Conference 7.286::digital

    It's not a rumor, it's a fact.   We in the Southern Area received 
    mail last week stating that the powers-that-be have decided to not
    include individual contributors {i.e. those people who deliver the 
    services and are in front of the customer more than anyone else}
    for consideration for C.O.E. for FY92.
    
    The fact that this announcement was made with one month to go in FY92
    is disgusting, de-motivating {what else is new}, and shows an utter
    lack of respect for the large number of Digital Services personnel who
    are keeping this company barely afloat financially.
    
    The replacement program for what was C.O.E. {a trip for employee
    and spouse to Hawaii for a week this year}   is a cash award not
    to exceed $500.    They have also instituted a program to give
    up to $50 cash awards on the spot for acts above and beyond the call
    of duty.   Next year, the award will be a three day trip {employee
    only} somewhere.  Gee, just what I want after spending 30-50% of
    the year away from my family - a three day trip away from them.
    

    The Digital Services organization could lead DEC out of the doldrums if
    there was some leadership, some motivational force, some insight into
    the fact that we need to INCREASE services delivery headcount by at
    least a factor of two while cutting management by 50%.  We also need
    to abolish all of the overhead timewasting systems that are blackholes
    of data- SBS for example - where people spend their time tracking 
    how many hours I worked last week rather than finding places for me
    to work next week.   
    
    
    

    re: last two
    
    Makes me ever so thankful I had the prescience to leave that brain-dead
    organization three years ago...
    
    Al
    

    I remember reading in this notesfile,  how a number of people felt
    that COE was NOT a motivator and others suggested they would prefer
    $$$$$ to a trip.... sounds like at least some people got their wish...
    

    
    The fact that a highly arbitrary and unpredictable COE award is being
    replaced by a smaller but more widespread award, presumable based on
    objective criteria, is probably good news.
    
    The fact that managers will still climb onto Maui charter flights over the
    backs of individual contributors who used to be eligible for the award,
    must be an extraordinary slap in the face.
    

    
    
    What I heard.
    
    COE will be used as a recognition tool for regional staff and
    individuals who directly generate revenue through sales.
    
    Non-sales individuals and staff will be awarded through some, yet to be
    announced program.
    
    It would appear that, non-sales individuals and staff, are not capable
    of acheiving the same degree of excellence.
    
    Jon Aller

    Actually, one rumor that I may have heard is that the tickets to
    Hawaii are one way.  It's a new version of COE; "Circle of Elimination".
    ;^o

    Then again, I may not have heard it quite this way.  Things are never
    the way you remember them.

Re: .3  RUTILE::ZIMAN 
    
    
    >.... how a number of people felt
    >that COE was NOT a motivator and others suggested they would prefer
    >$$$$$ to a trip.... sounds like at least some people got their wish...
    
    Two different issues here:
    
    1. Is COE (or excellence awards) a motivator
    
    2. Does the employee prefer $$$ to a trip
    
    The research project I did for my bachelors statistically (Barely...) 
    proved that Excellence Awards was a (positive) motivator.  
    

    It's come to my attention that some individual contributors in the
    services organization interpreted my comment in .2 as somehow
    referring to them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am
    outraged by the insensitivity displayed by those who make the kind of
    decisions described in .1 (does this remind anyone of the car plan
    fiasco?) and flabbergasted that they could not predict the effect on
    morale.  In short, I think this is a dumb decision.  Although I am
    glad to be out of the services organization, my sympathies are with the 
    troops who have to live with yet another slap in the face.
    
    Hope that clarifies things.
    
    Al
    

	My cut at this situation is:

	-  the program does *not* produce the incentive/motivation
	   which would actually make the 'reward' cost effective.

	   If it worked, employees would be working 'harder' to win
	   the award.  Result:  sales, etc., would be higher and the
	   difference in financial performance would actual pay for
	   the program.

	Assuming I'm right, then that would mean we (Digital) are
	throwing away money at the worst possible time.  Where is the
	Return On Investment?  One of the strongest motivational
	factors right now is more likely to be job security .. or, at
	least, a good chance to transfer within the company if it 
	should be time to move on ...

	(A picture comes to mind of a banquet hall, filled with revelers,
	with a bunch of starving "about-to-be-former" employees standing
	at the door trying to get in.)

	If the program *must* exist, then the only thing to do which is
	fair is to continue to offer the COE to both management and staff.

