Conference 7.286::digital

.
.
.
<<<  This agreement will include explicit elements, such as benefits and
<<<  work policies, and implicit elements, such as values, culture and
<<<  commitment, that together define what employees and the company can
<<<  expect from one another.

If "culture" is implicit, how will the agreement define it?  Anyway, if 
the "agreement" calls out culture and values other than "be ethical" or 
some such, I would be surprised.  But then, as Scott Adams points out, if you
have to say it,...

.
.
.  
<<<  	Our goal is to forge a common view of a new partnership that will:
<<<
<<<  	o  define the company's relationship with employees worldwide;
<<<  
<<<  	o  re-establish mutual, reciprocal expectations between 
<<<           the company and its workforce;
<<<  
<<<  	o  provide a connection between employee actions and the 
<<<           company's vision and values; and
<<<  
<<<  	o  be used to align human resources and management 
<<<           priorities, practices, processes, and programs.
<<<  

Why doesn't the word "trust" show up here?  I would like the company to 
re-establish mutual trust, not mutual expectations.  [Well, OK, I'd like 
to be clear on expectations, too, but that's different.]

OK, so I'm paranoid, but this looks like a one-way "agreement" to me, 
one that will let the managers rationalize the next round(s) of layoffs 
and their own inability to have coherent strategies and business plans.

  - Scott

    
    Just once more before I leave this earth, I'd like to be referred to as
    something other than a "human resource".
    

    
    <----- will chattel do?

>Why doesn't the word "trust" show up here?  I would like the company to 
>re-establish mutual trust, not mutual expectations.  [Well, OK, I'd like 
>to be clear on expectations, too, but that's different.]

"I know what I expect and I trust I will get it."

Will that work?

re: .4

<<< "I know what I expect and I trust I will get it."

<<< Will that work?

It used to work for me, but it doesn't anymore.  That's what I was 
getting at.

- S.

    re .2
    INhuman resource?

    
    Call me paranoid, but I had a 'deja-dilbert' experience upon reading
    this.  I'll define 'Deja-Dilbert' as the feeling that you were a
    participant in a Dilbert cartoon strip after reading some corporate
    directive.  "Empowerment by committee" just doesn't work for me.
    
    http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert960526.jpeg
    
    seems particularly relevant upon reading this.

    	I read this first thing this morning and have been trying to figure
    it out ever since. What motivated this announcement? What do they
    really hope to accomplish? Does it seem as lame to everyone else as it
    does to me? Does it scare anyone else as much as me that the top execs
    in this company think this is really important? Do these people have
    way too much time on their hands, or is there something behind this?
    	I watched an interesting show on PBS last night about the history
    of the personal computer. Of course, there was a lot about Bill Gates
    and Microsoft. They talked about the culture at Microsoft, good and
    bad. The good is that there is a sense of being part of a large and
    loyal team, all driven in the same direction to get product out the
    door of the highest quality. Hey, don't kill the messenger. I know it
    stretches the truth a bit!
    	I wonder if the executive committee decided in a meeting that we're
    gonna have culture around here again, dammit! We can't have 60k
    disloyal employees all going in different directions at once and be
    successful. So we'll have this new partnership. We'll all hold hands
    and sing cumbaya, and life will be good.
    	I can't wait to see what's next. It almost sounds like a new
    employee agreement/contract is on the way, where we'll all be expected
    to "sign up or ship out." The way these things usually work, there will
    be all sorts of pretty pictures and new terminology. For instance, I
    recently attended a Harry Copperman presentation where he said that we
    don't have "profit-sharing" but have "success-sharing" in the SBU. That
    brought roars from the crowd, except that I think he was serious. Well,
    speaking of success, I have to turn off my monitor and the lights in my
    office to save electricity now.

    I don't see any reason for not taking the management at face value on
    this. Why shouldn't we have the self-confidence and trust to approach
    this discussion openly and honestly. In a lot of ways Digital is a
    great company to work for, and the employees should stand up for what
    they feel and think. Perhaps there is a realisation amoung management
    that if they are surrounded by yes-people who simply clap everything
    that happens and go home at 5pm things function less well than they
    could. 
    
    Here are some of the things I would like to see in the new partnership
    
    *a relaxed attitude towards employee consultative processes such as the
    European Works Council
    
    *an equally relaxed and mature attitude towards employee negotiating
    bodies such as trade unions (yes the dreaded U-word). 
    
