Conference 7.286::digital

I also work in the U.S and have done so for eight years.  At JP&R time 
(actually about three weeks prior) I receive a DECtype template (soon to be 
WPS+) of a JP&R form.  I fill out all the factual information, such as 
accomplishments, kudos, percent to budget, etc.  I mail it to my manager who 
adds the subjective stuff and the overall evaluation.  We then meet to discuss 
it.  Included on the form is an area for me to post comments after the review 
and a box to check if I desire a conference with the next level of management.

If anyone is interested, I can post the form as a future reply to this note.

I am not forced to sign something that I don't agree with, I can have my own 
comments included in my personnel file, I can retain my own copy for 
verification, and I can elevate to the next level of management.

I don't see anything detrimental about this system.

			 [} Mike {] 

I thought I'd include the JP&R form anyway, just to stimulate discussion... 
:-)

		 [} Mike {] 












                    PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND GOAL SETTING 

                                    FOR 

                                     > 



        BADGE NO.: >                  REGION: > 
        COST CENTER: >                DISTRICT: > 
                                      GROUP: > 
                                      UNIT: > 

        JOB TITLE: > 

        APPRAISAL DATE: >             LAST APPRAISAL DATE: > 

        APPRAISAL PERIOD: > 



        EMPLOYEE'S SIGNATURE ___________________________________ 
                                                      DATE 


        MANAGER'S SIGNATURE ____________________________________ 
                                                      DATE 


        APPROVER'S SIGNATURE ___________________________________ 
                                                      DATE 


        PERSONNEL SIGNATURE ____________________________________ 
                                                      DATE 



        EMPLOYEE COMMENTS ATTACHED    YES >           NO > 

        EMPLOYEE WISHES TO REVIEW     YES >           NO > 
        THIS APPRAISAL WITH THE NEXT 
        LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT 









1.  Current assignment 

2.  Overall evaluation 

3.  Performance of goals 

4.  Feedback  from  those to whom service is provided (generally Sales 
    and SWS managers and customers) 

5.  Job skills 

6.  Personal development (own and others) 

7.  Performance of affirmative action goals 

8.  Flexibility and cooperation 

9.  Professionalism 

10. Adminstrative responsiveness 

11. Any other accomplishements 

12. Assignment for next period 

13. Goals for next period and longer term (career and business) 




All the note and response no 1 do is prove that there is NO standard
policy or that the one that exists can be implemented anyway your
manager(s) likes AND, you can bet your life that Personnel will back
him/her up....they don't like conflict....might is right.

Response to 27.1 (Mike on OVDVAX::KIER)

   	I have been with DEC 3 and a half years and I have never seen the
DECtype template shown in 27.2 which proves there is no standard as stated
by RHODES::PERRY in 27.3.  

   	The "form" we use here has no place for rebuttal and neither does
the one submitted by Mike in 27.2 which proves not that the system is fair
but rather that Mike has a fair boss.  This is my point - that the system is
unethical.  You can have an ethical boss in an unethical system which is what
has happened in Mike's case.  But, unfortunately, you can have an unethical
boss in an unethical system too.  But if the system is ethical, there should
be a mechanism (i.e. procedure) to handle an unethical boss.  I also feel that
all rebuttals or comments should be on the JP&R form and NOT (as Mike 
suggested) inserted in the personnell file where they can be "lost".

   	During my reviews, I have never been offered the opportunity to take
my case to the next level of management.  Nevertheless, I feel that calling in
the next level of management would not work in any case since your supervisor's
boss will never take your side (as stated in 27.3).  Rather, I feel an unbiased
person - an arbitrator - should be called in.  Personnell can not do this since
they are funded by your cost center which is run by your boss.  Only a person
whose salary comes direct from corporate AND who is not in management AND who
is trained in labor/management relations can do it.

   	As far as being "forced to sign" I am referring to the fact that if
you don't sign you will be harassed by your boss -  the "system" has no 
mechanism to prevent this, i.e., there is no procedure for filing grievances.

