Conference 7.286::digital

    The term "human resource" or just "resource" is used far more widely
    than just at DEC.
    
    Since I know what I am (your view may differ), I don't get upset
    by the term, but I don't like it either.

    I don't believe there is a contradiction between resource and person. 
    You are a person and you act as a resource. The terminology can
    coexist.
    
    Marge, a person who acts as a resource to her management.

    Notice how Karl just slips in with my current personal name...for
    shame Karl!
    
    Actually, I have heard people referred to as "Human resources",
    and have to admit that this is a concept highly adapted to the
    military.
    
    In the service, if one person goes away, anyone else of the same
    or similar rank or rate and area of expertise is supposed to be
    able to fill in for them.
    
    Truly, the way the military considers reserve units is that if
    a disaster happens, the first objective is to get all the  
    "warm bodies" (the reservists) into action.  It doesn't matter
    what jobs they have been trained for, they will be used for something
    ...period.

    This is a good subject to bring up Karl.  Some of us who may go
    into management some day should seriously consider the social
    implications of referring to high powered, highly motivated
    professionals as resources (since we are them now *;'}).
    
    Doug                                                   

    with some trepidation i enter a thought, and perhaps a question
    or two.  
    
    i read, occasionally, several notes files, including MENNOTES,
    WOMANNOTES, DIGITAL, and several others.  what i find a lot of,
    and what i am curious about, are topics full of anger and hostility.
    
    this one is neither, but it seems to me to convey a certain kind
    of "sensitivity" that the angry/hostile ones also have.
    
    why are we bothered by catch phrases?  why is it important to some
    of us to be called just the right name, or not be called by another?
    what is offensive about "resource", for example?
    
    is it too simplistic to perform our tasks as well as we can, take
    our paychecks home to spend as we will, and get on with those things
    in life that are pleasant, or fun, or whatever they are?
    
    we seem, more and more to be a society of people with chips on our
    shoulders...just itchin' for someone to dare to knock them off.  we
    seem, to me, to actually go out of our way to be offended by someone,
    or something.  
    
    womannotes is so full of hostility that i wonder how some of it's
    active participants actually get along day to day.  mennotes is
    much the same, but to a lesser extent.  
    
    i suppose it's good to have places like these notes to sound off
    to, but, i still wonder why we feel such anxiety over life-events
    as we seem to.
    
    tony	who_probably_feels_anxious_too_(but_rarely)
    8*)

    Yes, in the military one can be called a resource because the ENTIRE
    person, body and soul, belongs to Uncle Sam.  Ever heard of the
    person who was charged with defacing government property because
    he attempted suicide.
    
    Obversely, I totally agree with the base note that we are people
    and not resources.  This whole thing goes along with our world of
    lowering everything to euphemisms such as outplacement (fired),
    death penalty (life in prison, maybe), life in prison (7 years),
    7 years in prison (suspended sentence/slap on wrist), human resource
    (person)................get it?
    
    Suchindran

        RE: .5 -- You been reading George Orwell?  Sounds like NewSpeak
        to me..
        
        Tom

    Never mind the term, as long as we can keep badges instead of asset
    stickers .-)

    re -.1:
    
    >giggling fits<

    I think the issue of terminology is real and valid to a certain extent.
    It also can be overdone. 
    
    Let me take an example. (I've discussed this example with my sister,
    the PhD clinical psychologist and expert on "women's issues", so I've
    been vetted to some extent. Your opinion may vary.):
    
    Does using the pronoun "he" exclusively instead of "she" or some other
    construction indicate an insensitivity to women's issues? Is the
    wording itself important? Or is the important issue the basic treatment
    of people, and the words are just "catch phrases" to bring the
    important issues forward again and again? 
    
    If one takes a very strong position in women's politics, then the
    "he"-"she" issue itself is important. However, that is not the moderate
    position even in women's politics. The moderate position is that the
    word is merely a symbol on which to repeatedly point out millennia of
    discrimination. Once one gets used to more gender-neutral language, the
    moderate theory goes, the resulting sensitivity will carry over into
    related areas. 
    