    *an open approach with transparency on the question of benefits
    
    *a move away from mechanistic salary systems as a means of
    motivation/evaluation
    
    *a democratic promotion structure instead of empire building
    
    *commitment to decisions and employees, grounded in a world-wide
    consultative process which has employee councils which are respected
    
    Yes, I do believe this would help the company to compete in the market
    place.
    
    Kevin 

    This doesn't have to be a big deal;
    
      Digital will continue to survey the computer industry salary levels
    to make sure it's employees aren't paid too much and when they aren't
    needed anymore they will be jettisoned with as little as it is legally
    required to give them. 
     
    See? Now isn't the truth the easiest to deal with? Will a committee in
    New England make it go away?

    Levi Strauss Inc. has just announced a profit sharing bonus whereby 
    every employee will recieve a bonus equal to *one year's salary* 
    (1996 level) in the year 2001 if targets are met.
    
    In some way their 'employee partnership' seems a lot more substantial
    than a boat-load VPs holding focus groups to begin a process to
    to align human resources and management priorities, practices,
    processes, programs and other p-words.
    
    -Kevin

    How would it be if an "initiative" (ultimatum?) like this originated
    with the workers?
    
    dave_P

    re: timing
    Maybe someone realized that we are shedding more "valuable" employees
    voluntarily than "other" via involuntary - ie uncontrolled attrition -
    and that it's time to take a step forward rather than 2 steps back.
    
    re: trust
    If management wanted to re-establish trust that would inply that 
    "they" didn't trust "us". Never happen.
    
    re: boatload - hey we're WAY beyond the "boat" class here - we're into
    some serious SHIPs.
    
    r
    

    >...hey we're WAY beyond the "boat" class here - we're into
    >some serious SHIPs.
    
    "Hey, lil' buddy! This is where our employee 'partners' SHIP out."

    when I read this note, my first thought was "oh goody,
    a 'valuing differences program' for the 90s."
    
    We all know how management promoted that one, too...
    

I also want to take this at face value.  I believe that this is a recognition
of reality among our senior management team that things are *not good* out
here in the trenches, and a commitment by them to do something about it.  

This goes along with the other things that have happened in the past year or
so, including the matching funds for SAVE, some bonus programs, some salary
increases, etc.  These may not be implemented everywhere, and they may be
considered less than industry standard, but at least they are a step in the
right direction.  I think this program is also a step in the right direction,
saying that we have to address the non-money aspects of working at Digital.

>  	o  re-establish mutual, reciprocal expectations between 
>          the company and its workforce;

I think this is the important part: "mutual, reciprocal".  I will believe,
unless events prove me wrong, that management has every intention of making
this happen, so that both sides are committed to something.  Review the note
on the "New Deal at Digital" for details on what I think that should be.

But I do have two problems with it:

1) The focus of the memo was on management meetings.  The effect on the
   employees, and an effort to get feedback from (non-management) employees,
   only occurred in one line, where they talked about focus groups.

2) They started this late in Q4, when most of us in the field have a few other
   things on our mind than focus groups.

But whatever.  If they had announced it at any other time, people would have
found a reason that it was still the worst possible time to announce it.  I
am glad that it was started, no matter what the time is.

-- Ken Moreau

    I as selected randomly to be a part of this program.  My meeting is
    next Monday 1-3 PST.  I am looking forward to this opportunity and I
    will seize the moment to be brutally honest from my perspective, uhm
    that is if I still have a job next week. :-)

I agree with Ken, we (the grunts, field,.engineering, manufacturing,..etc.)
'MUST' have hope 'that this is real', we must give them the opportunity to 
'TRY AGAIN'! They (management) must realize that improving Morale is important,
establishing trust is important, committment is important, that employees are a 
valuable asset, employees can (when given the opportunity) CONTRIBUTE to the 
prosperity of the company with their ideas, heart and drive to make the company
succeed. We are talking about survival of this Digital here folks, I, like 
everyone else wants, want us to survive, succeed and thrive. When Digital
prospers we all prosper --- through financial gains, job security and pride in
the work we do. 

