I, as a manager, promote someone to a more senior and/or managerial
    position, it should

    	(a) be my decision

    	(b) be my responsibility: if that person is a dud, then it REFLECTS
    	    POORLY on my managerial abilities and performance appraisal.
    	    That's it. "Board approval" absolves its members of individual
    	    accountability. So, the manager is a dud, who's responsible,
    	    then?

    Oh, yes, and let's not forget that other amorphous behavior:

    	(c) they work for _me_ in their first job as a manager, so I am in
    	    a position where I depend on their success to succeed myself;
    	    none of this MDC-approved communal manager pot stuff.

    In a corporate culture that so prizes the individual, it's _amazing_
    how individuals disappear when it comes to certain decisions.

    That's not to say that subordinate review, peer review, or superior
    review can't be good tools. But it seems to me that getting rid of
    boards, etc., and holding people accountable for their actions and
    decisions is a _whole_ lot less complicated.

    /petes

Re: .32
    Nothing steps on entrepreneurs faster than bad management. Bad management
    doesn't want new ideas. Entrepreneurs have, by definition, new ideas.

    You are confusing leadership with individual contribution. Individual
    contributers aren't supposed to lead. They're supposed to contribute,
    whether it be ideas or designs. Leaders are supposed to get/take
    ideas, and set visions. KO was a leader. He set up the vision of
    interactive computing way back when. The company worked to make his
    vision a reality. It was a success.

    Yes, we did well for awhile, but our bungling burocracy has gotten out
    of hand now. Yes, we need new ideas, but it can't happen in a stiffled
    organization. What we do now is in *spite* of management, not because
    of it. How many people have to work around obstinate people? It happens
    all the time.

    We missed the profitibility window on PC's, and on RISC stuff. We had to
    buy out a risk architecture. That should have told you something. What
    other new directions are we going to give up due to politics?

    re .36
    
    Committee???  GMAB!!
    
    Definition of a camel: a HORSE designed by a COMMITTEE!!
    
    Jon

Re:               <<< Note 1223.32 by SELECT::MAGID >>>
    
    
>	. We need to clarify the difference between managers and leaders, the
>	  definitions are not the same.
>
>		Managers do things right ....
>		Leaders do the right things ...
	  
    If I may add my own version of this saying...
    
    		Managers tell people to do things right...
    		Leaders make people want to do the right things...
    
    I don't discount the need in a large corporation for policies,
    procedures, and other "management" concerns, but I feel that true
    leadership is an extremely valuable comodity, all to often overlooked 
    by the management of many corporations, including Digital.   I believe
    Grace Hopper was once quoted as saying something to the effect of 
    "People are led. Situations are managed."  We need more leaders here
    in Digital.  We need people who inspire us to strive to reach our
    goals.  

    
    	If we are in need of leadership here, and we are, then I suggest
    	that the negative tone of so many of these whining replies change.
    
    	WE need to inspire people and the negative tone here doesn't help.

    I agree that a negative tone doesn't help, but it doesn't help either
    when your attempts to be constructive are greeted with silence...
    
    I just wanted to report that I forwarded .0 to my mangement chain, and
    was just informed that the response two layers up was to delete - no
    forward, no reply (which I specifically asked for), just a delete...
    
    Can't say that I'm surprised, but its kinda tough to provide therapy
    when the patient doesn't take that first step and admit that there is a
    problem...
    
    Dave

.40
    
>    	WE need to inspire people and the negative tone here doesn't help.

	Any suggestions on how that could be done.  When I can identify 
	no less than 5 critical problems with a given organization
	and the management of that organization responds with "that's
	interesting"


	1- does not motivate me to do any thing about it

	2- that management has too much to do to provide leadership.

				David

    .42
    
    
    Identifying the problems and pointing them out to management is only
    part of the solution.
    
    
    Identify the problem, but before anyone will listen to you, you must
    also have a good solution for the problem. Put the problem in
    prospective and then put forth your solution and then see what happens.
    
    
    
    
    

Re: .43, you must also have a good solution for the problem...

   I totally disagree.

   If you  have  a  solution  to  a given problem, great.  If you don't you
   should still be able to identify a problem so that perhaps somebody else
   might  come  up  with  a good idea.  Having a solution should never be a
   prerequisite  to  having the right or responsibility to be able to point
   out a problem.  Besides, a manager capable of providing leadership would
   welcome  constructive,  positive, input, whether it contained a solution
   or not.

   Unfortunately, in  too  many  groups, whether you have a solution to the
   problem or not, management isn't interested.  That calcification is very
   frustrating  especially  to  the  people  proposing  solutions  to  real
   problems.   How does one make progress when confronted with that sort of
   thing?

   As a  result  of  my  memo,  I've  talked to many people with management
   problems and some of the people won't even give *me* their name.

.43

	I did have a proposed solution.  Unfortunately there were two
	an extremely ugly hack that I have control over implementing
	versus the correct management controlled solution.
	The solution that is getting activity
	is the hack.  Mostly because I am the one driving the solution.

	But since management does not perceive the problem to be
	interesting I could easily drop the solution and no one
	would hold me accountable.  That is very sad in my book.


					David

	... he comes from the "old" days of DEC (not DIGITAL!), and was one of
those "do it" people that got us into the '80's as industry leaders.

	I agree with Paul,  let people contribute what they CAN, but at least
acknowledge them when they contribute SOMETHING, and if they are right, DO
SOMETHING to answer the issue!  

    I agree with Paul, 100%.  He has said what I have wanted to say for
    about 4 years but did not have the courage or the fluency of thought to 
    put them into words.  I even had the hunch that share price was going 
    to drop down to below $50 but I refused to believe it.  I refused to 
    believe it because I knew KO and his top management was too good to let
    that happen.  In fact I expected a turn upwards in our share price, six
    months after the big crash.  This did not happen.  My worse fears have 
    come true but it may not be too late.
    
    The company has a very good mission statement and our objectives are
    fairly well-defined.  Financially, we are pretty healthy.  KO's
    thinking, from what I read and hear, is on target.  We have the latest 
    technology.  Our investment in future is very good.  Our workforce is 
    very talented and creative.  So what has gone wrong?
    
    Well, here are my 2p/2c worth.  I think, we have lost our culture.  We 
    started out well and kept on doing well while KO and his team could 
    communicate down to grass roots.  Today, with our fortunate growth, we
    are having to pay the normal penalties for growing big.  Our
    comminication channels have become clogged.  We have too many power
    camps or mini-empires and these do not talk to each other so well.
    
    What we have now are mushrooms, which isolate us fairly well from the
    outside.  What we need to do now is locate the mushrooms, drill holes
    in them, turn them around, so that, the elements filter through.  Let
    nature take care of the rest.  
    
    What we need is a good communication/information system in place.  We 
    need to change very definitely but we must retain our old fundamental
    values, the values that we started with.  These are our roots and we 
    need them to be strong and older they get, stronger they become.  What
    has happened is that along our journey of expansion and growth we 
    have accumulated dead wood, dead and dying leaves and it is this that 
    we need to clear up.  Once we have done this and a little pruning we 
    will become very desirable again.
    
    Enterprising and entrepreneur people do tend to suffer under mushroom
    camps because they do not like rigidity.  They are doers and have no 
    concept of set structures.  They need breathing space and can be
    disruptive if not given this environment.  We need to strike a balance;
    not enough, we die; too many, we have chaos.
    
    Anyway, best to stop now.  These are some of my thoughts.  I know there
    is no structure to them, it is a luxury I do not have at the moment.  
    Everything follows certain laws of its placing in this big structure
    called Universe and I am not exempt.
    
    Perwesh 

    You know, it would say a lot if upper-management participated in notes.

    It also says a lot when upper-management DOESN'T participate in notes.
    

    Nice Letter..  but I dont think we should sterotype management, I mean
    lets face it some of our manager are great leaders and decision makers.
    They are the ones that HELPED make us a 10 billion dollar company, they
    guided us, and with our ability to solve problems and come up with great
    ideas we became the second largest in the world, (now #3). 
    
