Conference 7.286::digital

    A long time ago,the rule was that you could not be called 'manager'
    unless you had a certain number of people working for you,otherwise you
    were called 'supervisor' (and even then,unless you had x number of
    employees reporting to you,you didn't even get *that* title) Now,that
    rule has gone the way of the high-button shoe for we have managers who
    have absolutely nobody beneath them but a secretary.
    
    Ken

    
    re: -1
    
>we have managers who
>    have absolutely nobody beneath them but a secretary.
 
    tony (please notice the smiley!)
    
    8*)

    Heard on the "grapevine" that after the latest round of promotions-- DEC 
    now has 73 Vice Presidents.... Interestingly Lockheed (mfg of Stealth
    Technology) has 1 VP.....                             <DICK>
    

  >  Heard on the "grapevine" that after the latest round of promotions-- DEC 
  >  now has 73 Vice Presidents.... Interestingly Lockheed (mfg of Stealth
  
    
    I wonder......does anyone know how many Consulting Engineers we have?
    
                   just-sittin-here-wonderin-up-a-storm
    
                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=g=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    re: .3
    
    > .... Interestingly Lockheed (mfg of Stealth) .... 1VP?
    
    Caution - that statement sounds like it may be "out of context".
    
    I strongly suspect Lockheed has a number of "VP's", it is a sizeable
    company.   The particular group/division responsible for the U2, SR71,
    and Stealth "thingies" is known as "the Skunk Works".   It is quite
    possible that division has only 1 VP.
    
    Just MHO
    
    j.

    recently,on CNN business news,it was reported that Lockheed *does* have
    only one VP company wide.
    
    Ken

re Note 1425.4 by CSG002::MILLER:

>     I wonder......does anyone know how many Consulting Engineers we have?
  
        I believe that it's somewhat over 400 (Consulting and
        higher).

        Bob

    ..it was also on 20/20-- only 1 VP--- many quality managers etc. BUT
    only 1 VP                           <DICK>

It is only fair to point out that in large companies it is common to have
a heirarchy like:

Senior V.P.
V.P
Director
Manager

In Digital we are missing the Director level so they've either got to
be managers or VPs.

We don't always miss the Director level. Every member of the SPRMC (south
pacific region Management Committee) is titled Director... I daresay there are
many others spread throughout the corporation.

q

    Re:3
    
    If there are only 73 VP's now, then the downsizing is operating
    throughout the tree.  When I joined the company in '87 I was
    told there were over 90!      
    
    Calvin

    I wonder if whatever the number is included our many kinda-VP's.
    You know, the sales and services types who were "brevetted" as
    VP's so that they could impress our customers on visits, etc.  I
    believe these guys are not Corporate "officers"...but may be
    wrong.  I'm talking about folks like Harry Eisengrein in Atlanta.
    
    In companies like Lockheed which are heavily "divisionalized", you
    may find few VP's, but don't forget that each division has a
    PRESIDENT.  I know when I worked for Aerojet General, there were
    very few VP's, but each of the 20!!! divisions had it's own prez.

    
    RE: .6 and .8,
    
    I too saw the programs that indicated only one V-P at Lockheed.  I
    looked them up on Standard and Poors, information which is public 
    and there are 32 individuals listed with the rank of Vice-President!
    Everything from Missiles and Space Division to Human Resources. Two were 
    listed as Executive Vice-Presidents.  Hey CNN and 20/20, What gives??
    
    
    KO  

    Here are the VPs I can find:
    