   	Response to 27.2 - Even on Mike's form I still don't see a statement
as to why you are signing this document.  It should say:

   	Witnessed on DATE:_____________  by EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE:__________.

With no statement as to "why" you are signing it could be construed that you
are signing it because you agree.

   							Dave

There is a "Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual" (part # EZ-N0437-91) which
is available from Publishing and Circulation Services, mailstop NRO3-1/W03,
Order Processing. The U.S. version states "Any employee who is not inluded in 
this distribution process may order updates from Printing and Circulation 
Services". Further,  "Any employee may order a Personnel Manual and/or updates 
and all Digital Employees should have access to the Personnel Policies and 
Procedures Manual."  "It is the responsibility of each Manager and Supervisor 
and the Personnel Organization to administer these policies in a consistent 
and impartial manner."

The quotes are from the introductory memo from Geoff Sackman, Corporate 
Personnel Dept.

Section 3.03 specifically addresses Salary Reviews. 

Also, section 6.0 addresses "Employee Relations Philosophy" stating in part
"Employee Communication" - an open two-way communication process is essential 
for positive employee relations. It is the basis for upward, downward and 
lateral communication. Employee communication supports Company philosophies 
and helps to meet business objectives. It is a management responsibility to 
build and support an environment conducive to the open exchange of 
information."

The scope of section 6.0 is WORLDWIDE and was last updated 6 Feb 84.


On a personal note, in my 15+ years with DEC, I have had occassion to disagree 
with my reviews as well. 95% of the time I have been able to argue my case 
favorably, the system has worked well for me, but I had to do the research to 
support my views.

	- Bill

RE: .0	Absolutely incredible!!!! I have never heard anything like it
	in my 2+3 (I left and came back) years with DEC.

	I have had 4 jobs and maybe 8 managers during my time at DEC
	and my reviews have always been of the type where my boss and
	I did our own thing and then compared them. Ironing out the
	differences if any. I love the review process that I've been
	exposed to.

	Are you sure you work for DEC? :-)

Alfred

Unfortunately, I see what happened to .0 quite a bit from where I sit.  
Depending on how much the personnel rep likes the manager, things can go 
from bad to worse.

let me add my two cents here.

reading .0 and rereading it makes me think that you are not happy.
(your last sentence is enough clear)

KO's *FIRST* goal is to have people working in his company with PLEASURE and
without TROUBLE.

His main will is Employee Satisfaction, BEFORE Customer Satisfaction !

I have always discussed with my manager when we filled the forms, and when
I was not ok with him, we didn't write anything down till we agree. (note the
"we").

What I suggest you is to go and see your manager and tell him what you wrote
in .0 (if you didn't do it before) and tell him as well that you are not
working in good conditions as you consider the JP&R as a contract more than
a gentleman agreement.

Didier

I think I now have enough responses to formulate a theory.

Two of the respondees (.3 and .7) seemed to comfirm my experiences while the 
rest did not.  If I add to the experience documented in .0 all my other 
experiences in my 15 years in the business (which includes 4 companies and 
over 17 bosses) I find that there is a simple explanation:

All the companies I have worked for have policies and procedures which purport
to give rules for performance reviews which give the employee a say in the 
review.  

HOWEVER, NONE OF THE COMPANIES, INCLUDING DIGITAL,  HAVE PROVIDED A PROCEDURE 
TO GUARANTEE THAT THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED.  

Compliance, therefore is at the manager's discretion and some comply and some 
do not.  I have had compliant managers at other companies and some of the 
respondents to 27 have had compliant managers at DIGITAL.  

My purpose in writing 27 was not to complain but rather to solicit responses
to see how widespread this phenomenon is.  I am not happy at DIGITAL but then 
I have never been happy at any of the other companies I have worked at since 
they are all unethical.

As far as the "system" is concerned, I have to conclude that since I have 
benefitted from it I reluctantly am forced to support it.  In each case, I 
have left the company that has mistreated me and gone on to a better situation. 
My observation is that in the vast majority of cases, employees that left their
present job because of unethical treatment were better off in the long run.