    But I do believe we are management heavy,  I find it interesting when I
    need to contact a C.C. manager in some organization on some project I am 
    working on and I get NO RESPONSE, then when I finally make an
    appointment with their secretary it is for two weeks from this
    Thursday.  How can a bottom line manager be that busy??  Lets look at
    some appointment books,  should a C.C. manager be in 25 Hours of regularly
    scheduled meetings a week?  Should a line level Supervisor be in 20?
    I do not think so!!  
    Why dont some of the managers role up there sleeves and get back to the
    projects and people.  This way we can come up with the solutions to the
    problems at hand instead of going to another meeting to an tring to
    figure out how long it will take to make a decision.
    
    Vent off

    I DO NOT agree that the problem is beyond our reach.
    
     I do not agree that there should be any more special groups, peer
    review groups, task forces, commissions, etc. We have too many already.
    We are beginning to look a lot like other corporations where you have
    to go through 20 internal groups before you canget an answer on
    anything.
    
     I do not think it is all managements' fault. I think if you want to
    be an entrepreneur, DO IT. If your super gets in the way, do it anyway.
    FIND a way to do what needs to be done. 
    
     I told my boss this morning that I was tired of waiting for people to
    perform one particular function, and that I and a couple other people
    are going to go do it.
    
     Joel said to go DO IT. :^)
    
     I am not suggesting backstabbing or anything political like that.
    
     I am suggesting that if you are waiting for some Holy Vision Thing
    message to come on down from on High, forget it. If you have a vison of
    what this corporation should be like, then live it. If it's any good,
    it will spread like wildfire.
    
     No manager has ever stopped me from doing what had to be done. Not
    that one hasn't tried.
    
     Don't stop.
    
     Improvise, adapt, overcome!
    
    Or, as another noter has for HIS personal string:
    
     "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way."
    
    Gregg 

    p.s.
    
     I am not sitting around waiting for some manager to motivate me.
    That's MY job.
    
    Gregg

Re: .51...even with those powers - they can do nothing. 

   Sorry, I don't agree with that either.  If KO and JS wanted something to
   happen,  I  believe they can make it happen.  If they wanted to bring in
   outside consultants, (like Tom Peters) or lay down the law and fire some
   sleezy  managers, they could, but as far as I can tell, they have chosen
   to  do  nothing.  Even if they identified a few blatant sleezy managers,
   and fired them without a golden parachute, word would get around.  I bet
   we wouldn't have nearly the problem with the rest.  Currently, DEC gives
   positive acknowledgement for managers with negative traits.

Re: others...

   I am  still "doing it" as hard as I can.  I still regularly work 10 hour
   days and usually work thru lunch.  How can I effect a positive effect on
   management? Tell me and I'll do it.  I can't figure it out.  I get tired
   putting  out  >100%  and seeing my extra work to support the company get
   blown away by sleezy management elsewhere, resulting in the clearly sick
   stock  price.

   The stock  price  represents  the  stockholders  confidence level in the
   running  of  the company.  Unfortunately, from what I've seen, I have to
   agree with them.  And this is somebody that's had 10% of my pay deducted
   for  stock  purchase ever since I could enroll in the program.  Tell me,
   what more can *I* do?

    re.52  Excellent!!!!!  We need to do our job to the very best of our
    ability - If you have a vision, then go for it!!!!  There are good
    managers and terrible ones, just as there are good policies and poor
    ones.  Complaining won't change them, unless you get a majority to 
    support you (which is 60,000 roughly), but if you set a positive
    example you can probably get the change with only a handful!!!
    
    I don't advocate being a rebel, those people should leave DEC.  But,
    having a different view, convincing people of the correctness of my
    solution, winning concensus and moving toward our common goal is how
    this company can WIN!  It is difficult, but the rewards are enormous.
    Offer solutions and not complaints, accept your responsibility for
    contributing to the success.
    
    When you question how one person can make a difference, think about
    the changes brought about by Jesus of Nazareth, a carpenter's son that
    died at 33.  Whether you accept His teachings or not, the impact on the
    world is fact.  Just think, you only have 120,000 DEC employees to
    influence, but you must accept your responsibility for WINNING, or
    go somewhere that you can.
    

    re .56
    
>>  I don't advocate being a rebel, those people should leave DEC.
    				.
    				.
    				.
    
>>  When you question how one person can make a difference, think about
>>  the changes brought about by Jesus of Nazareth, a carpenter's son that
>>  died at 33.
    
    Please reconcile not being a rebel and the example of Jesus.  I don't
    think either the money changers or the high priest would agree.  So 
    what's wrong with being a rebel?
    
    -dinesh.

    re .56  Give me a break.  Don't start using Jesus as an impact of an
    individual contributer.  I have read many comments in this notes file 
    and it is obvious that some people just don't get the message of what
    is reality and what is going on in the company.  I am NOT whining or
    complaining.  I am working as hard as I can to make the best
    contribution I can.  I think that we all need to do that.  If we give
    up, then the company is in REAL trouble.  What I hear many people
    saying is that they are also doing all that they can to improve the
    company, but there is a significant management problem that negates
    a lot of what these good people are doing.
    
    We have gotten to where we are through a lot of good hard work.  Along 
    the way we have picked up some dead wood, both in management and
    individual contributers.  In order for Digital to continue and grow to
    the next order of goodness and size we need to get ride of some dead
    wood.  This is clearly managements job.  In order to stop the tree
    hugging, politicing, empirebuilding, or what ever you want to call it
    the commitment and leadership must come from the top down.  When the
    powers to be start removing the uneccesary excess layers of management 
    You be able to see the fruit of the many good people who are continuing
    to work and support the company.  until then it will continue to be
    buried, and stifled.
    
    I'm not whining, I'm trying to give some constructive and positive inputs
    to necessary changes that need to be made.  If you don't want to hear
    about what the problems are and what some possible solutions are, maybe
    your part of the problem too.

    To me a rebel is a mutineer, one who refuses allegiance to the ruling
    authority.  I see Jesus wanting to change Man.  A fine line between
    between giving Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and following your Leader.
    I think the rebel might shoot Ceasar, overthrow his government, etc. as
    oppossed to one who seeks to provide positive change.
    

    re.58
    I want each and everyone of us to accept the responsibility for
    winning.  To say that something is clearly the responsibility of
    management, seems to me to place blame and provide an escuse for
    me to not try and change what is wrong.  I don't doubt that you
    work very hard, but are you accepting your responsibilities or is
    it all managements' responsibility.  These are fine lines, you do
    need to identify the problem before you solve it, and you may need
    some help to reach the solution.  
    
    Let me try another analogy.  Recently Colorado got five downs to score
    the winning touchdown.  Many people blamed the officials.  I believe it
    was the coaches and players from Missouri.  Any could have called for
    a consultation, pointed out the four plays and the fifth down would
    never have occurred.  Let's both be the individual contributor that
    recognized the number of plays, went to our defensive captain or head
    coach, asked for the consultation in Rule 33 (page 60 of the rule
    book), and won the game for Missouri.
     

    Jesus didn't die at 33, but rater at 60 or so (there is evidence that
    he is born around 16 B.C.)
    
    If an individual isn't able to change anything by himself alone, how
    do you value the actions of Gengis Khan, ..., Saddam Hussein ?
    
    -hm

                     <<< Note 1223.56 by LABC::MCCLUSKY >>>
    >When you question how one person can make a difference, think about
    >the changes brought about by Jesus of Nazareth, a carpenter's son that
    >died at 33.  
    
    A significant portion of the world's population believe that he 
    HAD SOME HELP.  Not exactly your run-of-the-Mill (ha) employee..
    Of course, people thought that the Allies won WWII because "God 
    is on our side".
    
    That would make IBM ....
    
    karl

Note 1223.60 
LABC::MCCLUSKY
   >                    -< Is Football a better Analogy? >-
   >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   > Let me try another analogy.  Recently Colorado got five downs to score
   > the winning touchdown.  Many people blamed the officials.  I believe it
   > was the coaches and players from Missouri.  Any could have called for
   > a consultation, pointed out the four plays and the fifth down would
   > never have occurred.  Let's both be the individual contributor that
   > recognized the number of plays, went to our defensive captain or head
   > coach, asked for the consultation in Rule 33 (page 60 of the rule
   > book), and won the game for Missouri.

As long as you're into football analogies, how about the one where there
are no huddles between plays, each of the 11 members of the team does what
HE thinks is the best thing to do on each play?  Is the team likely to win?

A concerned employee,

george

    re:.63
    You won't win, but notice "...went to our defensive captain, or
    coach...".  We accepted the responsibility and we made certain our
    team was with us.  That's how you work without a huddle - we plan 
    first and Sam Wyche has made a significant impact on football...