Those of you who
can't 'GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY' to 'ONCE AGAIN' try to correct the problems
that exist with employee morale, without being so negative --- 'JUST LEAVE NOW'
'WALK OUT THE DOOR --- AND DON'T COME BACK'. If you can't be constructive and
try to help solve the problems that face this company without being 'negative',
'LEAVE' --- I don't care if you think your GOD's greatest gift to Digital ---
'LEAVE' we don't need you! I would much rather have someone with tremendous
"HEART", that may be a little bit less of a 'GOD', who will put >100% effort
into something, than to have a 'GOD', who's arrogant and negative on everything
this company does. You GOD's out there can't survive alone, the sooner you
realize that the better off we'll all be.

Management --- show us that you mean it this time, be sincere, get in touch with
the ranks, listen to them, allow 'constructive criticism', 'don't close your
eyes and ears', 'work through the issues with your troops', we all have ideas,
we all can contribute, to those managers who are just looking at avoiding
problems and spend their time "pointing fingers at other groups instead of
helping solve issues" --- WE DON'T NEED YOU EITHER, either roll up your sleaves
and get to work using the power that has been given to you to solve problems or
"WALK OUT THE DOOR"! Employees are frustrated, there's been talk of "putting in
two way street's before (between management and employees)", but so far, all
we've seen is a "ONE WAY STREET" --- from Corporate on down. If you're serious
about getting employee's involved, "THEN BE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS AND DO IT ---
FOLLOW THROUGH" --- "TIME IS RUNNING OUT" --- "THE CLOCK IS TICKING AND WINDING
DOWN" ---- "SOMEONE NEEDS TO REWIND IT AND MANAGEMENT CANNOT DO IT ALONE"!

Great Corporations are leveraging their people... read some books about companys
that went through "forced transitions in the 80's". How they had to "wake up",
they were on the verge of collapse and the only way out was to "gain cooperation
with the masses, empower and leverage their people! As always, Ford is my
favorite subject (I'm an ex Ford employee). Mr. Caldwell (who's on our board of
directors), led Ford out of their almost collapse. Here's what he did, the CEO
of a 80 billion+ dollar company, went to the plants, shook hands with the people
on the line, shook hands with his engineers, management, talked with them. With
these actions and the formation of Ford's EI (Employee Involvement) committees,
he begain to "whittle" away at the "hatred" that existed between the "plant
workers" and "Ford Management". He empowered his workers and guess what, as Ford
management began to listen to their employees and their ideas, many millions of
dollars in savings were being realized in manufacturing efficiencies, that would
have never been realized if "they hadn't listened to their most valuable asset"
---- their people!!! Things still aren't all that rosy between the management
ranks and people in the plants, in engineering, etc. But the relationship is a
lot better than it used to be and they've put together processes that allow them
to work on and resolve issues that may come up.. they solve problems together --
as a TEAM!

Enough, I've rambled on, I'm done and I've got to get back to work.

Rick C.

    Re -1 
     I agree with the previous reply but...I've heard this pep rally before
    around every reorg that we have had.Hey, I'll give what I got but it's
    time to walk the walk .
    
    
                                                     MCS grunt

	I participated in one of the focus groups yesterday.

	There were no surprises - some very blunt and honest opinions 
	were expressed. The HR rep nodded in recognition and ernestly
	solicited more.

	For a long time folks in this notes conference have been
	calling for some sign that the higher-ups recognize the
	pain that many loyal hard-working employees have been going
	through. Well, here it is. 

	I am willing to give them a chance to earn my trust back. 
	I won't be fooled by glitzy messages about the "New Partnership".
	But a steady succession of incremental improvements in the
	state of the employee (SAVE contribution, profit sharing, etc.)
	with minimal erosion of our work life standards, coupled with 
	honest public statements about the value of employee (such as 
	this) are the kinds of things which will earn my trust.

					John

	

re: .20

This is a little encouraging.  Do you expect any direct feedback on your 
session?  You say there was an HR rep: is that the way all of these sessions
will be run, or will senior managers be involved?  [I imagine there are
"concerns" about having the managers be intimidating to the employees]

- S.

    Was the focus group meeting recorded in any manner?  This can be very
    helpful for later reference unless the recording intimidates the
    participants.
    
    Bob

I also participated in a focus group last Friday.