    I believe this moderate view is valid. I have been challenged to avoid
    the pronoun "he" for a day in all cases where no explicit gender
    reference is needed. I have succeeded, and my sister is now willing to
    let me go back to the traditionally-standard use of "he" for gender
    non-specific references. (She uses "she" and feels that alternating
    the usage or completely avoiding it is extremely clumsy.)
    
    This example is relevant in many other areas. Language is easy to focus
    on and discuss, and in many cases it does reflect assumptions that were
    valid at some time, if not today. By calling attention to an issue by
    means of the language used, very strong attention is focused on the
    issue.
    
    When the language changes as a result, but the underlying issue is not
    resolved, then further changes come about. A current example is Negro,
    to Black, to a present trend toward African American. Another example
    (in the other direction) was the Victorian tendency to avoid all sexual
    references so that even pianos and tables eventually had limbs and not
    legs. (This last has mostly, but not entirely, faded.)
    
    So the conclusion is, when you hear somebody complaining about the
    usage of certain words, look behind the obvious complaint to find the
    real issue. There undoubtedly is one, and it may very well be valid.
    
    Treating people as people, and not as interchangeable and expendable
    "resources" in the military style, is good policy. Now, are the
    "management resources" (joke, please) using the "resource" terminology
    treating their "resources" as humans or as non-humans? That is the real
    issue underlying the "resource" word. The issue is not the word itself.
    
    (Arguments will continue loudly and longly about whether the use of
    certain words contributes to the problem. I don't believe so; I believe
    the problem causes the usage. Your opinion may vary.)

    Re .-1
    
    In part I agree with the proposition that where people take issue
    with terminology they are really reflecting concern about an underlying
    problem.
    
    In isolation words have no emotional connotations, it is their usage
    and context which give emotional value - creating a wide range of
    "loaded" words. (An interesting but separate debate touched on in
    .-1 is whether "he/she" are loaded words).
                           
    The usage of the terminology "resource" for people obviously makes
    people uncomfortable - and does reflect the underlying management
    issue of how to effectively deploy people in a large organisation
    to meet business goals.
    
    In my opinion however this issue goes further. Yes the terminology
    masks the problem and yes the problem is unresolved. I believe the
    problem is unresolved (and unresolvable?) due to a clash of goals
    between the Digital "culture" and efficiency of the business. From
    this standpoint one or other has to give.
    
    Could it be that the adoption of the terminology "resource" as applied
    to people already allows people issues to be buried for the sake
    of the business and that it's continued usage and acceptance is in
    fact signalling deep rooted (unconscious?) changes occuring in
    Digital's culture?  
    
    Just one thin end of the wedge?
    
    I value being ME (warts and all).
    
    This "resource" usage is depersonalising and of deep concern.
                            
    Let's counsel management on these concerns at EVERY opportunity.
    
    David                                                       
    
    
     
                  
    

        In  reading this note I saw the topic get lost  and  laughed  at.
        Now this is a serious topic and believe important to people.  The
        problem as I see it to be from the misuse of the American form of
        English [SLANG].  I will state for myself I don't really care how
        I'm called  basically,  as  long as I get my pay check every week
        and except for  one  intense.    My first name is 'RICHARD' and I
        have been called 'DICK', I don't like at all and refuse to answer
        to it no matter you  it  is.    I  do however, give the person or
        group a warning before ingoring them.

        The reference of the miltary's attitude towards it's personnel is
        quite true.  This I know first hand  as a tech school mate I know
        was served a "Article 15" for having a sun burn [KIND OF A FINE].
        You do lose some of your civil rights, which I don't support, but
        is with us.

        I don't want to make to much about this topic, but  again I think
        this is important.