    I give the hell up!!! Right in the middle of all this Brouhaha about
    cutting expenses, and flying directly in the face of another topic
    on cutting printing costs, what arrives in my mail today??
    
         MY PERSONAL COPY OF THE "DIGITAL TECHNICAL JOURNAL"!!!
    
    I don't want it, I didn't ask for it, I don't understand the contents!!
    ...but I already know there is no possible way to get off the list.
    Godalmightydam...is no one in charge anymore.  I'm really tourqued.

    This company is DEFINITELY out of control, and I don't feel there is a
    damn thing I can do about it, except maybe through heightening
    awareness through this Notes file!  
    
    Coming back from a very distressing meeting today, where we took a
    giant step TWO YEARS BACKWARDS, (and yes, I fought, but lost), I think
    I realized what the real problem is: we have too damn many sources of
    control, so that NOBODY is in control.  I mean think about it: we are
    supposedly focusing on the customer, so we should help sales; we are
    trying to build the 'total solution', so we should help EIS.  I work in
    GIA Headquarters, which, like each geography, has its own focus.  My
    'customers' are people in the various businesses within customer
    service.  The new 'ABU' 'SBU' and 'whatever U' organizations have
    charters to drive 'cross functional, integration' opportunities...
    
    WHO THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO GET THE 'BIG PICTURE' FROM ????????????
    
    What should be my primary focus?  Customers?  Products?  Geography?  Line of
    Businesses?  Business unit?  Product Lines?  My management?
    
    I starting talking myself walking back from this meeting trying to
    think of all the groups that can get in the way of getting something
    done; who must be consulted to get another 'expert' (stovepipe)
    opinion!  Re: the last few, how am I supposed to influence the
    organization of this entire company?  (Which is what I detect is the
    problem)... 
    
    I'd love to help, but there is only so much one can do from one corner
    of this battleship that Digital has become.  Battleship - hell, we've
    got a whole BATTALLION of battleships...
    
    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    
    Dave

RE: .65

On the other hand, for me, the Digital Technical Journal is the only piece of
unsolicited mail I've received in the last year that was welcome, useful, and
informative.

--PSW

    RE: .66
    
    Frustration understood.
    
    My advice? Do anything you can to help a sales rep sell or deliver
    something profitable. Nobody could possible challenge this mind set
    and pass KO's scrutiny!
    
    /se
    

        Re:  <<< Note 1223.68 by BOSACT::EARLY "Sliding down the razor blade of life." >>>

        Sorry, but we're not allowed to because it isn't a funded
        activity.
        
        No this is not a joke.  We are to run under a zero variance.  If
        nobody is willing to foot the bill, we are not allowed to
        partipate.
        
        At each quarter, anything that is not achieving our zero variance
        goal, we are to stop doing it and go look for something that does.
        
        It is kind of hard to be pro-Digital when you are not allowed to
        participate.
        
        Bob

    
    The DTJ is a very welcome addition to my library.
    
    /prc

	... and BTW send them FedX or next-day mail!  :>)  :>)  :>)

    re: .46:

>	I agree with Paul,  let people contribute what they CAN, but at least
>acknowledge them when they contribute SOMETHING, and if they are right, DO
>SOMETHING to answer the issue!  

    and .66:

>    service.  The new 'ABU' 'SBU' and 'whatever U' organizations have
>    charters to drive 'cross functional, integration' opportunities...
>    
>    WHO THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO GET THE 'BIG PICTURE' FROM ????????????

    As we've discussed, the best way to get a problem addressed is to
    uncover it and have a proposed solution. And even if you don't have a
    solution, you should raise and discuss the problem -- discussing issues
    in a group is the best way to find an objective solution. Too many people
    are running off on their own creating their own unique solutions to
    _systemic_ problems.

    There's a more insidious side to this which we shoulcd also be sensitive
    to. It's one thing to hear motherhood and apple pie talk. It's another
    to do something practical. If management is saying the right thing, they
    may still need to be gradually drawn into the practical aspects of what
    they're espousing. If you're over-eager, wanting to get down to the
    meat, you may come across as discounting the motherhood message and just
    being a complainer. Evolution, not revolution, is still the best.

    And if we are being encouraged to make changes _within_ the system, then
    I think upper management should follow their own advice. I've been here
    now for 6 years, and the only "real" solution I've ever seen company
    management use to fix problems is to make new (more) organizations.
    Guess what? _THAT'S_ revolution, not evolution. The fact that all the
    old organizations wind up hanging around -- no heads "chopped" --
    doesn't detract from the revolutionary aspect, it merely adds overhead
    to the revolution, bogs it down, and dooms it to failure. [After all,
    imagine Robespierre trying to _co-exist_ with the French monarchy!]

    We have enough organizations. We should be trying to make them work
    better together! _NOT_ making new ones. The day I see a significant
    decrease in the number of organizations at DEC, I'll know we're finally
    on the right path. Less _is_ more!!!

    re:   -(a few) Dec Tech Jrnl
    
    Strange you should mention that. I had the same feeling when my copy
    arrived the other day in its neat personally addressed envelope. I
    said "how do I stop this thing".
    
    What I've TRIED (no indication of success) was to send mail to the
    subscription address RDVAX::JOURNAL from the inside front cover
    requesting that they cease and desist.
    
    Maybe they have to use all of the internal copies as justification for
    continuing to publish. It would be interesting to note if it is a
    self-sustaining business or not (they SELL - so it says) subscriptions
    to outside folks.
    
    Go for it!
    

    I second the motion a few replies back.  This is one of the few
    pieces of internal "junk mail" I read and find interesting.  It sort of
    keeps me in touch with some of the technology developed elsewhere in
    the company.
    
    BUT there should be a simple way to unsubscribe.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    I tried the RDVAX thing too...so far no response.  My problem is that
    the document in question is no cheapie.  Good paper, large, four-color
    cover, etc.  I'm not technical and never even open the cover.
    
    What happens is, I believe, they use existing distribution lists.  Like
    for Sales Update (I also get TWO copies of that).  I'm sure there is
    a bureaucracy somewhere that lives off this kind of "business".

RE: .75

If you know a customer who likes techie stuff, you could give your copy to
them.  This thing is intended to be like the IBM and AT&T Technical Journals--
some people outside the company actually subscribe and pay for it.  It's not
solely a DEC-internal publication.

Regarding its distribution list, I think it goes to everybody with an
engineering job code, among others.

There definitely ought to be an unsubscription process in place.

--PSW

    Final on DEC TECHNICAL JOURNAL
    
    Ok, here's THE ANSWER. I called their circulation manager this morning.
    What they are going to do is send a letter to every internal
    'subscriber' asking if you WANT to continue. If you wish to continue
    receiving it, send back the reply. If you don't reply, your
    subscription will be terminated at the end of the calendar year.
    
    The letters should be out in the next week or so, so throw yours away
    when it comes in, and you won't see the journal any more.

    DON'T throw away your DTJs. Out here where techie don't have
    engineering job-codes, our cost-centers have to pay for DTJs and with
    all the cost cuttings, it isn't easy to keep them coming.
    
    Many of our techie customers also love these, but they cost what around
    $20 each? So heres the coop, send your unwanted DTJs to 
    
    	Choy Heng-Wah @ ZPO.
    
    I'll help distribute them at my site, and then on to customers, if
    there's any left. :)
    
    rgds,
    hw

re Note 1223.54 by ECAD2::KINZELMAN:

>    If they wanted to bring in
>    outside consultants, (like Tom Peters) or lay down the law and fire some
>    sleezy  managers, 

        I think I've already heard Tom Peter's prescription,
        indirectly at Digital's expense.

        Two or three weeks ago, on the Nightly Business Report (of
        which Digital is a sponsor), the "guest expert" segment was a
        talk by Tom Peters about how to turn around large, stagnant,
        bureaucratic organizations.

        Perhaps I'm revealing my biases, but I couldn't help but
        think he was thinking of Digital as he spoke.

        He started by saying that the problem is nearly hopeless, or
        at least very difficult and with no assurance of success.

        He then proposed some solutions which he characterized as
        "creative destruction".  Unfortunately, I didn't take notes,
        so I can't relate everything he said.  One suggestion that
        stuck out, however, was "sell off your most profitable
        product line".  (Having seen, for over two years now, how
        BOSE's plans for future office systems have been virtually
        paralyzed by entirely reasonable consideration of its greatly
        successful ALL-IN-1 product, I can appreciate what he's
        saying.)