The session was led by a consultant from a management consulting firm 
(Towers Perrin?).  At my session there was no electronic recording.
A HR rep from Digital and one of the consultants took extensive notes.

During the introductory comments the consultant asked if any member of the
focus group reported to any other member of the group.  There was one such 
relationship, and after a short discussion the manager volunteered to leave 
the session.

Despite my initial misgivings I found the experience worthwhile and would 
encourage you to participate if you are selected to attend.


Bob

I participated in a meeting at CXO1/2 and the topic(s) being discussed was
Corporate Ethics and Business Practices.  All that participated were to 
receive a report of the overall views and input from all over the corporation.
We left the meeting feeling warm and fuzzy.  This was back in November 1995.  
I have not seen any report yet.  Why should we expect this "New Partnership" 
to be any different?  Maybe what did come out of it was a few good ski trips.  
:-(

    Wow....this is kinda' enlightening.  I mean short of picking up the
    Dilbert Principles of Management with a cold beer in your hand each day
    at 5:30pm in order to chuckle your way through this mess, these focus
    groups may lead to something.  I'd like to volunteer for one if that's
    possible.
    
    But more importantly I think the management of this company, and I'm
    speaking specifically about the big boys and girls, Fishburn, Copperman,
    Dammiani, Strecker, Enrico, Miller, Caldwell and others have come to
    the realization that the technology part of this firm is on the right
    track to being really fixed and that explosive growth is just a nudge
    around the corner.  Now it's time to fix the people situation.  And
    that's the piece that is *REALLY* broke.  You can blather on endlessly
    about teamwork and trust, but if your people don't see what's in it for
    them, don't expect them to listen.
    
    A Fortune 500 company was surveyed awhile back on employee attitudes
    (this is from the June 10, 1996 p. 137 article in Fortune by Tom
    Stewart).  Part of the survey asked workers about the company's
    statement of values- a fairly typical list of six articulated issues
    including quality, integrity, respect for  individuals, and
    profitability.  The survey asked employees whether they had heard about
    each of the values and if they believed that the company meant and did
    what it said-if it walked the talk.
    
    Nearly all the employees were aware of the company's value statement,
    but only 60% believed the company actually meant it.  Surprised by the
    the low numbers, Stewart, described the survey to a consultant who
    specialized in employee attitude surveys.  What he said shocked him: 
    "Those are really high scores"
    
    Face it, the management of Digital got their noses rubbed in it what
    the employee surveys came back to them.  We suck.  And that's joke. 
    So, this looks like an attempt at trying to get to the root causes
    here, why we aren't fully engaged, why we aren't blowing the numbers
    away, why we continue to languish while everyone is hitting the turbo's
    and blowing past us.  Face it, really face into the mirror and ask the
    big questions:
    
    		1.  Why are we here.
    
    		2.  How does what I do add to my personal vision for me.
    
    		3.  Where do we need to go in order to realize our dreams
    
    It's not about values.  It's about valuing the people on the oar's. 
    The drum keeps beating, and the fleet admiral wants to go water skiing
    in 15 minutes.
    
    Mav

	RE: .20 & .23, my participation in a focus group

	The moderator specifically said there would not be
	direct feedback to our particular group. Rather, the
	input of all groups would be pooled and incorporated
	into the document on the "New Partnership".

I believe it's a good sign that this new "partnership" with
employees is being tried. Sure, maybe it won't work, but it's
our best bet so far that upper management sees the problems
in the trenchs. You either keep trying or give up. I'd rather
we keep trying. liesl

    Introduction states that the intro message was destined for all
    employees. I haven't seen anything of this kind and so haven't many of
    my european colleagues.
    
    Focus Groups have been formed to discuss the New Partnerschip
    through random selection of employees worldwide
    
    I wonder what selection criteria have been used and who picked the
    members of the focus groups ????
    
    I don't trust this show at all
    
    Frans

    I'm in Finland, which is in Europe (for those who might not know ;-), and 
    I got the memo in .0.
    
    I have, however, no idea whether anyone around here have seen anything
    else besides the memo (actually, I don't even know if anyone else got
    the memo ;-).
    