I finish 27 with two conclusions:

DIGITAL IS THE SAME AS ALL OTHER COMPANIES IN THAT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE
MERELY GUIDELINES AND MANAGERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THEM.

IF A DIGITAL EMPLOYEE IS CONSIDERING TRANSFERRING TO ANOTHER GROUP I STRONGLY 
SUGGEST THAT S/HE CHECK TO SEE IF THAT GROUP IS FOLLOWING DIGITAL'S POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES OR NOT.

   								DAVE

> ...In  each case, I have left the company that has mistreated me and gone on
> to a better situation. 

I read from your statement that Digital is better than the last place and
that an even better place to work is on the horizon. Well, good luck. If
you find that place, please report back. 

We have to remember that we're dealing with human enterprises. No system
can guarantee decency, honesty, and adherence to policies. None. All systems,
business or political, rely on the good will of the participants. We have
policies that are supposed to ensure fair treatment and success for all
employees. The effective enforcement of those procedures rests with the boss's
boss or with an quasi-independent agency (Personnel).

I have to remember, too, that there are differences of style. Some bosses
can manage very effective organizations with little in the way of written
contracts. For others, it's essential that everything be put in writing.
If one is not sure, get it in writing. That way there are no surprises. If
a boss is not willing to put it in writing, then we've got a problem. It
might not be unethical, but it sure makes life uncomfortable. A good working
relationship depends on shared values (call that ethics, if you will). If
those shared values cannot be found or developed, then, as you say, it's
time to go.

Your last statement, checking about the quality of management in the new
group, is the absolutely the best advice one can give a job seeker. Get to
know the people, their styles and habits and methods. I have done that and,
as a result, I've stayed with the same group for more than four years. Simply
put, I've worked for bosses who have made decency and fair treatment of
employees a top priority.

kh
                                   -30-

Re: .10

>DIGITAL IS THE SAME AS ALL OTHER COMPANIES IN THAT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE
>MERELY GUIDELINES AND MANAGERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THEM.

Am I wrong, if I correct this as follow:

>DIGITAL IS NOT THE SAME AS ALL OTHER COMPANIES. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE\
>GUIDELINES AND MANAGERS ARE (at least) SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THEM.\

This, is just a question, to make the difference inbetween "what is" and "what
should be".

It rather seems to me, that you are accepting this situation as it is, and
that you consider this subject as "closed"...

Do not take this as a personal attak, but: 

as long as there will be somebody trying to put into practice THE DIGITAL
GUIDELINES, there still will be a small hope, to change something.

As soon as everybody stops hoping, then we can forget all our dreams, and 
step one way down, to the range of all other unknown and unsignificant
companies in the world.

Norbert (hoping)

I have never encountered a situation like .0 regarding performance reviews.

Some time before the review is to occur, my boss sends me a request for my
input to the next review.  My boss prepares the review, sends me a copy,
and we have a meeting to discuss what is said in the review, why, and to
correct any inaccurate statements.

This is how things usually occur.  There have been times when I've been too
busy to prepare review input, and my boss writes the review with no input
from me.  In all cases, though, I get to see the review and provide input
before it is signed.

Regarding the signature.  If I am unhappy with a review, I have a chance
to persuade my boss to change his wording in the one-on-one review meeting.
If my boss refuses to change the review, I may prepare an attachment stating
my views.  The attachment becomes part of the review.  The bottom of the
review looks like this:

    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |I have read this review; I am satisfied that my views have been|
    |incorporated into the body of this review.                     |
    |                                                               |
    |Employee's signature:  _____________________________           |
    |                                                               |
    |Reviewer's signature:  _____________________________           |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+

I can refuse to sign if my attachment hasn't been included in the review
document.

I have never encountered the situation in .0 where a review is prepared without
any input from the employee and the employee is ordered to sign it.  This
is totally against corporate policy.  I would refuse to sign such a document.
My first action would be to complain to local Personnel and to the reviewer's
boss.  If I didn't get any satisfaction there I would keep on escalating
the issue both through line management and through Personnel management until
I got the situation corrected.  It is precisely situations like this that
the Open Door Policy is designed to address.