        Peter's message was that a big, stagnant, bureaucratic
        organization is almost impossible to turn around, and that if
        there is any hope at all, it would probably take a
        cataclysmic event to make it happen.  (And, the unspoken
        message:  what corporate management would ever choose that
        route?)

        Bob

    The Tom Peters commentary was enlightening.  His most recent comment on
    NBR (sponsored in part by Digital) was last Thursday night when he
    rated the following 3 factors contributing to corporate success or
    failure:
    
    Management Structure:   80%
    Problem Employess:	    20%
    Top Management Strategy  0%
    
    He then went on to cite how a railroad (Union Pacific, I think) cut
    management from 9 layers to 3 and became a major turnaround success
    story.
    
    The above topics have been discussed at length thoughout this file,
    but this is the first time I've seen them rated by someone with Peters'
    credentials.  I find the 0% ranking interesting in light of all the
    calls for a more defined "vision" from above.  Evidently Tom believes
    that if you have the right management _structure_, and not too many
    problem employees, then just about any Senior Management Strategy can
    be profitably implemented.
    
      John

RE: .81

>    I find the 0% ranking interesting in light of all the
>    calls for a more defined "vision" from above.  Evidently Tom believes
>    that if you have the right management _structure_, and not too many
>    problem employees, then just about any Senior Management Strategy can
>    be profitably implemented.

But look at your last sentence again.  Yes, just about any Senior Management
Strategy can be implemented.  Our problem is that we DON'T HAVE a strategy
articulated by Senior Management.  You can't implement one if you haven't been
told what it is.

--PSW

    re .81 & .82
    
    Maybe what Tom was saying is that sharply reducing the number of
    management layers makes it more possible for senior management to 
    define a strategy and makes it more obvious if they don't.  Fewer 
    layers also make it more implementable.  Lots of layers introduces 
    lots of complexity...leading to confusion and loss of focus.
    
    -dinesh.

    
Paul,

I am interested to learn if Jack Smith had any response to your memo. Or 
even if there is any from the "upper management".

Best Regards,
Kevin

   No, no response from Jack Smith.  I called last Friday and his secretary
   confirmed  that he got it, but was going to get back to me about whether
   he  saw  it  or  not.  I called again just now, and she said that Jack's
   traveling and that's why he hasn't gotten back to me about it but I'm on
   his "to do" list for when he gets back.  She also said that if I dropped
   off  a  copy  with  KO's  name  on  it, that he would get it too so I"ll
   probably do that today.

I recently submitted a suggestion to the DELTA IDEAS folks to limit the
distribution of the DTJ to site libraries and to electronically distribute
abstracts. If you want to read an article, go to the library. I too tried
to unsubscribe and was informed that the distribution list was gotten from 
personnel based on job code and that it would be too much trouble to handle 
individual requests to unsubscribe.

I do believe that from time to time an article that is of particular use to me
as an engineer will appear in DTJ but the majority of articles are non-priority
items that just go to the bottom of my reading list and never surface again. A
quick poll of my colleagues found that most felt along the same lines. A quick
scan of the TOC and onto the bookshelf (or worse, the wastebasket) it goes.

My suggestion still allows access to the articles based upon the abstracts that
can be quickly scanned. Not a bad way to save $20 * 4 * engineers per year.
... -ear

    re .-1
    
    So *you're* the reason why T&N have been told that there will
    no longer be personal DEC Tech Journal subscriptions, eh?
    Grrrrrrr!
    
    The DTJ is the only in-house DEC periodical that's worth
    reading, and I usually find it fairly informative.  I'm not
    sure how you define what's "of particular use to [you] as an
    engineer", but I think it's part of my job to stay abreast of
    what's going on, technically, in the company.   OK, so I don't
    actually *need* to know how the VAX 9000 attempts to maintain
    one instruction issue per cycle, but I believe that this
    kind of knowledge makes me a better software engineer.
    
    (I once helped diagnose a hardware bug in a 3rd party device
     solely based on something I remembered reading about the 
     CVAX in a DTJ a few months previously.  The only reason
     I read about it was personal interest; I had no idea
     at the time that it would ever come in useful.)
    
    Yes, I can get the DTJ from the library if I need it.  But like
    everyone else, I'm busy, and I somehow don't expect that I'll
    be remembering to read the DTJ quite as often as I now do.
    
            

    re: .86
    
    I, for one, am really disappointed by this attitude. I spend a great
    deal of time with senior engineers and with very technical people in
    the user base, and DTJ has impressed as one of the few publications
    providing insights into the A/D activities and thinking of our future.
    DTJ is also an excellent tool for getting to know our most influential
    designers.
    
    I wonder whether engineers who cannot take the time to understand this
    information will be the same ones who, a couple years from now, will be
    dissatisfied with their jobs or projects because they're not involved
    with the latest & greatest.
    
    While electronic distribution of abstracts may save some printing cost,
    it loses the opportunity to distribute new ideas in new forms widely.
    The customer community is impressed enough with DTJ to consider it par with
    or better than those of IBM & HP, so its current form is seen as a win.
    
    LK

From:	FACMTS::FACMTS::MRGATE::"PKOMTS::CORA::A1::SMITH.JACK" 29-OCT-1990 19:07:33.42
To:	ECADSR::KINZELMAN
CC:	
Subj:	YOUR MEMO OF 10/5                                                      3

From:	NAME: Jack Smith                    
	FUNC: S.V.P. of Operations            
	TEL: 223-2231                         <SMITH.JACK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>
To:	See Below
CC:	See Below


Paul, thank you for your recent memo.  It has generated some 
thought-provoking comments and fresh ideas.

When I talk about engaging all of the employees in the success of 
the Corporation, I do mean "all".  Whether it's the Executive 
Committee, Engineering, Sales, Services, Finance or any other 
Group, we need absolute dedication and commitment.  I believe we 
must all act as leaders.  I must count on all levels of 
management, in all functions, to be examples of leadership -- not 
be in the way of leadership.  At the same time, I expect even 
more of our senior leaders.  It has been my experience that 
ordinary people do extraordinary things with the right kind of 
leadership.  Think of what we can accomplish with Digital's 
excellent people!

I have copied Ken, the Executive Committee and my Direct Reports 
on your memo.  I'll ask not only that they review it but also 
come to me with recommendations as to how we can successfully 
address that challenge of engaging all employees in our success 
and assuring that we focus on being "best in class" as managers.  
I have asked all of us to benchmark ourselves as "best in class".  
This  benchmarking is of critical importance in the management 
ranks.  If we don't measure up as managers, we should correct 
this quickly, or if we choose not to measure up, we should leave 
or be asked to leave.  This is an area where there will be no 
compromising on my part.

We have institutionalized the evaluation of people by managers; 
there should be no reason why we can't institutionalize having 
managers evaluated by their people.  Obviously, this would be a 
big change, so we will have to do it with a great deal of 
thoughtfulness and sensitivity.  I will explore how and when we 
can initiate this process.  

One last comment.  I cut my teeth on MBWA.  I haven't forgotten 
how to find the folks in the 'trenches'.  Somehow, as busy as we 
all are, we must find time to continue to go there and listen.    

Again, thank you for your insights.  I appreciate that they were 
direct, constructive and well-organized.  I will count on your 
support as we all work diligently toward making these changes 
that are needed.