    Jack Smith		Win Hindle		Jim Osterhoff
    John Sims		Marty Hoffman		Bill Strecker
    Bill Demmer		Dom LaCava		David Stone
    Grant Saviers	P-C Falotti		Don Zereski
    Dick Poulsen	Russ Gullotti		Bob Palmer
    Bill Hanson		Peter Smith		Bill Johnson
    Bruce Ryan		Dick Farrahar		Frank McCabe
    Bill Heffner	Jim Cudmore		Henry Crouse
    Don Busiek		Dave Grainger		Bob Glorioso
    Dan Infante		George Chamberlain	Pat Cataldo
    Bill Steul		Claude Thomas		Bob Farquhar
    Dave Copeland	Robert Horne		Eli Lipcon
    Harvey Weiss	Ernst Wellhoener	Gary Eichhorn
    Henry Ancona	Bob Hughes		Ray Wood
    Dick Doerr		Gerald Bryant		Frank Bowden
    Al Hall		Rose Ann Giordano	Ron Hevey
    Bob Long		Harry Eisengren		Ron Eisenauer
    Alan Croll	`	Jay Atlas		Carol Bayley
    Bob Burke		Malcolm Jones		Al Pink
    Bob Russell		Sergio Giacoletto	Dick Esten
    Wolfgang Jaeger	John Alexanderson	David Barlow
    Geoff Shingles	Michel Ferreboeuf	Alberto Fresco
    
    
    I am sad to say that I think I have missed a few...
    
    P-A 

Re:        <<< Note 1425.14 by GVA02::HAKANSSON "Rock the boat..." >>>

>    Here are the VPs I can find:
    
>    I am sad to say that I think I have missed a few...
    
Charlotte Frederick and Charlie Christ, both recent promotions, are missing 
from your list...

-  David

    
    	From their 1990 annual report - GM's org chart is
    
    		   	     CEO
    			   President
    			Vice Chairman - 2
    			Executive VP  - 3
    			VP/Group exec - 7
    			  VP (plain)  - 36
    
    		Total number of employes = 761,400

Interesting statistics on the distribution of first letter of first names
of our VPs:

A:      XXXX                            B:      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
C:      XX                              D:      XXXXXXXXXXXX
E:      XX                              F:      XX
G:      XXXXX                           H:      XXXX
I:                                      J:      XXXXXX
K:                                      L:
M:      XXX                             N:
O:                                      P:      XXX
Q:                                      R:      XXXXXX
S:      X                               T
U;                                      V:
W:      XX                              X:
Y:                                      Z:

If your first name doesn't start with a "B" or "D", forget it.
Where's EEO when we really need it?   [just joking]

-steve-

    ...and Sharon Keillor......scary numbers.

    Another one missing....
    
    ............Ilene Jacobs, VP - Treasury
    
-- Linda
    

    From The New Yorker (2/23/91):
    
    "Nucor is said to have the smallest corporate headquarters of any
    Fortune 500 company. Nucor does business out of a fourth-floor suite
    the size of a group dental practice. At the time I first visited the
    headquarters, in March of 1988, Nucor owned twenty-two manufacturing
    plants, flung all over the United States. The plants made steel and
    steel products. There were a total of seventeen employees at Nucor's
    headquarters, including secretaries and the chairman and chief
    executive officer, F. Kenneth Iverson. That is, Nucor had a grand total
    of 0.8 corporate staff members per factory."

RE: .19

>    Another one missing....
    
Norm Goldberg

    Lou Gaviglia - North American Mfg.

    Mick Prokopis   promoted within the last two weeks reports to KO 

I think the number of VPs is a totally bogus issue.  Lockheed may or may
not have only one VP, Chase Manhattan undoubtedly has many hundreds, but
*SO WHAT*?

What does VP-ness at DEC mean?  I obviously doesn't mean you report straight
to KO.  Aren't there some VPs three levels beneath him?  The only thing I
can figure out is that they're allowed to sign off on some things that
non-VPs can't.

    re .22 .....well, we don't have to worry about Old Lou G.  At the rate
    we're closing plants, he'll be out of a job by next year.
    
    Re the levels of VP's .... I saw one break-out in another note that
    slowed FOUR!!! levels of VP just within the Storage Systems world.
    Now, that is ridiculous.
    
    ...but, on the other hand, maybe my chances are improving after all.

    For our next round of twenty or so new VP's, we should be obligated
    to recruit from Mexico or Hong Kong.  I hear that we can get them
    for around $30 a week...
    