--PSW

	I am relitively new with the company (going on 5 years).
I have been with the same group which has seen two supervisors,
and managers. And my review has been exactly like .0 has stated.
I have not even been informed before hand about when my review
is coming up. One day I just get called into converance given my
review which has already been signed by my supervisor and the
manager asked to read it, then asked to sign it without any input.
	However all my reviews have been more than what I expected
I have never had a complaint. But I do fear the day that something
might appear that I donot agree with. And I know of friends within
the group who have not recieved favorable reviews. And they can do
nothing about this. I even researched back a bit to find out how
long this group has been giving reviews like this and know one seems
to remember anything different. (one person in my group has a badge
no. in the 50's) So what can a person in my situation do??

	am confused

I have been with the company for just over 5 years, and, as I stated previously,
I have never encountered the situation in .0.  This seems to be a flagrant
violation of the rules for Performance Reviews as stated in the Policies
and Procedures manual (your Personnel Rep has a copy, and everybody is
entitled to read it).  You may be ASKED to sign it without any input, but
you are not REQUIRED to do so.  You have the right to put an addendum on
the review, and then at THAT point you are required to sign the ammended
review.  The signature is to indicate that you have seen the review and made
an addendum if you thought it was necessary.

I would consider behavior like this on the part of management to be grounds
for an appeal using the Open Door Policy--through parallel paths on line
and Personnel management, all the way up to K. O., if necessary.

--PSW

As an old timer (18 yrs with DEC) I have seen all kinds of managers and
all kinds of reviews at both ends of the spectrum.  In all cases there
has continued to be an effort at fairness, even if it had to be called
to someone's attention that things were not right.   

It is definately a company objective to have satisfied employees and
a fair review process wherein some agreement is reached.

I knew one case where the employees were asked to write up their review
and the manager signed it if it was at all rational!  The example given
wherein BOTH write up a review and resolve the differences is probably
a good idea for the FIRST review (between that particular pair) but is
too time consuming for subsequent reviews (by which time they will have
begun to understand each other's style and perceptions better).

	Rick Merrill

    Do yourself and your boss a favor...several weeks before your 
    review is due, put together a list of what you think your
    accomplishments were since your last review. If you want to, you
    might also incorporate targets for improvement. Present it to your
    boss and tell him/her "I know how busy you are, so I typed up a
    list of things which I hope will make it easier for you to do my
    review."
    
    I think you'd be surprised at how much of it gets used. I'm always
    looking through papers and memos I've kept regarding someone's work
    for their review. The more an employee can help with that, the easier
    it is for me to write the review. I also can spend more time evaluating
    their performance and making career suggestions.
    
    
   /SE
   

    re: .17--For several years I have written my own review.  My boss
    usually just censors it a bit and changes first person to second
    person.  Next time I'll write it in second person to save him the
    trouble.
        John Sauter

    I am 6.5 years with DEC. I have had 6 (maybe 7, I lose count) managers
    in that time. In all but one case, I have 1) provided details and
    "attaboys" on my performance over the period,2) reviewed the report
    before it was submitted, 3) Met over the differences of opinion.
    In one or two cases I've written my own reviews (where the manager
    was new, and I really DID have a better idea than s/he).
    
    I has always been a grave thing to REFUSE to sign a review - a matter
    not taken lightly. To refuse is to say to personnel "My opinion
    on this review is sufficiently contradictory from my manager's that
    it cannot be reconciled". I have taken this route only once, the
    instance where I had not been given the review before it had been
    submitted. In this case: 1) The "goals" portion of the review were
    modified, 2) I included a statement giving my view, and why (as
    diplomatically as possible) I thought my manager was incorrect, 3)
    Obtained as part of the review that I would be re-reviewed after
    6 months (the reason for inaccuracy in the review, I held, was that
    the manager had only been around for 6 months). That was 15 months
    ago; I'm still working for the same manager (but have been promoted
    since!)
    