	I think this is strictly a "black-and-white" issue, there is no
	gray.  You either have the program, or you don't.  But you don't
	offer it to one level of employees and not the other.

		Ron

In response to .3, I think what the field asked for was equity in the COE 
process, and that all organizations have the same opportunity to receive
equitable rewards.

If the COE program was dropped totally to save the company money, I would 
agree that it's the right thing to do; however, to segregate (discriminate)
a group out of the COE award program is not the right thing to do for 
business and/or morale.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm in Sales Support and I'm working 
'harder' to become a COE winner. Although a financial award is always nice, an
all-expense paid trip to an exotic place is motivating for me and certainly 
motivates my wife to support my late nights and frequent travel.

And having spent most of my 14 years in DEC corporate, I do think its a shame 
that there aren't more substantial reward and recognition programs for the
rest of the critical organizations within the company. Having worked closely 
with some excellent Digital Services people, I can tell you that they deserve 
a COE-type program as much as anyone.

Regards,

Jim

                                IMHO
    
    Everyone should have heard by now that we should be focusing on the
    customer now instead of focusing internally.  That is always difficult
    when the Company has so many organizations which inevitably will have
    different agendas from time to time.  This fact along with the
    difficulty in selecting COE winners in a totally objective manner that
    would be agreed upon by all can cause a difference of opinion on who
    should and should not be recognized for excellence.  And since I am not
    eligible for COE, what are the chances that I will agree with the
    selections this year?  Does that make COE an effective motivation tool?
                                                         

    .13,
    
    Jim, does those extra nights guarantee you the trip?  Does the hardwork
    guarantee you the trip?  If so you are better then most.  IMHO the
    hardwork is not the finally derterining factor, politics is.  I know my
    SO would gladly support me if the rewards had black and white rules.
    
    gog
    

    Well, I personally expected alot more activity on a subject of this
    nature. My only guess is that this topic is too hot for anyone to
    venture any opinions. I have heard the rumors but have seen no official
    statements. This is dispite the fact that I have sent my manager 2
    different memo's requesting clarification. Several other managers
    have refused to answer my direct, face to face questions as well.
    
    	Interesting.......
    
    My thoughts are simple. I feel it is a not so well thought out plan
    that Digital service took as a wholesale, top-of-the-line,
    no-questions-asked insult. I truely believe that the C.O.E board
    thought that field would scarcely notice, or care, that they where
    excluded from "another award". Instead, emotions are very high and
    no one wants to step up and say "that was my idea". If you look around
    your region, the people that attended this in the past where the same
    ones from the year before. I asked a personell manager how many field
    types attend, and before he figured out that he had sliped, he said
    "about 2%". 
    	It doesn't take alot of memory power to remember the field service
    vidios that circulated around in the mid to late 80's showing field
    service engineers wearing yellow blazers and plaid ties and being put
    on trial for replacing HDA's without following the "checklist". 
    
    Sales, and to some extent software, have always looked down there nose
    at the field. To be truthful, we used that to our advantage in the
    early 80's when FS was "one heck of a machine", and the business
    allowed it. But field service has grow up. Everybody in the industry
    has come to grips with that fact except our own corporation. Look at
    how your office is layed out. Field service on one floor and , I'll
    wager, sales and software on another. Team concepts look great on
    the paper but, it seams, has little to do with day-to-day business.
    
    I think our involvement with Sales' awards is in about the same
    proportions as Sales perceives our involvement with there day to day
    selling. The whole concept of a cash prize "not to exceed $500" is
    about right with the way the corporation views the value of Digital
    service.  I take that as the greatest insult a corporation can
    hand an employee/orginization. 
    
    	I will wait to here from my manager, after they feel the situation
    has cooled down enough to talk about again. Who knows, they may even 
    cancel the idea to exclude DS. I've seen flips in policy bigger then
    this in shorted spans of time. But only if everyone mentions to there
    manager that this is a bad idea......
    
    Jim

    One of the standard methods of evaluating controversial ideas is to let
    them out as rumors and listen to the reactions.  If people keep quiet,
    a bad message may get passed on.  Those who feel this is wrong had best
    speak up or feel the consequences later.  (This of course, assuming you
    are not concerned about raising your visibility.)
    