                                                        Regards,

                                                          Rich

    Webster's on "resource":
    
    	1 a : a source of supply or support : an available means
    	  d : a source of information or expertise
    
    Aren't employees an available means of getting work done?  When a
    manager is managing their employees, they need to deal with them as
    people.  But when somebody is planning a project, they need to figure
    out everything they need to put together for that project -- they need
    computers, they need materials, and they need people. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

re: < Note 769.12 by BEING::POSTPISCHIL "Always mount a scratch monkey." >


>    Webster's on "resource":
>    
>    	1 a : a source of supply or support : an available means
>    	  d : a source of information or expertise

Note especially edp's secondary definition. When I use the term "resource", I
DON'T use it synonymously with "person". To me, the term resource, in relation
to personnel, implies a lot more than a "warm body" - it means an appropriate
individual for the task at hand. As a manager, when I say that I either have,
or lack, the resources to accomplish a task, I mean it in terms of people
who can do the job. I often have sufficient people, but not with the right
skill set to accomplish what needs to be done, therefore I lack the resources.
When I'm cleaning up the yard at home I need people, not resources.

-Jack

        The saying is attributed to Grace Hopper, Admiral USN retired
        and now a Digital employee.  I think it expresses it well.
        
        Tom

re: < Note 769.7 by BISTRO::WLODEK "Network pathologist." >
    
:                             -< Cheer up, could be worse. >-
:
:
:    Never mind the term, as long as we can keep badges instead of asset
:    stickers .-)
:


    			What's the difference?
    
    -147210-

    Euphamisims seem to abound in the business world today:
    
          - old -                    - new -
    
        Person/People           Resource/Resources
    
        Personnel               Human Resources

        Insurance               Risk Management

        Unpopular or
        bad decision            Business Decision
    
        Staff Size              Headcount
    
        Pay                     Compensation
    
        Leader                      ???
    
        You don't like
        what I'm telling you    Attitude Problem
    
        Beg the customer into   Managing The Survey Process
        giving all "10"'s on 
        a satisfaction survey
    
    
    I'm sure there are many others.
    
    It's just not at DEC, it's everywhere in business. It's almost
    as if yesterday's words and concepts are being tossed in favor of
    this newer, less personal "newspeak" (or doublespeak, take your
    pick). I hear people hawking informative books on the radio...
    except now they call them a 'resource'. Yuk!
    
    I saw a memo one day filled with this kind of jargon and could
    not come up with any tangable explanation of what the author
    was trying to get across to me. This really isn't good, folkes.

    It's increasingly appearant that we are less valued as
    individuals than ever before, and the problem is bigger than
    DEC itself. And as management focus (how's that for a term?)
    shifts away from individuals and specific problems to more
    attention towards 'resource management'(people) and
    'performance metrics' (numbers) this insensitivity will only
    grow.
    
        
    Lee

    The place where I worked in 1978 (NOT Digital) was, like everything
    else in Massachusetts, shut down for an entire week by the Blizzard.
    The VP/GM decided to try and make up the lost productivity by having
    people work two weekends that spring.  The memo he wrote directing
    management to set it up included instructions telling the managers to
    "work your people" on the specified days. 
    
    He was no wordsmith, but I was incensed by the language (not to mention
    the instructions!).  *Slaves* you work.  Also, to my way of thinking,
    we worked for the company, not for our managers.  There was an implicit
    attitude in the memo, which I cannot capture, that the managers were
    somehow members of the corporation, but that employees were not. 

    
    	   I am a resource of the company.  the knowledge I acquired
    	before and during my stint with DEC is the commodity which gives
    	that resource value.  The company guards that resource, to some
    	extent, just as it guards almost any asset.
    
    	   I feel no degradation in acknowledging my resource status.
    	It is simply a term used to describe vague concepts of value.
    
    	- Greg

Quite a collection of thoughts, y'all...

.19 is really interesting to me because I have a very different view
of my contribution to Digital.

>    	   I am a resource of the company.  the knowledge I acquired
>   	before and during my stint with DEC is the commodity which gives
>    	that resource value.  The company guards that resource, to some
>    	extent, just as it guards almost any asset.