    Personnel [here] takes the employee's refusal to sign a review VERY
    seriously.

Ahh Gi'day...

    I have  no trouble not signing Performance Appraisals, I haven't signed
    one since Jan 20th, 1982.
		 
	      {dennis{{{ -- But, I haven't had one to sign :-)

Employees are not requested or required to sign their reviews in our 
organization. In my 8+ years at Digital I have never been asked to sign my 
review.....sounds a bit inconsistent with some other organizations....eh?

jim

    not only that, but a manager once met with me and told me about
    my review submission. I got my raise.  No signature, though -- I
    never heard of the practice.  Then the following year a new manager
    told me that he would try to raise my previous review because the
    old manager was obviously out of line.  Huh?  Turns out that the
    old manager told me one thing and submitted two points lower to
    personnel!  
    
    Like I say, no signatures are required across the company.  Might
    be a good idea, though.

    re: -.1
    
    ahem, that's what pay stubs are for...

        I have on two occasions registered an objection with the personnel
        department regarding my review, their response was to um and
        ah and say it is all in my manager's hands. I have another
        review due to happen tomorrow and it should be interesting
        to see what comes of it.
        
        q

Reading the responses to this topic are amazing...  I've been at DEC over
10 years and can't complain about the revue process either.  I've always
been asked to and signed my reviews.  As I look back I guess there may have
been cases where a phrase or two might have been worded differently, but it
never even occured to me to complain since I was satisfied with the overall
content.

Anyhow, I have to agree with eralier replies about using the system.  If I had
a problem I'd immediately go to personnel and follow the chain up.  As you
climb the ladder and encounter those who aren't helpful, climb higher.  Don't
be afraid to start sending memos and BE SURE to copy people's bosses in the
process.  Above all, save all correspondences and feel free to forward them
to show that you're working with the system. I'm sure it would never get to the
point where you have to send a complaint to a VP and copy KEN, but if you did
it would surely get some attention! 

However, the key is professionalism.  You have to very carefully word your
memos.  Above all, try not to flame.  It'll only make you look like a jerk and
strengthens your boss' case against you.

-mark

	I guess the "Open-Door-Policy" must not apply to electronic mail.
    If it did, then you wouldn't need to CC all intervening management
    everytime you wanted to send a memo to a high-level DEC manager.
    Everyone "knows" that to send a memo to a higher level manager without
    CC's, is like committing suicide.

    	If the same electronic mail practices were applied to verbal
    communication, then you would have to open all of intermediate manager's
    doors first, before walking in to talk to someone above them (in effect
    call a meeting).

						-DAV0

< Note 27.28 by CSTVAX::MCLURE "Vaxnote your way to ubiquity" >

> If the same electronic mail practices were applied to verbal
> communication, then you would have to open all of intermediate manager's
> doors first, before walking in to talk to someone above them (in effect
> call a meeting).

  I'm confused, Dave.  I thought the idea was to escalate a 
  single level at a time, in which case each intermediate 
  manager has been CC'd, although not in real time.

  And it's certainly a good idea to continue to keep all
  the lower levels informed of your continuing actions,
  even if you're "not speaking to them" [:-)].

                                   Atlant

re: -1,

	Forgive me if I'm sounding punchy here, it's been a rough day!
    Maybe I don't quite understand what the "open door policy" implies.
    My interpretation (which is tricky without a Policies and Procedures
    manual), is that an employee should be encouraged to approach anyone
    in the corporation (regardless of level) to discuss problems or ideas
    of mutual interest to both the parties involved and the corporation.

	I figured that the reason most people don't do this is because
    they are afraid of BOTHERING someone (regardless of level), and not
    because they are specifically afraid of doing so without first bringing
    the issue up with everyone beneath the position of the inquired person.
    I frequently approach people (regardless of level) to discuss an idea,
    a problem, (etc.) when I feel the time is right (i.e. bump into them
    in the hall, locker room, cafeteria, or even in their office if they
    don't mind or are not too busy).  I assume this is what is meant by
    "open door policy".