    After all, Digital's first duty is to be competitive and stay
    in business.  And our VP's have simply priced themselves out
    of the marketplace.  We're dealing with a truly international
    economy in these times, so we have to keep an open mind about
    such things.
    
    Of course, we could be generous and allow some of the current
    set of upper management to transfer to those locations, and take
    a salary cut to bring them to the local exploitation level.  After
    all, in this way they could be thankful that they still have a job
    with Digital Equipment Corporation.
    
    Chris

    re .26:
>    For our next round of twenty or so new VP's, we should be obligated
>    to recruit from Mexico or Hong Kong.  I hear that we can get them
>    for around $30 a week...
    
    I don't know about Mexico, but that's clearly false for Hong Kong.
    In any case, our employees in both countries don't appreciate that
    comment, even if you were to put a smiley face after your statement.
    
    The compensation for middle to upper management in Hong Kong is in
    general competitive with, maybe even exceeds, the comparable positions
    in the US.  I wouldn't mind being paid Hong Kong scale for my level.
    
    --Simon
    

    re: .27
    
    >> I don't know about Mexico, but that's clearly false for Hong Kong.
    >> In any case, our employees in both countries don't appreciate that
    >> comment, even if you were to put a smiley face after your statement.
    
    Our employees in the U.S.A. don't "appreciate" losing their jobs
    to would-be employees in other countries (who most likely haven't
    even been hired yet), simply because the employees in those countries
    will accept a substantially lower wage.
    
    But that wasn't the point of my .26, and neither was humor.  The point
    is that it's fine and dandy when the troops on the lines in Burlington
    and Enfield and the other plants lose their jobs to Mexico and Hong
    Kong for financial breaks to the company, but why isn't the same true
    for the cushy higher-level jobs as well?  If it's cheaper to build
    the stuff there, why isn't it cheaper to move the whole kit-and-kaboodle
    as well, including management, marketing, support, etc., and at all
    levels right on up to VP?
    
    A previous noter had it right on when he/she said something similar
    to "someday the whole company will be a bunch of bean-counters and
    VP's, with everything else farmed out".  It's easy to remain silent
    now, but I'm reminded of the old story where one group after another
    is done away with until "then they came for me, and there was no one
    left to speak up".
    
    Chris
    

re .28: Sarcasm to make a point, not a joke
    
    Actually I was trying to be nice, because in reality I took umbrage at
    what I (mistakenly) perceived as an undertone of condescension.  Not
    being a regular reader of this conference, I missed your allusion to
    the "tax haven" topic which I didn't read (and still haven't read in
    its entirety).
    
    No, we employees in the US don't appreciate losing our jobs to
    countries with lower wage scales, and one of these days Spit Brook may
    have to learn to fear the software factories.  But I still resent the
    viewpoint, understandable though it be, that cheap labor overseas is
    the result of exploitation, as implied by the statement "the employees
    in those countries will accept a substantially lower wage."  Standards
    of living are different.  It's not a matter of "accepting" a lower
    wage; wages just are lower, on the average.
    
    Companies will seek lower costs in pursuit of higher profits.  That
    Digital follows the laws of economics, and takes jobs away from the US
    to give to other countries, is no reason to cast aspersions on citizens
    of other countries, many of whom read this file even if they don't
    write.  (I know that was neither your point nor your intent.)
    
    You asked: Why don't we move whole operations off-shore?  It may come
    to that.  We did that with terminals, for example.  What we can't move
    easily if at all is the Services part of the company, at least not as
    long as human contact is required.
    
    Why can't we move the VPs to other countries?  I dunno.  Maybe we don't
    need so many VPs ...  (but isn't there already a topic on that?)
    
    --Simon
    

    
    
    Re: the last few
    
    Actually it's not the state of the company that is causing most
    of the problem.  It's the state of the world.
    