It is certainly within your rights to feel this way about being a
"resource."  In addition to knowledge, though, I bet you bring much
more to your job:  judgement, aptitude, outlook, and other things as
well.  Those things add value to you as an employee.  Just one other
reminder:  you are a MEMBER of the company.  Without people, Digital
does not exist. Or if it did, NOTES wouldn't be nearly as interesting.;^)

Employees can certainly act as resources.  That happens all the time.
However, what raised my consciousness to the semantic issue was when
I noticed that (here in the field, anyway) virtually _every_ conversation,
request, message, etc, by and from management talked about people ONLY
as "resources."  Within rounding error of 100%. 

I am a basically reasonable person and if this were a once-in-a-while
thing, I would hardly have put this note here.  It is non-stop, though. In
.0 my first inclination was to philosophize on WHY it happened but decided
not to. Others have said most of the things I would've mentioned. [FWIW, my
opinion is that it is psychologically easier on mgrs to assign/borrow a
"resource" than a human being.] 

>      	   I feel no degradation in acknowledging my resource status.

Maybe managers should feel degraded because they're NOT resources :^))

>    	It is simply a term used to describe vague concepts of value.

Well, it's certainly a term for human being here at DEC.  It seems reasonable
to say that there are vague concepts of value associated with people here,
so I guess you're right...<sigh>

I appreciate the discussion - thanks to all of you. 

K.

    HUMAN.RESOURCE
    ELECTRONIC.RESOURCE
    MECHANICAL.RESOURCE
    *.RESOURCE
    
    The equation is implicit.
    
    Wait until the library is renamed LEARNING CENTER

Are we not Capitalists? Does Capitalism not value Labor (read
us) as a resource on par with Land and Capital? It is only in 
worker's paradises, such as Denmark (socialistic) or the USSR 
(insert the the "C" word here), that workers are elevated to a 
higher status than that of a mere resource. Of course, it is also 
these worker's paradises that are going bankrupt or are being 
taxed to death...

Best regards from one such worker's paradise,

Geoff Rummel

    Could drug testing be preventative maintenance for a resource?
    
    :-)
    

Am I a company resource?  I hope so.  Why else am I here?

On the matter of euphemisms, I'm no strong fan of obfuscatory language,
or of hiding behind buzzwords that are meant to make the speaker
appear more knowledgable than he is, but some of the new catch phrases
are honest attempts to expand the underlying context.

From .17:
    
   Insurance  -->   Risk Management  - Indicating that you don't just
                                pay to fix thinks that got broken, you try
                                to help things from getting broken.
    
   Pay -->  Compensation - because it includes health benefits, employee 
                                activities, tuition reimbursement, etc.

and the infamous

   fired -->  Outplaced - because it includes not just letting go, but 
                 providing help in getting a new position, either by training,
                 job counseling, etc.


- tom]

    The responses have been interesting and spirited.  I'm going to
    add my 2 cents and see if I can't stir the pot even more.
    
    I believe at any given moment, each one of us is at a different
    point in our lives.  Whatever our experiences have been and what
    we've learned to date will be the basis for how we react.
    
    While some people may be bothered by being called a resource, others
    might think nothing of it.  And , if we are at that point where
    it doesn't bother us, we may not be LISTENING to what is said by
    those that it bothers.  We end up making a judgement based on our
    experiences (e.g....that doesn't bother me) and never really understand
    what the individual was saying.
    
    Sounds like maybe human resources needs to take a a poll and see
    how many people are really upset by being called a resource and
    work it if necessary.  (After all, if a town in Maine could pass
    legislation stating that  "Manhole covers" will now be called "Person
    covers" because certain people were upset, I don't see this as any
    less important ;^)  )
    
    And as individuals, if someone says something that bothers us, let
    them know in a nice way.  Most people will try if asked nicely.
    
    end of $.02
    
    /\/\  

    I was not really bothered by the change of name from "personnel"
    to "human resources", even if I'm rather sensitive to games people
    play with words ( like calling a failure at a review board as 
    "require development"). Maybe because I've learned about it from a
    friendly personnel rep ? She really stressed the "human" part of
    the new name and was proud of it.
    It is rather the fact that the name was changed, that puzzles me.
    What's the reason ? Not a slightest idea. New broom ? Old brooms
    went to a suggestive seminar ? Small scale cultural revolution ?