	By this definition, it would be very hard to do the same thing
    with electronic mail, because there is no way of "bumping into them"
    or "seeing if they are busy" using mail.  That is why I feel the
    "open door policy" (if it does in fact exist) does not apply to
    electronic mail.  Vaxnotes is the only method of hoping to reach
    these folks over the network without breaking all of the unwritten
    rules concerning CC's.

						-DAV0

    My experience has been (quite recently, within the past 8 months)
    that the ODP does not extend to EM.  The general attitude seemed
    to be that if a higher manager was cc'd, then you didn't have enough
    trust in the lower manager (your own) to handle the problem, which
    then tended to get him po'd at your lack of trust *and* because
    *his* manager (the one cc'd) would call him to ask why the h***
    he was being cc'd on the matter.
    
    However, the ODP system *does* work & works well.  From my perspective,
    Digital always tries to do what is "right", despite an occasional
    bad manager along the way.  In that light, *save* all your EM's
    that are pertinent!
    
    Jon

	Excuse my jing-lish, but what is an "EM"?

							-DAV0

RE: .32
    EM is electronic mail
    

    I think the extent to which intervening levels of management should be
    informed depends on the nature of the topic.  If I have a wonderful new
    idea and want funding for it and happen to run into a VP who has money,
    I wouldn't pass up the opportunity to discuss it with him just because
    I haven't talked to my immediate manager yet.  If I sent him mail
    instead, however, I'd certainly CC my manager.  Probably wouldn't
    CC every single level of management in between us though.
    
    On the other hand, if I disagree with something my immediate manager
    has done and want to apply the ODP, I owe it to him to tell him I'm
    going to his boss about it before I actually go.  Not going behind his
    back is just simple courtesy as well as a method of ensuring continued
    membership in the salary continuation plan. (^; 
    
    					(^:	Positive Pat	:^)
    
    

    Re: .-1
    
    Jon -
    
    "From my perspective"......
    
    ARRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!! another MEACH-ISM!
    
    8^)}   Al

re: .32,

>    EM is electronic mail

	Thanks, I would have been stumped on that one for awhile I'm afraid.

	Seems like the practice would be to avoid bringing-up problem areas
    with higher-level management (good ideas only) without informing middle
    management layers in the process.  I guess I don't see anything wrong
    with this as long as employees are provided an atmosphere in which this
    sort of communication is encouraged.  To think that your job was on the
    line each time you participated in communications of this sort, would
    tend to discourage most communication and might lead to an atmosphere
    similar to the NASA management situation on the space-shuttle disaster.

	I guess my main point is that it's sure handy to have Vaxnotes
    around for maximizing communications without getting bogged down in
    red-tape and procedure (at least not yet).  We (the people who still
    have access to Vaxnotes) should all feel very lucky.

						-DAV0

    re .34
    
    How 'bout "of course, looking at it pragmatically...."
    

    Re: .35
    
    Dave (or should I say DAV0),
    
    I am planning to install VAX Notes in the OPF (Orbiter Processing
    Facility) at KSC (Kennedy Space Center) on Monday for LSOC (Lockheed
    Space Operations Company) as part of their PECS (Process Engineering
    Control System) project.  They have purchased a small VAXcluster
    to improve the office automation aspects of the shuttle flow
    (preparation for flight) with a variety of software including ALL-IN-1.
    
    They haven't purchased VAX Notes but I feel quite strongly that
    it will provide the communications that is badly needed among the
    various engineering groups working on the shuttle.
    
    We currently have a demo MicroVAX-II on the floor under the port
    wing of orbiter 102 (that's Columbia).  It's most defintely as close
    to a holy place as I've done an installation in.
    