    ...petri

    I have been with Digital for almost 29 years.  I still have faith in
    the company regarding the employees and products.  But I am losing
    faith in our management fast.  I have read the orginal memo several
    times, Since it talks about a " New Partnership ",  I realized that the
    orginal group to put the framework together were all management.  It
    alos appears that the first set of "foucs groups have been  held with key 
    managers across the divisions and functions to discuss how business 
    strategies impact their organizations and management of people".
    
    Strange that the effort to create the framework for a new partnership
    with employees would not include non management employees.  Maybe it
    did and they were just not mentioned. I would like to think
    that these senior managers would have solicitied non-management
    employees to be on the task force but it does not appear that way.
    
    I hope it works.  I hope I get invited to one of the foucs groups.  And
    I hope I hit the lottery in North Carolina!  Oh I forgot we do not have
    a lotter in North Carolina.  Well maybe I will win anyway!
    
    regards
    
    Jim  
                                                         

    That is interesting, James.  One of the themes in this meeting [very
    much a consensus, save 1], is that when you begin taking away the
    benefits of long-term employment, the loyalty employees have
    experienced towards this company is also lost.  Having said that, when
    all is down to the wire, if the pay isn't there, folks won't stay.
    
    Nancy
    

I have noticed that loyalty is often not valued here. It seems that 
the company does not realise the value that they get from this. 
Thinks like to willingness to do that bit extra, work the extra time. 
Plus the belief that these employees have that the company is good to 
work for, deal with and has good products.

Many contractors just don't care, their attitude is come in at 9 
leave at 5 and to hell with anything I just get a job elsewhere.

My 2 cents

Des

I thought it was odd that this message came from a list of people headed
by Charlie Christ, rather than from Bob Palmer.  My first thought was:
"Is this an indication of who the next President of the company may be?"
It seemed to make sense in that the announcement of the FY96 results
would mark the 4th anniversary of the Palmer announcement, and all the
rumored massive layoffs (which seem not to have happened so far) could
be Bob's last task for the BOD.  And Palmer has improved results mainly
by cutting costs so far, whereas Christ seems to have more of a growth
and new markets orientation.


Then i noticed that the list was in alphabetical order, and that Christ
preceded the other names by that collating sequence.  Another theory
down the drain. %-]

Trying to figure out what's going on around here does make one feel
some empathy for the State Department "Kremlin watchers" during the
Cold War though.  Maybe tarot cards would help??

re: .33

>when all is down to the wire, if the pay isn't there, folks won't stay.
    
At one point Marketing had some jargon in describing product features
that broke them down into Delighters, Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers, or
something like that.  The idea being that if you had feature X, it
might keep someone from being Dissatisfied, but it wouldn't necessarily
make them Satisfied or Delighted.  Reasonable/competitive pay is like
that to some extent, especially when the economy is NOT in the dumps.
You have to have it but by itself it won't make people super happy.

So on the other hand, if you had all the features like X covered, your
product might just be one of many that Dissatisfied nobody but also
didn't really stand out.  If you had another feature Y (like lower
price) that made people feel actually Satisfied to buy your product
versus others, that was big advantage.  And if you also had feature Z
that positively Delighted customers because it was so unique and
qualitatively superior, then you would have not just customers but
evangelists--fanatically loyal customers.

At one time i think Digital provided some Delighters to the people
who worked here.  The kind of loyalty it got in return bordered on
the fanatical in many cases.  I'd like to see the New Partnership
address this, as well as hopefully getting rid of the Dissatisfiers
like perpetual job insecurity and shrinking benefits.

- paul

Re .36:

The notion that inferior pay is a Dissatisfier, but superior pay is not a
(long-term) Delighter, is contained in "Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory". 
(A tidbit from a short management course which I took a dozen years ago).

I think that analogy is non-obvious; the theory dates back to only the late
50's/early 60's.  Maybe you know all about this stuff, Paul (I don't).  If not,
you might be interested in what you find by grabbing a comprehensive book on
Management and discovering what they have to say about "hygiene" in the index.
				/AHM

I recently heard a senior VP say that pay was one of the lower level factors 
that caused people to stay.  I got the impression that there was no intent to 
pay what was fair and equitable, but to attempt other non-financial initiatives
in lieu of additional compensation.  The "New Partnership" feels like a
non-financial initiative to minimize compensation increases.

Jim

    I'm sure then that the VP would be willing to take a pay cut and come down
    to my level so that we can be be just as happy!
    
    ;^)