To Distribution List:

PAUL KINZELMAN @PKO

CC Distribution List:

NAME: Ken Olsen <OLSEN.KEN AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jim Osterhoff <OSTERHOFF.JIM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Win Hindle <HINDLE.WIN AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: John Sims <SIMS.JOHN AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Martin Hoffmann @CORE <HOFFMANN.MARTIN AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jack Smith <SMITH.JACK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Abbott Weiss <WEISS.ABBOTT AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BILL STRECKER <STRECKER.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: John Alexanderson <ALEXANDERSON.JOHN AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Henry Ancona <ANCONA.HENRY AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jay Atlas <ATLAS.JAY AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dave Copeland <COPELAND.DAVE AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Henry Crouse <CROUSE.HENRY AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jim Cudmore <CUDMORE.JIM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Bill Demmer <DEMMER.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Gary Eichhorn <EICHHORN.GARY AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
PIER CARLO FALOTTI @GEO,
NAME: Dick Farrahar <FARRAHAR.DICK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dick Fishburn <FISHBURN.DICK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Sam Fuller <FULLER.SAM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Bob Glorioso <GLORIOSO.BOB AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dave Grainger <GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Russ Gullotti @ CORE <GULLOTTI.RUSS AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BILL HANSON <HANSON.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
HEFFNER.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE,
NAME: Bob Hughes <HUGHES.BOB AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Bill Johnson <JOHNSON.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Dom LaCava <LACAVA.DOM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Frank McCabe <MCCABE.FRANK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BOB PALMER <PALMER.BOB AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: DICK POULSEN <POULSEN.DICK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Mick Prokopis @ CORE <PROKOPIS.MICK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: BRUCE J RYAN @CORE <RYAN.BRUCE J AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Grant Saviers <SAVIERS.GRANT AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: TOM SIEKMAN <SIEKMAN.TOM AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: Jack Smith <SMITH.JACK AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: PETER SMITH <SMITH.PETER AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
NAME: WILLIAM M. STEUL <STEUL.BILL AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>,
STONE @NAS007@VAXMAIL,
HARVEY WEISS @MRO,
NAME: DONALD ZERESKI <ZERESKI.DONALD AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>

    re .88 and last few
    
    Thanx to Paul Kinzelman and other guys at CXN (and other sites?). I 've
    just received 2 packets of DTJs today. My manager became highly excited
    when he saw the DTJs falling out of the envelop, so did the Sales
    people when they hear that some of their customers will be getting
    them. 
    
    It is sad to hear engineering people say that they don't need to read
    DTJs. In my opinion, DTJs gives a broadbase overview of our finest and
    not so finest products. I am a VMS and communications person, but I
    will certainly benefit from reading about CASE tools and CDA tools. I
    certainly will not lose to know how nifty the power supply for the VAX
    9000 is. If it's good enough for our customers, it's good enough for
    us. Believe me, there are REAL customers paying REAL $$ to receive DTJ.
    
    However, we should have a mechanism where people who absolutely don't
    want to receive it, won't. If large distribution list are too unwieldly
    to handle even for DEC, then it will certainly be so for our large
    network customers. Perhaps it's time we have a distribution list
    management architecture?
    
    The field can use DTJs I'm sure, and many field sites won't have them
    cause we have to pay for it. So, don't throw your DTJs away! Find
    someone else to give away to.
    
    rgds,
    hw
    
    ps: well, the VAX 9000 DTJ have proven useful in one way, I now know
    what Richard Brunner looks like!

    
    re .91
    
    I am sad to agree heartily with you. This company is made up of 3
    distinct sub-companies. US, Europe and GIA. And within those, many more
    little sub-companies. Another of my pet flame is PAK distribution. In
    US and some parts of GIA, PAKs can be retrieved from VTX servers (like
    SPDs) when a as required basis. Well, guess what happens in Far East,
    or rather DEC Asia. We have a go through IS (a real human) who will
    generate the PAK and mail it to us. We used to have to go all the way
    to Region in Hong Kong (more real humans and at least 3 days
    turnaround). 
    
    I believe the problem here is that the people who can make, or makes,
    the decision about things like automatic PAK servers and so on, DO NOT
    UNDERSTAND OUR TECHNOLOGIES. 
    
    I think you can enhance your distribution list utilities (or whatever)
    by publishing a programming interface (not just VTX access) so that
    people building applications can access the mailing list too.
    
    hw
    sorry for the rambling :)
    

						FROM: Paul Kinzelman
						ENET: ECADSR::KINZELMAN
						DATE: 1-NOV-90
						LOC:  PKO3-1/21H
						DTN:  223-4811
   TO: Jack Smith

   I received  an  overwhelmingly  positive  response  when I publicized my
   memo.   I  expected  some  comments,  but was amazed to find that I have
   received  over  200  phone calls and electronic messages *worldwide*, in
   agreement  with  what  I wrote.  Many wondered if I still had a job, and
   several  of the phone callers were afraid to give even *me* their names.
   People  unanimously  (except for one) agreed that the memo was right on,
   but  many  didn't have a lot of hope that the management crisis would be
   addressed.

   The best way to support the momentum of opinion and get the company back
   on  track  will be the company's making substantive, *visible*, progress
   on  solving  the  management  crisis.   I cannot stress enough that some
   substantive  progress must be made shortly to demonstrate to people that
   you are not going to let this momentum die.  Morale will improve when we
   see  bad  managers  being  reprimanded  and removed, and we see progress
   toward overhauling the infrastructure.  People will be able to speak out
   more.   You  won't even need to publicize the progress because word will
   get around.


   MANAGER EVALUATION

   I applaud  you  for  your  commitment  to  the concept of managers being
   evaluated  by  subordinates,  peers,  and  customers,  both internal and
   external,  as suggested in the books by Tom Peters.  Furthermore, I feel
   strongly  that  several  members of the Manager Evaluation Process (MEP)
   design  team  *must*  come  from  outside  the usual personnel chain.  I
   volunteer to be a part of the team under the company philosophy, "He who
   proposes, does".  I feel that my responsibility and privilege is to be a
   part  of  the  team.   I also know several people who would be more than
   willing to serve.  

   You yourself  observed that the company is in a situation where we can't
   wait  for the perfect solution.  We must begin work immediately, so that
   we don't lose the momentum on this vital issue.  Poor managers are going
   to  oppose the process change.  Is their resistance going to pull morale
   down  more  than  layoffs?  I  think not.  Let's use the momentum of our
   crisis to overhaul manager evaluation as the first step in improving the
   management  infrastructure.   If  designed  and  implemented  well, this
   process   can  be  used  to  remove  undesirable  managers,  reduce  our
   overpopulation, solve the management crisis, and increase our confidence
   in the company's leadership ability, thereby increasing morale.
   
   MBWA (Management by Walking Around)

   I discussed  your MBWA comment with several people that have been around
   Digital  quite  awhile  and none of us are aware of anyone near the top,
   other than Ken, actually doing MBWA.  I commend you for your commitment
   to  begin  putting  MBWA  into  action,  and  I hope to hear through the
   electronic  grapevine  about  your  forthcoming visits.  Your practicing
   MBWA  imminently would demonstrate to employees that substantive changes
   will be forthcoming.

    Today, while passing the U.M. of another group in the same facility
    where I worked, I teasingly accused her of MBWA.  The reaction I got,
    while high spirited, definitely proved to me that she, at least, had
    not heard of MBWA before, and if the tenor had been lower, my feeling
    is she would have been insulted.
    
    She had not heard of MBWA, even though she *practices* it, and is, in
    my view, a pretty darn good manager!
    
    Perhaps the lower levels of management are not "hearing" upper levels?
    
    
    tony
    (who is not a manager, and is just observing)

>    Today, while passing the U.M. of another group in the same facility
>    where I worked, I teasingly accused her of MBWA.  The reaction I got,
>    while high spirited, definitely proved to me that she, at least, had
>    not heard of MBWA before, and if the tenor had been lower, my feeling
>    is she would have been insulted.
    
>    She had not heard of MBWA, even though she *practices* it, and is, in
>    my view, a pretty darn good manager!
    
    What is the problem Tony? The manager is doing what is right by her 
people, that is, keeping in touch with them. Just becasue she didn't know 
the term shouldn't be a problem. There are sooooooo mannnnny acronyms in 
DEC now, that not knowing one is hardly a crime.

    I am a first level manager, and I hear my upper managers loud and 
clear, from Jack Smith on down. I just make it a practice to use what I 
need and what is important, not everything that comes down.....

    Vic H

    {Livewire, U.S. News, 25-Apr-1991}
    
                 District managers seek voice of the employee

    Speaking up is made easy in the East where some District managers are 
    sending out employee satisfaction surveys, asking people to rate their
    unit  managers.
              
    "It's a new way for managers to take a look at their responsibilities,"
    says  Tom Iannotti, DM for the Upstate New York District. Tom, who has
    been  sending out his questionnaire twice a year since the start of
    FY'90, adds  that it also gives people a chance to say what would make
    their managers  more valuable to them.
              
    Ten of the questions on the survey, which goes to 17 unit managers,
    deal  with communication.  According to some responses, says Tom,
    employees may  say they want their managers to spend more time with
    them or that they want  their managers to share the benefits of their
    experience more.  Managers are  rated on their ability to deal with
    poor performers.  Some managers, he says  find out their people don't
    think they're being tough enough.  Employees  can also use the survey
    to comment on any manager in their district. 