    In any case, as long as nobody addresses me by resource ( "Time to
    give resource a coffee.") I don't feel I lots any extra piece of
    personality yet.

Both sides could easily be right (and probably are).

You could use the term resource in a way that is offensive or
insensitive or even escapist, or you could use it constructively.

Blaming the word is probably avoiding the real issue.

- greg

    Why change the name Personnel?  Because everyone dumps on Personnel. 
    Let'm dump on Human Resources for a change!
    
    :^)
    Marge

    HUMAN.RESOURCE is a term that emerges from the successful attempt
    at systematizing existence.  It's another expense paremeter.

    Re: .31 
    
    Ahhh, I don't think you mean "expense parameter", I think you mean
    "equity resource parameter", TLAd to "ERP".

    I realize that employees are "resources" that can be allocated to
    a project as needed.  But I am uncomfortable with some of the
    implications of this dehumanizing term.
    
    As a resource, am I renewable?  Am I expendable?  Or am I precious?
    
    If my terminal breaks, I may just have to throw it away and get
    a new one.  As a resource, is my status any more permanent?  If
    I leave, will an external resource (a replacement hire) be applied 
    in my place?

    If my project gets in trouble, should someone apply more resources
    to get it back on track?
    
    Am I interchangeable with other resources in my job category?  Am
    I valued as unique, or am I just a cog in the machine?
    
    It seems to me that the term is insensitive, and I would be happier
    if it were not bandied about.

    
    
    Yes,I can see why some people might object to being called "resource"
    or some other term. But,looking at the "big picture",this seems
    to be a pretty minor thing.There are lots of things to concern
    ourselves with that are of greater importance.If being called a
    "resource" bothers you,then you'll probably spend your life being
    bothered by everything and miss out on a lot of good things.

    here..! here..!
    
    From My prespectivthe issue wasannt the term "Resourse" if used
    in the context of a asset or a measure of my value to Digi   .
    
    The sensitivity is in the trend to devaluate the person and to make
    the numerical managing of people easier or at least for the manager
    with a scrap of christianity left.!! 
    
    I am a field service engineer and the term "resourse" wasnt a negitive
    term until it was compared to the rate of growth per dollar.. Example
    
    How little Training, Advancement, Pay, Benifits were nessarry to
    develop a resourse before the resourse became unmanagable. Hense
    a replacment by a cheaper resourse reducing expence.
    
    The new digital is (At least at the lowest levels of managment)
    a collection of the "NEW BREED" where ethics are a tool to be used
    or discarded whenever its to the advantage. Individualality is less
    managable than your badge number. 
    
    Stirrrrrr em upp..!    Lets yell a little..!
    I honestly dont beleive all this,, yea right,.
    anyone have Jody Fosters address.
    

    It is my understanding that this 'problem' has been heard and is
    in the process of being solved...
    
    Rumor has it that the current xRC's - as in:
    
    			Manufacturing RESOURCE Center
    			Corporate Account RESOURCE Center
    			Engineering RESOURCE Center
    
    all of which consist of PEOPLE - are being moved into
    
    
    		COMPETENCY Centers
    
    Now, is someone going to start a note on who is/is_not competent?
    