    Don

re: -1,

>    Dave (or should I say DAV0),

	Either one is fine; just remember, there are a million Daves out
    there, but as far as I know, only one DAV0.  There is even another
    David McClure that works for DEC (note the extra "C" - this is the
    only way to tell us apart), poor guy...anyway, I suppose I should
    enter an introductory essay about myself in the WHOAREYOU notefile
    sometime to help explain this bizzare nickname.

>    I am planning to install VAX Notes in the OPF (Orbiter Processing
>    Facility) at KSC (Kennedy Space Center) on Monday for LSOC (Lockheed
>    Space Operations Company) as part of their PECS (Process Engineering
>    Control System) project....

	Excellent!  I hope they buy it!  It's exactly what they need!  It's
    nice to know that you're working with the project Don, maybe there is a
    hope for our future in space after all!  I imagine that, up to now, NASA
    has been limited to mere electronic mail for inter-departmental communi-
    cations (if even that).

>    We currently have a demo MicroVAX-II on the floor under the port
>    wing of orbiter 102 (that's Columbia).  It's most defintely as close
>    to a holy place as I've done an installation in.

	I have worshipped this temple many times myself (from afar); maybe
    someday I will visit mecca myself (especially if they ever buy any DEC
    printers or plotters that they need help with in the future).

							-DAV0

    Given that we are digressing from the topic at hand and, indeed,
    the purpose of this conference I feel that we should stop the
    discussion of the KSC systems.
    
    I have opened a topic (191) in the PYRITE::SPACE conference discussing
    this situation.
    
    In closing here, I have installed VAX Notes and the Lockheed senior
    manager indicated that they would purchase VAX Notes after seeing
    the demo.  It's not real clear that they fully see the potential
    the way we do.
    
    I plan to keep helping them find the RIGHT direction.
    
    Positively don

	Yay Don!  I'll have to add that one to my list of conferences!

	Now, back to the dirt...who's next?

							-DAV0

    I wanted to let people know that I deleted note 27.26. I wrote
    it when I was tired and hope it didn't cause any problems. In
    the past have been treated more than fairly and chose an isolated
    case to to weight my thoughts. It was unfair and unnecessary.
    Digital is one of the best, if not the best company's to work
    for and that should not be overshadowed by an already dead issue.
    thanks for your patients.
    
    sometimes opinionated dennis

    Earlier in this note there are references to JP&Rs.  I'm just about
    a year into Digital, but from experience as a manager in previous
    jobs I think Digital has a few lessons to learn about the ethics
    of dealing with employees.
    
    To my mind there are certain fundamentals;-
    
      - staff should be told how their performance will be measured
        before an activity starts - it's not ethical to see how it went
        and to then decide if it was good or not.
        
      - review is a constant process so it's not fair to hit someone
        with with a fresh criticism during their JP&R and then tell
        them that it's been a problem for some time - that's just covering
        up your own inadequacy.
        
      - if an employee refutes a criticism then an example needs to
        be cited (if only to get him / her to accept that there is a problem
        that needs to be addressed).  If you find yourself saying "take
        my word for it" then perhaps you should consider if you are
        cut out for the job.
    
      - ask the employee what more there is that you could / should
        have done to assist.  If you can't bring yourself to do this
        then again you should consider where your career is going.
    
      - get your own attitude of mind right before doing the JP&R. 
        It's quite sobering to spend half an hour reviewing your own
        performance before reviewing someonelse's.
    
    Anyone dissagree ? 

    Well said.
    

All employees 

Step A:  are expected to do a "good job."

If   you are not doing a "good job," 

then   your immediate supervisor has the responsibility of 
       - telling you that you are not doing a "good job"
       - telling you what it is you are doing wrong, 
   and - working out an action plan to get you back to doing a "good job."   

else  he/she is not doing a "good job."

Once you have been told what is required to do a "good job," 
then GOTO Step A.   

8-)

FWIW, in every position, in every company that I have worked for, I always 
take my reveiw home, read it over many times, sleep on it, and then put 
my own comments on the form in the morning.  You work all year for that 
review... it deserves more than just a routine signature.

Bob

    !! DITTO !!  
    
    
    
    
    bj