    Tom evaluates the responses and uses them as the basis for feedback
    sessions  with his unit managers, keeping respondents' comments
    anonymous.  "The  purpose of the review is not only to share the
    absolute numeric score," he  says, "but, more importantly, to look at
    the comments that each person  makes.  The entire process is
    confidential and it has been extremely helpful  to me in identifying
    problem areas for individual managers."
              
    The process can be a little scary to the managers, says Tom, who
    recalls  that this was especially so in the beginning.  "It took a
    while for people  to realize that this tool is to help them, not hurt
    them. "
              
    Lou Schiavone, Customer Services DM for the North Jersey District, has
    been  conducting a similar biannual survey for 18 months and concurs. 
    "At first,  managers were very anxious.  But, since we began the
    survey, I have had a  few managers ask that the survey be given more
    often. They say that they can  really see how it has helped them make
    improvements."

    Lou's 21-question survey asks such questions as "Do you have a written 
    career development plan? Do you believe you are being rated fairly? 
    Does  your manager promote teamwork in a professional and courteous
    manner?  Does  your manager meet the commitments he/she has made?"
              
    One who welcomes the survey is Alice Ernest, a Customer Services unit 
    manager in Lou's district.  She calls it "a tool that we need to show
    us how  we're doing with employees just as we need the tool that shows
    us how we're  doing with customers.
              
    "It has helped me," she says, "set some priorities so that I could
    address  teamwork issues between units and managers. The survey has
    given me some  real insights."

    A few months after the first survey, says Alice, some of the unit
    managers  were joking to Lou that his performance was going to be rated
    next.  Soon  after, Lou and Tony Farkas, New York Customer Services
    regional manager,  got together and asked their unit managers for
    feedback.  "We compiled their  ratings and shared the information with
    them," says Alice. "When Lou showed  that he was willing to be surveyed
    himself, it made us feel more secure."
              
    According to records in the DELTA Program Office, employees rating
    their  managers is an idea that comes up frequently. 
              
    Everyone can share their results and implementations through DELTA at 
    (MTS address) Ideas Central @OGO; (DECnet address)
    SONATA::IDEASCENTRAL; or  (IP Address) delta@intenz.ogo.dec.com. The
    outside number is 508/496-8226,  DTN 276-8226.

    It's been nearly 7 months...
    It's "some District managers", "in the East" ...
    
    but, it's a start ...
    
    Larry.

    The employee survey is also being used in DM & UM performance
    evaluations in the Southern Area Customer Services organization.  I
    personally look forward to receiving the anonymous appraisals from the
    people that report to me and I am open & honest in my evaluation of my
    manager's performance. 
    

   Well, sounds  like  some  progress is being made, but I suspect that the
   people  who  are  doing  the evaluations voluntarily aren't the ones who
   really  need it done, as well as the appraisals don't affect a manager's
   review yet.

   I've had  2 meetings with somebody in personnel.  From the first one, it
   sounded  like  appraisals would happen within a year possibly, so I said
   great!  Then at the second meeting, it turned out to be a more difficult
   issue (what a suprise!) and could take "much longer".  So I continued to
   press  for  a  personal meeting with Jack.  Then after another couple of
   phone  calls  from  somebody  on  Jack's staff, I got a call from Jack's
   secretary  a  week  or 2 ago, who called me to set up a meeting for July
   31! Wish me luck!

    Good luck, Paul. Don't forget to take positive new ideas into the room
    with you.
    
    	- andy

   Well, we  had  the  meeting  this  morning,  and  I  think  it was quite
   positive,  but we'll find out if and when things start changing.  I went
   in  there  with a positive attitude and that he sincerely wanted to make
   DEC  a place we could all be proud to work again. 

   I specifically  said  I believe that he must make solving the management
   crisis  his  top  priority.   I  also made the following suggestions and
   timeframes.   He agreed with all the suggestions, but not the timeframe,
   he  said  he'd  get  back  to me to let me know the timeframes he had in
   mind:


1)	CREATE A CORPORATE VISION that individuals and groups can identify with
		within one month.

2)	*PERSONALLY* BEGIN MBWA within 2 month
	You must talk directly to people at all levels of the corporation
	    in a non-threatening way (out of your office) to get honest opinions
	The more competent managers under you, the more time you'd have for MBWA
	Ways you could implement MBWA:
	    a) Begin 4-day work week, 1 day reserved for MBWA
	    b) breakfast meeting signup every morning 8-9am
	    c) *Visit* authors of good memos *in their office*
	Read DIGITAL notes file sometimes (#1507 has good ideas)

2b)	BEGIN YOUR MBWA BY MEETING WITH THE PEOPLE BELOW within 1 month
	These folks are listed because of their direct personal knowledge
	of important issues (as noted).  They feel they are putting
	their badges on the line and so are not just a little bit scared.

3)	INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING IN MANAGER'S REVIEW within 6 months
	a) Managers must be reviewed by their subordinates and customers
	    Implement in 3 years or whatever is outrageous
	b) Mandatory MBWA requirements for managers
	c) Managers should be measured on the success of their subordinates

4)	INDEPENDANT OMBUDSMAN within 6 months
	Must have ombudsman *SEPARATE FROM PERSONNEL*, report directly to you
	    Like EAP reports to medical rather than personnel

5)	CORPORATE GADFLY within 6 months
	Need corporate gadfly with power to change things - like Gordon Bell was


   I also  furnished  him  with  some  names  of specific individuals who I
   thought  had information that he needed to know about, several of whom I
   thought  were excellent managers.  He committed to personally contacting
   each of them.

    So ...  did he give you a timeframe on when he would get back to you
    about timeframes?  If not, well, ...
    
    Steve

    A "timeframe for a timeframe"...If that isn't "managerspeak" I don't
    know what is!
    
    Ken

    RE: .101 I hope you've warned the people whose names you gave
    him. Just so they're prepared when he calls.
    
    		Alfred

Re: .102, 3
   It may  be  managerspeak,  but  the  concept  of  a  "timeframe  for the
   timeframe"  is  a  very  reasonable question.  I did not ask it.  I will
   attempt to contact him again in a few weeks if I've heard nothing.

Re: .104
   Good question,  and  yes,  I  did  make  sure  the  people  did  want to
   participate.   They  were all excited about participating which is why I
   chose them in the first place.

    Paul,
    
    RE: Meeting with Mr.Smith
    
    Job well done and thank you for your efforts.
    
    Marie

Re: .-whatever

   Thanks for your thoughts, but my goal is not to try to represent anyone.
   I  learned  from my last "windmill campaign" that it doesn't really work
   for  me to represent people, so I'm just telling him what I think and to
   hopefully  get out and find out what other people think.  One person can
   easily  be ignored.  The more people he hears reality from the better...
   if you catch my drift....  The more people pushing in the same direction
   on the system, the sooner it'll change.

   To paraphrase the words of a famous TV personality...
	"Don't be suprised, if somewhere, sometime, somebody comes up to
	you and says, 'Hi, I'm Jack Smith. How's it going?' " 8*)

   Well, it's  been  more  than  3 weeks, and nobody has heard anything.  I
   know,  I  guess I shouldn't be suprised.  Sigh.  I called his office and
   they  not  suprisingly  say he's very busy.  My whole point was that the
   Digital  managerial  infrastructure is in serious need of repair and the
   priority  of  fixing  it  must  be raised well above zero.  What good is
   working  on  the  future of Alpha if the structure of the company wastes
   any success we get out of our projects?

   In any  event,  as I have mentioned before, I'm not representing anybody
   nor  has my intent been to represent anybody.  Each person who feels the
   way   I   do   (all  you  folks  saying  "Yah!  Right  on!")  must  take
   responsibility  to  do  your  part  in  whatever  forum you feel is most
   appropriate  to  get a message to upper management.  There are many ways
   for you to do this.

   My goal  was  to  get  Jack  out  of  his office and find out what is on
   people's  minds.  Unfortunately, it doesn't look like he's going to take
   the  initiative anytime in the near future it's up to each one of you to
   do whatever you feel would best get the message to the upper management.

   If and  when upper management finds an overwhelming number of people all
   wanting  the  same  thing,  then  they may move.  Until then, I'm afraid
   nothing  will change and I've done all I can do to make it happen.  It's
   now all up to you.