    /rab

Re: .16: Well, I'm not sure that many Digital Services Individual Contributors 
         every believed that they were eligible for COE. Therefore, an 
         announcement they they are, in fact, ineligible isn't cause for much
         discussion.

    re: .17
    
    Keep in mind that this is NOT a rumor.  It has been communicated to our
    area (GSG or whatever acronym we are this week) as well.  Our unit has a
    meeting with our District Mgr on Tuesday to discuss this new policy.
    
    It's a done deal -- that's what we've been told.
    
    People aren't speaking out because:
    
    	1.  Fear that "he who speaks, leaves"
    	2.  Many of us never thought we really had much of chance anyway
    	    (politics, favorite sons/daughters, weak district numbers yield
    	    few slots, your assignment must be "COE"-able [has to be
    	    crucial enough to merit your consideration], etc.)
    	3.  Some are hoping that the absence of COE might let us keep our
    	    Plan A cars (for a little longer, anyway)
    
    Besides, look at the trend in our software services business:  We want
    to be Systems Integrators.  We will give people the "big picture" on
    how to get all these different boxes to work together.  We are using
    more and more contract labor because we can't compete on cost unless we
    use limited numbers of our people on contracts (customers figured out
    that the "Digital difference" is about the same with six DEC people as
    it is with 5 contractors and one DEC person).  So, the emphasis is more
    and more on "project managers" and less and less on "those who do".
    
    Now, keep that in mind and re-read #1 above.  'Nuf said, I'm afraid.
    
    -- Russ

    Well, I have asked around some of the EICs and no one has heard
    anything (although the thought of it made a number of them shudder!).
    
    They all claimed that organizing the budget is the primary concern
    right now and COE nominations aren't till July..
    
    jeff
    

Has anyone heard more on this?  The word from DS management here is that
they've heard nothing to indicate that we're excluded from COE.  On the
other hand, there's been no info received on slots either, even though
the nomination process appears to be proceeding normally in the sales
and sales support organizations.

If this rumor turns out to be fact, it just compounds the feeling of
frustration I get at the mixed messages we receive:

---------------

	"We've all got to pull together here 'cause we're
	all part of the sales team: sales, support and services"

---------------

	"Why yes, that training _is_ free.  Wait, you're not
	in Digital Services, are you?  Oh...  In that case,
	we'll have to charge your cost center $2400."

---------------

	"Remember, we're all in this together!  Sales, support
	and services!  So, go out there and grab that business!"

---------------

	"...and after the overview seminar, you'll each receive
	a laptop PC.  We think that it's important for you to
	get the tools you need to improve productivity and increase
	customer exposure to our product set.  Wait, you're not
	in Digital Services, are you?  Oh...  In that case,
	you'll have to order one yourself through the Employee
	Purchase Program.  But we'll let you pay for it through
	payroll deduction."

---------------

	"We sink or swim together.  If you don't want to be
	involved in the sales effort, then you're not the sort
	of person we want in the sales team.  We're _all_ part
	of the sales team: sales, support and services."

---------------

	"...a few days in Hawaii, with your spouse, of course.  It's
	our way of recognizing those individual contributors who've
	made that leap from average or even above average to truly 
	excellent performance this last year.  Wait, you're not
	in Digital Services, are you?  Oh..."

---------------

-- Tony

    It is definitly true.    No individual contributors will be eligible
    for COE for last FY.
    
    In fact, about a month ago I got a call from a certain VP within
    Digital who had been forwarded {unauthorized} a copy of the note I
    entered as .1 to this note by a member of the Digital Personnel
    organization {I know who it was, too}.    The VP claimed that the
    decision to eliminate COE for individual contributors in Digital
    Services had been made back in December (!) and that he could not
    believe that the information had not been disseminated to the field
    yet.  He also told me that it was attitudes like mine that were the
    reason DEC was losing so much money.    I told him the attitude 
    expressed in .1 was anecdotal and the result of an emotional response
    to an unfair decision and hardly reflected the work I do every day to
    sell Digital and bring in revenue as a software consultant.
    
    I was bothered more by the fact that there are people in Digital
    Personnel who act as snitches than by the fact that this VP took 
    time out of his schedule to confront me over my opinion.  At least
    this VP gave me pleny of time to give my views on the subject.

    re: .22
    
    >yet.  He also told me that it was attitudes like mine that were the
    >reason DEC was losing so much money.    I told him the attitude 
    
    I just re-read .1 and I don't see the attitude problem the VP was
    referring to.  Maybe the VP is one of the "good news only" VPs that
    doesn't want to be disturbed by reality.
    