    This provincial mindset of US vs Japan, or Korea, or Mexico or
    wherever else is going to do us in if we don't wake up and smell
    the coffee.  Immediately after WWII, the US economy WAS the
    world economy for all intents and purposes.  There was NO
    significant industrial capacity outside of the US and Canada.  It
    had all been blown up.  We could sell *anything* without regard to
    quality because we were just about the only country that *had*
    anything to sell.  Based on that and the consumption of a large
    percentage of the rest of the world's natural resources needed to
    feed that industrial capacity, we built a standard of living well
    above the standard of the rest of the world.  
    
    Over the last 46 years since WWII ended, the rest of the world has
    been catching up.  First Europe, then Japan and Taiwan, now Korea,
    and China, and India and ...  Whether any of us want to admit it
    or not, part of our standard of living was contributed to by their
    lack of it.  What do you think OPEC was all about anyway?
    
    The living standard is going to equal out.  OURS WILL DROP AND 
    THEIRS WILL COME UP.  There was a comment earlier about how much
    "I've worked for" and not wanting to give it up.  Well much of that
    had *nothing* to do with what work you did.  It had to do with living
    in a country that had a *big* advantage over all the others.  I would
    like to see the results of all *your* hard work if you'd been born
    to a poor family in Bombay or Rio de Janeiro.
    
    The other countries some of you are resenting so much are working their
    butts off to improve their lives.  They're not asking for handouts. 
    They're working for it. Frankly they are far from stupid.  They quickly
    caught on that if  they wanted a significantly improved standard of
    living then they were going to have to build an economy to sell
    products to the rest of the world and they are doing it.
    
    So what's my point?  It's simple.  It is now a world economy.  It
    is spread out over continents not just the USA.  Neither Digital nor
    the US government can do squat about that.  While you waste your
    energy fussing and complaining about these issues, workers in Japan,
    Korea, China, India ... are working at figuring out how to sell
    new products and attract new customers because they learned long
    ago, the hard way, that fussing doesn't put food on the table.
    
    Digital has to learn to compete and to play by the rules of a world
    economy that is dictating the rules.  None of us have to like it,
    but we have to figure out how to survive under those rules.
    
    Stop fussing and start helping figure out how.
    
    Steve
    

    re: .29
    
    Sarcasm typically misses its target and/or backfires in NOTES,
    so I should probably try to be more straightforward here, since
    there's still a misunderstanding here.  You're right, I was making
    some assumptions regarding the contents of other notes in the
    conference (which is where much of the background for my original
    note came from), but that's not the whole story.
    
    I'm not blaming or insulting or casting aspersions on those folks
    in other countries who are trying to live their lives and provide
    for themselves and their families.  Far from it; a couple of
    generations ago, my ancestors were doing the same thing, and their
    hard work and courage are completely responsible for any "success"
    I might enjoy today.
    
    I *am* casting aspersions on American management who I feel are taking
    advantage of the living conditions and lifestyles in other nations,
    to offer those people less money for the identical job as they would
    be paying in the U.S., with the ultimate goal of lining their
    pockets even thicker and fattening their ranks.  I call this
    exploitation of these people because the executives are knowingly
    and greedily taking advantage of these people in this manner.
    I'm *not* blaming the troops in the other countries for this;
    they're just trying to make a life, as I said.  I do blame the
    "movers and shakers" for shamelessly taking advantage of the
    current unequal distribution of wealth in the world today, to
    make sure that they get even more of it, and all the while
    their own cushy little jobs are in no jeopardy at all.
    
    The statement "the employees in those countries will accept a
    substantially lower wage" wasn't a slam at them, it was verbal
    shorthand for stating that the salary they'll be offered, even
    though it's lower than the U.S. salary for the equivalent job,
    is acceptable because it's the prevailing wage in that region
    for the prevailing standard of living.  It wasn't a reflection
    of their values or their judgment.  For that matter, they're
    probably no more aware or concerned of this than I am of the
    fact that someone in another group or company is probably earning
    more than me for doing my same job.  The point is, who's the
    real beneficiary of all this (i.e., the upper-level types making
    these decisions whose own jobs aren't threatened), and what's
    their motivation and long-term agenda?
    