    I could swear that I read somewhere about "managerspeak". This type of
    language is generally used to totally obscure a subject and put the
    pesky questioner off until the subject dies down. Perhaps you've been a
    victim.
    
    Ken
    

    Seems to me that since there was no "timeframe for the timeframe"
    within which things would happen there have been no commitments made.
    Not sure now what the next step will be as far as this effort goes
    because this issue is now effectively dead.
    
    Steve

   The issue  is  not  dead,  merely comatose.  I will continue to call his
   office every week or 2 because he made a personal committement to me.  I
   intend  to  see  to  it  that he follows thru.  I am asking that all you
   folks  that  are glad that I'm sticking my neck out, don't just sit back
   and be glad.  Push in your own way.  I'm doing all I can and I need your
   help.   [who,  me?]  Yes you! The issue will die and we will become just
   another  stupid,  worthless  company  like  (probably) all the other big
   companies  if I'm the only person that does anything.  If everybody that
   cared  actually wrote a memo or something, there's more of a chance that
   something  positive  might  happen.   If  he percieves that I'm the only
   person who cares, then yes, the issue is dead and I'm wasting my time.

re: .112,

>                               -< I need help! >-

    	You might want to take a look at note #1565.* for some advice
   on effectively delivering these sorts of messages.

    				   -davo

Re: 113...

   Good list,  but  I think I'm doing most of those things already (tho I'm
   sure  there  are  those  who would disagree 8*).  Some of the message is
   inhere  negative,  I  can't  do  anything  about  that.  I don't want to
   euphemize the message so much so it'll be lost.

   I was  suggesting  constructive  improvements  and  was  positive  about
   wanting  to  see the company succeed.  Unfortunately, it appears at this
   point  that  no matter what one person says, it's not sufficient.  Major
   issues  are  like that.  It would appear that until management perceives
   large  quantities of people all say the same thing, nothing will change.

    re:113
    
    Yes,definitely reference 1565.0,especially step #6...
    
    Ken
    

Re: .116

   I was  very  positive  about  the  future  during  the  meeting.   But I
   presented him with a whole list of what I believe to be fairly universal
   negative  perceptions, and  said that I want to be part of the solution.
   In  fact,  many  people  want  to  be part of the solution, but it takes
   *perceived* leadership for everybody to start rowing in unison.

   The committments  he made (the list is a few replies back) were intended
   to  be a first step in that direction.  I believe he took the meeting in
   the  positive  light  I  intended.   A  good  indication of his positive
   understanding is that that his secretary finally had to come in and drag
   him off to whatever next appointment he was late for, because we went 15
   minutes past the scheduled end of the meeting.

   My intention was not to "wound" but to "alert".  I believe he took it in
   that light.

   Unfortunately, he  has  not yet decided the issue is important enough to
   make any perceived progress on it as far as I can tell.

    
    	I'd give the guy a break - he works for a very demanding boss,
    whose attention he must address before yours.
    
    	That aside, the suggestion of manager review by subordinates is
    a high quality idea, and would do much, i think, to restore a sense
    of personal empowerment that has certainly vanished over the past
    5 years, and is the only real difference i can perceive between the
    "old dec" and the current Digital (to reference another note). 
    
    	bob
    

I've been following the discussion on manager review by subordinates,
and I don't believe such a policy is necessary or constructive.

Let's say I'm a manager who has several managers reporting to me. I
certainly need to have some consistent and fair way to review them, but
the details of how I do so should be up to me. I might very well ask
for input from their subordinates, but that would be my decision, not
mandated by policy.

The policy as it exists today goes as far as is reasonably practical,
in my opinion, to help ensure fair and effective reviews, and create
the right incentives for managers and subordinates alike. Beyond that,
it would have to go to a far greater level of detail. If it did, it
would very likely specify a process which was impossible or
inappropriate to implement everywhere, not to mention that it would
simply cramp some managers' style, while not necessarily returning any benefit.

The review process is essentially a human-to-human endeavor and, as
such, can never be made completely fair. Managers need a reasonable
amount of latitude in how they manage their businesses, and greater
detail in the area of the review process doesn't seem to me to be
constructive. There are other process changes which might have more impact.

Re: .119

   The system  works  great of managers are honest and effective.  However,
   this  ideal is often not the case.  I believe that it's often enough not
   the case that it needs to be fixed.

   For instance,  if  a manager is vindictive or is playing political games
   to further his own career and to hell with dec, he is probably not going
   to  be willing to listen to constructive criticism, nor will many if any
   people under him be willing to risk their job to tell him.

>> There  are other process changes which might have more impact.

   Great! What  are  they? I'd be perfectly happy to bag my ideas if you've
   got  something better.  I'm not crazy about my proposals, but I think it
   would  improve things at least, but I'm all ears if you've got something
   better!

    Hmmm.  Another way to look at it might be to observe that under the
    current system managers are encouraged to think in terms of "I'll do
    what's best for my cost center.  To **** with DEC ..."  That is,
    they/we are penalized for messing up for our cost centers and rewarded
    for doing well for our cost centers.  Aside from screwing up before the
    public/stockholders, we are not penalized for messing up for DEC and
    are not rewarded for doing well for DEC.  Clearly, the cost center is
    first, then DEC.
    
    I feel more comfortable with this viewpoint as I think it's more
    credible to me than assuming that DEC is full of managers that are inept or
    dishonest.  The difference is that this paradigm also reveals that the
    problems are a direct result of the system rather than of the people
    functioning in the system.  It also predicts that moving the "bad guys"
    out and replacing them with "good guys" will not fix the problem.
    
    As a minor thought experiment, let's say that DEC fires all managers,
    knowing that a significant portion of them were dishonest or inept. 
    They are then replaced by managers that are honest and capable.  Let's
    assume that being honest and capable means that they place high
    priority on following orders.  The orders are to make sure that their
    cost centers make money.  What will motivate them to do what's "right"
    for Digital if it causes their cost centers to lose money?  Nothing.
    What's to keep the same problems from happening all over again? 
    Nothing, because the highest priority is to make the cost center make
    money.  Everything else (including DEC) comes in as second.
    
    So, the problem is, "How do you get cost centers to reward and penalize
    individuals for doing or not doing what's right for DEC?"
    
    It was pretty easy, in the past, to get cooperation from other
    engineers on new ideas.  Now, the standard line is, "I'd love to help
    with it, but it's not funded."  Innovation is being relegated almost
    exclusively to after hours if at all.  Unfortunately, many of the
    engineers I know have also decided to just "put in their time" and
    seldom put in time after hours.  They cite the lack of reward or even
    interest on the part of the cost centers.  After all, a cost center
    interested in after hours participation would reward for such.  But,
    that seems to happen less and less since it would mean increasing the
    budget.  
    
    So, in answer to Paul's invitation for new ideas, I propose the
    following:
    
    Perhaps we need to allocate to each cost center some amount of funds to be 
    used for doing things for "the corporate good".  These should be funds that 
    individuals are allocated to spend as they will in other cost centers or 
    outside.  They are funds that cost center managers do not touch and
    which are lost at the end of the fiscal year if not used.  The only 
    requirement for cost center managers would be that they require some
    sort of proof or statement from the individuals showing that there is value 
    added to DEC and showing that the money spent is business-related.
    
    At the end of the fiscal year, there should be an evaluation of the
    value added to DEC.  Rewards could then be given in the forms of
    individual bonuses and possibly increases in individual funding
    allotment.  Penalties would be limited to reducing funding to some
    minimal level.  But, the cost center itself should not have to account for
    the funds other than showing that the funds were spent on business-related 
    ventures that had hope for adding value to DEC.
    
    I think that another symptom of current system problems is ASSETS.  It's a
    good idea and operates on a company-wide basis.  But, there is nothing
    in the program that entices much in the way of contribution from
    inventors.  This is because the cost center of the inventor does not
    receive any returns, so development time cannot be budgeted, let alone 
    any sort of support.  The inventor, of course, can only be rewarded to the
    extent that the cost center is rewarded.  A mechanism needs to be put in 
    place to allow cost centers to be directly reimbursed for contributions from
    individuals from cost centers that use ASSETS.  Initial investment
    can come from an individual's discretionary budget.  But, later on the
    returns should be able to fund the support and provide some return on
    investment for both the inventor and the cost center.
    