    Bob
    

>    the fact that we need to INCREASE services delivery headcount by at
>    least a factor of two while cutting management by 50%.  We also need

The VP was probably ticked off about the above statement from .1. Any attitude
that would threaten his job is clearly not a good attitude...

Regards,

Jim
    
    

    based on some personal experiences, I might suggest that this is what
    offends the VP
    
    >Gee, just what I want after spending 30-50% of
    >the year away from my family - a three day trip away from them.
    
    You aren't demonstrating adequate company loyalty if you have any
    desire for a normal family life.  :-(  (but, maybe that's just old
    tapes for me!)
    
    Dick

    Re .22
    
    While I disagree with the VP that objected to your tone I also fail to
    understand why you are upset that the VP saw your note. You posted .1
    in a notesfile that is explicitly accessible by all Digital employees.
    The VP that saw your note is a Digital employee. You should have had
    every expectation that he may have seen your note. Nobody broke any
    rules (or in my mind norms) by bringing your note to his/her attention.
    
    I often extract notes from non-restricted conferences and forward them
    to Digital employees. I'll continue to do so. If you don't want
    something seen by a Digital employee don't post it in a notes file that
    is accessible to all Digital employees.
    
    To be honest I'd be happy that you got an opportunity to get your point
    across to someone that is responsible for the decision making. If I
    were you I'd thank the person that brought the note to the attention of
    the appropriate person rather than be annoyed at them.
    
    Dave 

    Dave,

    Since you are experienced with this form of communication, I have
    trouble believing that you believe that it is anything but a "chill" on
    the expression of ideas and opinions that nameless people are sifting
    through the vast quantity of material here, taking it out of the
    context of debate and presenting this to a vice president that one
    doesn't even work for, and saying "gotcha, Dave" or "gotcha, Pat".

    I got this treatment once a long time ago for saying something as
    innocuous as "groups X and Y aren't working together".  I was asked to
    defend it and I said "we invite them and they never come, they never
    invite us, thanks for showing interest, now, are you going to do
    something about it or what?"  We had to preserve the appearance of an
    absence of conflict rather than actually work together.

    I wrote that, and I always write with the expectation that nameless
    gnomes want to embarrass me, or even embarrass Digital externally with
    what I write here.  Careful writing, free of sarcasm and ridicule is my
    goal.  It's part of the insane politicized degeneration of Digital that
    we have to worry about the nameless thought police running off to, at
    least in theory, powerful vice presidents who will not refute ideas or
    opinions but intimidate writers into silence. 

    Re: .-1

    You may consider it a chill.  Perhaps it is, but it is reality. 
    Anybody who posts a note in any non-restricted notes conference (and
    perhaps even the restricted ones) had better think long and hard about
    posting anything they don't want forwarded to the most embarrassing
    possible person.

    Dave Garrod knows about that possibility, and whether or not he
    considers it a "chill" simply doesn't make any difference to the
    reality.  He merely stated the reality.

    Re .-2
    
    I don't consider it a "chill" at all to know that any note I post could
    be forwarded to another Digital employee. In fact I consider it a
    necessary check and balance that serves to naturally moderate a notes
    conference (as you know I'm fundamentally opposed to a notesfile
    moderator acting as a censor -- but that's a different issue), knowing
    that one's words could be spread encourages responsibility in what one
    says.
    
    What I hope happens is that if somebody sends an extracted note to
    someone else and they have nothing but malicious intent I hope the
    recipient is sensible enough to get annoyed with the sender, not the
    writer.
    
    I personally try to only state:
    
    	a) Facts
    	b) Opinions that I'm happy to be read by all Digital employees
    
    I also believe that if you want to complain about something or somebody
    then you should have the 'guts' to complain to the person that runs
    that something, or that somebody.
    
    It'll be a sad day if the central DEC politbureau mandate that notes
    can't be extracted. It was a major mistake in my opinion to effectively
    make mail messages the 'property' of the sender and not the receiver
    when a policy was written to prevent mail messages from being posted in
    notesfiles.
    
    Dave
    
    

    Re: .-1
    
    Disagree with you on that one, Dave.  I regard the "don't post VAXmail
    without persmission" rule akin to an implicit copyright.
    
    Actually, I do it anyway, but only when I am prepared to take complete
    responsibility, including the author's wrath, for violating the rule.
    Nobody has every complained about the occasions when I've done it.