    That was the point.  No offense to the workers in other countries
    was intended or implied.  Major offense to upper management types
    *was* both intended and implied!  It's certainly not limited to Digital
    management, for that matter, or high-tech.  It's gotten so rampant
    that it threatens the U.S. economy, both short and long term.
    
    A lot of all this depends on where each individual likes to draw
    their own provincial boundaries.  Some of us see themselves as
    "citizens of the Earth", and as such all of this becomes trivial,
    because in the end, entropy will win out and we'll all be the same.
    Others are more nationalistic (especially around this time of year
    when we send our tax forms not to the U.N., but to the U.S. Infernal
    Revenue Servits), and see this sort of thing as yet another hit
    to a U.S. which has been heading ever-more-rapidly down the commode
    for the last couple of decades.  And still others get really ripped
    when their town loses a few jobs to the neighboring town, even within
    the same company.
    
    So ultimately, you were right in that there was an undertone of
    condescension in my original note, but it was directed at those
    who are exploiting the situation on this end, not at the troops
    in other countries.  Even *I'm* not paranoid enough to think that
    folks are sitting around in other countries figuring out how to
    take jobs away from America.
    
    BTW, one of the job areas that I forgot to mention as being the next
    to "go" was engineering; I guess I just couldn't bring myself to
    think of it.  Your mentioning of Spit Brook having to fear the
    software factories reminded me.  I fully expect this to happen
    before the mid-90's.  I can't help but wonder what happens when
    it gets to the point that we don't produce anything anymore?  After
    all, we can't *all* flip burgers!
    
    Many are saying that all of this is for the good of Digital.  But
    then, what is Digital?  I'm thinking more now of products being
    engineered and manufactured by other companies, rather than "merely"
    shifted around internally from one country to another.  What is
    Digital, if the Ultimate Digital of, say, the late 90's neither
    designs nor manufactures "its" equipment (and after all, isn't
    "equipment" our middle name)?  Is this Ultimate Digital, in whose
    behalf all of these recent moves and policies have been exercised,
    a very large middleman with a few hundred rich VP's and a handful
    of lower-level people glueing on nameplates and counting money?
    Is this supposed to be a noble thing, a goal of which to be proud,
    an objective toward which we should double and re-double our efforts?
    
    Chris

    re .30 ... Steve you put forth a very convincing argument.  I like it!
    I do, however, still have a major problem with management which takes
    advantage of low-wage countries not to survive, but to continue high
    levels of profitability.  I don't want my job sacrificed for higher
    margins... or to make some VP's stock option better.
    
    I think hardware engineering and manufacturing in DEC is dead meat NOW.
    It just hasn't really started to smell bad yet.  Software engineering
    is next, and the real impact is coming in 3-5 years when the distributed
    computing, multi-vendor, platform-independent brave new world is a
    reality.  We're going to see high quality, bug free, innovative
    products brought to market for 100 bucks, and we're not gonna know what
    hit us!  I just hope somebody still knows where the keys to ZKO are.

           <<< Note 1425.32 by DDIF::RALTO "Jethro in Wonderland" >>>
    
    >><< Is this Ultimate Digital, in whose behalf all of these recent
    moves and policies have been exercised, a very large middleman with a
    few hundred rich VP's and a handful of lower-level people glueing on
    nameplates and counting money? Is this supposed to be a noble thing, a
    goal of which to be proud, an objective toward which we should double
    and re-double our efforts?<<
    
    Is not the reality of this world such that many people who are
    motivated to "get into business" and "to run and manage" a business are
    doing so typically to get rich?  Will not acting nobly and "doing the
    right thing" impair getting and staying rich?
    
    Everything you ever needed to know about surviving in life you learned
    in kindergarten -- remember musical chairs?  We are what we are taught.
    

    re .33
    
    You're right about the cost of the software stuff. I was just at one of 
    those typical dec customers today. They are getting rid of their ole
    11750 and getting a "hot" Unix box to replace it. The cust said that
    they can get database software REALLY cheap for it. This cust is also
    the type who buys all kinds of foreign (cheap) gear and sticks it all
    over their machine. And then asks us to service it all! 
      One things for sure. We can't cut out all the workers and still keep
    them vp's around.
    