    Digital has a publication and patent reward system for inventors.  But,
    though these things help the corporation, where is the return for cost
    centers?  There is not enough return to justify travel expenses for
    authors to present papers at conferences on Digital's behalf.  For this
    reason, I no longer consider submitting papers to conferences that might
    involve travel expenses.  Might this also be solved if cost centers were
    given money to be used for the "corporate good"?  
    
    Finally, some individuals donate time to perform corporate services. 
    One example that comes to mind is moderating notes.  At the end of the
    fiscal year there should be some amount of compensation made available
    to their cost centers for this type of service.  Perhaps this could
    also come out of the discretionary budget in the form of rewards or 
    increase in discretionary budget.
    
    Steve

> knowing that a significant portion of them were dishonest or inept

It doesn't surprise me that there's an anti-management bias in a lot of
these discussions, but really, I doubt that there's any higher
percentage of dishonest managers than among employees in general. And
if there are some who are inept, it might be due to the difficulty of
the job, and the fact that they got there by being promoted from the
ranks when there was a pressing need for managers, without the
opportunity to select people of the training and experience which would
have been required.

However, I'll agree on one important point: the responsibility to
improve the effectiveness and stability of our company begins at the
top. To that effect, I see a lot of effort, though I might disagree
with many of the decisions -- it's easy to call the shots from the sidelines.

Maybe my optimism would fade considerably if I learned I was about to
be laid off.

    re: .121
    
    Some good ideas here. But I do have a bone to pick about the "what's
    good for my cost center" mindset. 
    
    I'd agree that CC-centric philosophy may not always produce behaviors
    that are universally in the "corporate good." I would challenge you to
    define, or describe the process of defining, what the "corporate good"
    is, though.
    
    How about an engineering group that gets all of its work done using
    other groups resources, after hours? Is that in the corporate good? If
    projects, which the Corporation's BoD, executives and managers have
    decided are in the "corporate good" suffer, because the people
    responsible are all pooped out from baling out somebody who didn't have
    the business sense to get the appropriate resources to do their own
    work? Is that in the corporate good? Not knowing the real cost of
    producing or maintaining a product, because 10% or 80% of the activity
    goes on outside regular hours? Is that in corporate good?
    
    I understand the frustration and experience it myself sometimes. But I
    think that a lot of people are being held responsible for budgets and
    results for the first time in their careers, and some of them are
    scared s**tless by it. Some of them are arch-conservative about it, and
    justifiably so, given the fickle nature of the current definition of
    "what's right". Give it time. Those who are grossly inept will crash
    and burn (mostly). Those who are successful will prosper (mostly). The
    rest will get better at it (mostly).
    
    Having faceless committees consuming revenues without being held
    accountable for producing results is one of the things that got us into
    this mess in the first place (imho). A "corporate good" committee would
    be a return to the bad old days. Besides, we already *have* a corporate
    good committee - the Board of Directors, as elected by the shareholders
    of the corporation.

    Hi, Mike,
    
    There was probably some misunderstanding there because of how I worded
    the thought experiment.  I assumed that the only reason for letting all
    management go would be because somehow it was known that a significant
    portion of them were bad.  My real assumptions are that such is not the
    case.  In fact, that is part of the basis of the thought experiment.
    That is, the experiment goes to show that even if we had all good
    managers we would still have the problems that lead to the symptom of
    placing the interests of the cost center above those of the corporation
    and all that this entails.
    
    Steve

>    I'd agree that CC-centric philosophy may not always produce behaviors
>    that are universally in the "corporate good." I would challenge you to
>    define, or describe the process of defining, what the "corporate good"
>    is, though.

That would be up to the cost center managers and the individuals involved.
So long as a case could be made for the discretionary funds to be for the 
"corporate good" then the funds could be used.  This separates the funds from
the "CC good" issues that currently control all CC funds.

>    How about an engineering group that gets all of its work done using
>    other groups resources, after hours? Is that in the corporate good? 

It is up to each member of that group as to how to handle work after hours.
Right now, if someone puts in time after hours for a cost center, that cost
center can provide reward.  But, if that time is spent doing something for the
corporate good, there is no reward.  The new mechanism I propose would result
in reward going to the cost center.  This provides justification for reward
for the individual who has performed to serve the corporate good.

>    If
>    projects, which the Corporation's BoD, executives and managers have
>    decided are in the "corporate good" suffer, because the people
>    responsible are all pooped out from baling out somebody who didn't have
>    the business sense to get the appropriate resources to do their own
>    work? Is that in the corporate good? 

If the corporations higher-ups have funded a project they are competing with 
any other cost center that may have provided project funding.  The situation
described here may have little to do with the mechanism I propose other than 
that there may be more competition for a cost center's resources.  This 
competition will probably increase the prices that the cost center can demand 
and help it to grow, making it possible for it to hire in extra help if the 
trend continues.

>    Not knowing the real cost of
>    producing or maintaining a product, because 10% or 80% of the activity
>    goes on outside regular hours? Is that in corporate good?

This has little to do with the mechanism I propose.  Mechanisms are in place
within cost centers for control and compensation of individuals who work 
"after hours", either in terms of extra pay or rewards so long as the activity 
is of benefit to the cost center.  The mechanism I propose will also make it 
possible for there to be compensation when "after hours" work results in 
activity that serves the corporate good.  

As to not knowing real costs, that involves activity that is the responsibility 
of each cost center and is not affected directly by the program I propose.  If
an engineer chooses not to report the hours worked after hours, it might not
get reported.  As for me, I report my hours.  They are often in the 50-hour
range, so for my cost center the real costs, in terms of the time I spend,
are reported.  That would not change under the new program, but I may be
enticed to work more hours so that my cost center can reward me.  With the
new program, I could be enticed to work "after hours" for the corporate good
as well as for projects that traditionally would only serve the needs of my
cost center.


>    I understand the frustration and experience it myself sometimes. But I
>    think that a lot of people are being held responsible for budgets and
>    results for the first time in their careers, and some of them are
>    scared s**tless by it. Some of them are arch-conservative about it, and
>    justifiably so, given the fickle nature of the current definition of
>    "what's right". Give it time. Those who are grossly inept will crash
>    and burn (mostly). Those who are successful will prosper (mostly). The
>    rest will get better at it (mostly).

Not so.  The current cost center mentality is not oriented toward the 
corporate good but toward the survival of individual cost centers.  Many 
corporate resources are being regarded now as "community goods", meaning that 
everybody wants them, everybody benefits by them, but nobody is willing to pay 
for them.  The problem is that innovation, the core of Digital's beginnings 
and, I think, the foundation for its future growth, is becoming a "community 
good" and is threatened by the current system.  The same holds true for notes
and probably other resources in the company which are now simply "tolerated"
rather than encouraged.

>    Having faceless committees consuming revenues without being held
>    accountable for producing results is one of the things that got us into
>    this mess in the first place (imho). A "corporate good" committee would
>    be a return to the bad old days. Besides, we already *have* a corporate
>    good committee - the Board of Directors, as elected by the shareholders
>    of the corporation.

The committees themselves do not consume revenues.  The revenues are allocated 
and return to the corporation at the end of the fiscal year if not used by the 
cost centers.  If the individuals who control the resources are successful, then
there is justification for more resources.  That's how things work now.  The 
difference is that individuals who are interested in serving the corporate good 
will be provided with a mechanism of reward and penalty for doing so through 
their own cost centers.  This is a mechanism that is currently not in place.

Now, as to this representing an increase in corporate taxes, we are already
paying heavy corporate taxes by losing the innovation that can pull this
company out of the hole it's digging.  Instead of blowing money out the door,
we should be investing in the future of the company.  I feel this new program
would cost the corporation as a whole less than various
layoff/transition/out-placement/down-sizing/right-sizing/firing programs do 
now. It would represent investment rather than the current binge of damage 
control and death spiralling.

Steve

    Are they filming a remake of "The Caine Mutiny" in Maynard?

Re: Steve's suggestion

   Sounds like it has some potential, but I think it's on a small scale.  I
   really don't think it addresses the issue of problem managers.

Re: .119
>>There are other process changes which might have more impact.

    We're still eagerly awaiting your suggestions.

   Of the  5  names  that  he  promised  to  contact (plus 1 added by phone
   later),  Jack  contacted  one yesterday, and set up meetings with 2 more
   today!