    				Steve M....

I hope the customer who traded in their VAX 11/750 for a UNIX machine was
well-informed by their Digital sales rep about our current and future VMS and
ULTRIX plans.  Converting from VMS to U*IX should be done if it's in the best
long-term interest of the customer, *not* because it's the "thing to do".

Let's sell the customer what they really need.

Paul

    re .35;

    The customer doesn't ASK us to service his hardware, he PAYS us to do
    it.  The sort of mixed hardware environment you describe is the way
    things are likely to be from here on in. If we want to stay in the
    hardware service business, we need to be able to service this sort of
    system at a competitive price.  There are others out there who will.

    re: .35, .37
    
    More than that, we sould be willing to continue collecting service
    revenue from this customer even though he no longer has an 11/750.
        John Sauter

    re.-2
    
     They do ask, and probably will continue to ask. But, we shouldn't just 
    take anything, should we? Is it always smart business practice to
    service anything anyone wants us to? 
     Also the customer WAS with CDC as a service vendor. He found and told
    us that we, as a vendor were better equipped to handle ALL of the
    equipment he had. We actually stock parts! 
     If I were a third party I would surely be willing to take anything 
    under contract, as long as it didn't need to be fixed with asap parts! 
    But as this cust. found out those promises are not always kept.
    
    
    				Steve m...

    re .36
    
    `Selling the customer what they really need.' comes across like
    arrogance.  It is better to sell the customer what she or he wants or says
    she or he wants.  I admit that it gets touchy when it is real clear
    that the customer is confused and is asking for something that doesn't
    solve the problem.
    
    It is very important to let all of our customers know our OPEN VMS
    plans, but there is nothing wrong with selling our RISC boxes either. 
    `Never let a VMS customer buy someone elses UNIX boxes' is a good way to
    look at it.  If the customer is on VMS and wants to switch to UNIX and
    I try to force VMS, she or he will call SUN or HP or UNISYS and they
    will gladly sell UNIX.  If they are unhappy with VMS I can usually fix
    the problem (even price), but if they feel a strong attraction to UNIX
    and are poorly informed about it, anything we say has the potential to
    come across as arrogant (we know better), defensive (we want to lock
    you in), or just plain stupid.
    
    And if the HP salesrep was already there, what do you think he said. 
    Perhaps something like, ``When you talk to Digital they will try to
    convince you that UNIX is no good.  That is cause they want you to stay
    on VMS.  And Digital's UNIX is not very good so they don't want you to
    buy that and throw it out later.  And besides the DEC rep doesn't even
    know what UNIX is.''  And then the DEC rep comes out and basically
    tells the customer that he (the customer) doesn't know what he is
    talking about and really will be sorry if he moves off of VMS.  And
    when the customer starts asking about our ULTRIX, he finds the rep is
    poorly informed, and all of that gives the HP rep credibility.
    
    `If the customer asks you to build a church, don't try to change his
    religion.'
    
    
    We need to be proactive with our VMS base and let them know about
    OPEN VMS, the new pricing, the future of the hardware p/p.  For new
    accounts we need to listen carefully and propose the best solution,
    often
    based on applications.  I have no doubt that VMS will be around for a
    long time and that it's growth rate will improve, but DEC's UNIX
    products need to grow at a much faster rate.  And above all, whenever
    you are with a customer *LISTEN*.
    
    joel
    
    

      But, what if the customer is talking with a VAR is he going to get
    better informed than if he was talking with a dec rep? 
    I doubt it. And most of the smaller systems customers are talking with
    these people. Is this part of the problem? 
      I wonder if the NEW Unix/vms box is going to be marketed by those
    same people!
    
    			steve M..

    re .35
    
    If the customer is looking at a UNIX hot box with a low cost database,
    make sure they consider the DS5000 with ULTRIX/SQL.  The 5000 is a very
    good performer & the RDBMS comes packaged at no extra charge with
    the ULTRIX operating system.
    
    Mark