    	-Barry-
    

    I think the issue is real and has to do with management's attitude
    towards employees. An example: I worked for someone who called everyone
    in the unit "worker bees". Well this was a revolting development. If that's
    all this manager (I'm being careful with my pronouns) thought of
    people, then no wonder we felt that there was little to no respect 
    and no concern for our thoughts/feelings. Whether "worker bee" or
    "resource", it is indicative of our highly replaceable nature in 
    the sales-support arena. Well I'd prefer to accentuate the unique
    and the value in each person rather than stress the negative, cog-like
    nature of things. It's up to us how we want to look at things. 
    
    erik

    Re: .37
    
    I've heard, on more than one occasion, the term "worker bee" be used
    favorably in contrast to "drone".  In fact, I've always considered the
    term to be a positive one referring to productive people.  I suppose it
    depends on the context in which it is used. 

The base note certainly seems to have raised some interest - 38 replies in one
week. But I feel most of the replies miss the real point behind Karl's
statement, which is one that really strikes a chord with me.

It's not that being called a resource is degrading (although it does seem to
be directly contrary to the team- and morale-building that good managers aim
for). It's more that it is associated with a simplistic way of thinking which
is both way out of date, and counter-productive.

Some managers I have worked for and with seem to have the following model of
SWAS:

	- Account managers establish and maintain customer relationships,
	  and put across the message that Digital can be a business partner.

	- Consultants (theoretically business consultants, but actually
	  applications and technology consultants usually behave like
	  business consultants) understand the customer's business. From
	  this deep understanding they see the opportunities for "IT".
	  (IT  stands for "Information Technology", and is the new European
	  management jargon for computers and telecoms).

	- The account managers and consultants then analyse the customer's
	  business requirements in a clever way, using TOP mapping and other
	  sophisticated tools, and establish an IT strategy. Then they
	  call in a Project Manager to manage the implementation.

	- At this stage, we can deliver some products and services. According
	  to the managers' model, the consultants and the project manager now
	  draw up a "shopping list" of resources, e.g.:

		5 weeks:	2 VMS specialists
				1 TP specialist
				1 workstation specialist

		12 weeks:	1 Ultrix specialist

		3 weeks:	1 performance specialist

	   and so on.

This model has one advantage - it's simple and neat. It has one disadvantage -
the world doesn't work that way.

The deliberate, systematic adoption of a comforting model that is contrary to
fact has a name. It's called self-delusion, and it's popular among people who
can't cope with the complexity of the real world.

The explanation that suggests itself to me is that some managers (only some!)
have an excessive need to establish control over their people, combined with
a fear of technical expertise (which they often lack). This leads to a policy
of "divide and conquer", with the following results:

	- "Pigeonholing" of technical experts. I.e. you can be a VMS resource
	  or a network resource or an office resource - but not all three.

	- the "binary" mindset: either you're a "techy" and only understand
	  "bits and bytes" - or else you're "business-oriented", consultant
	  or manager material, and disown all technical knowledge, except of
	  ALL-IN-1.

	- An attempt to restrict information flow: "you don't need to know that".
	  This can lead to ridiculous results, as when a manager decides that
	  he will not allow requests for individuals in his group, but only for
	  "resources" in particular categories... and then the requestors have
	  to go behind his back to establish informal contact, ask the person
	  they want what his declared skills are, and request that exact skill
	  set, hoping it's unique.

	  A year or so ago a SWAS manager requested a "VMS tuning expert" from
	  my Applications Centre, and as I was the only reasonably experienced
	  person free, I was assigned. The requesting manager was horrified.
	  "But you don't have tuning skills, Tom!". As the salesman insisted,
	  I went in anyway, and ended up using the following skills:

		* CASE consultancy
		* Project management
		* Hardware failure diagnosis
		* VMS configuration, capacity planning, and tuning
		* Crash dump analysis

	  The trouble was that the requesting manager had attempted to keep me
	  (as a humble resource) in a purely reactive mode, doing "atomic"
	  actions as determined by my betters. As soon as we arrived on site,
	  I became involved in helping the customer understand his business
	  requirement (to deliver a system to their customer on time, on spec
	  and within budget, and to provide for the lifecycle of the project).

	  The hardware diagnosis part was amusing. The 11/780s kept crashing
	  and the programmers were detailed to find what was wrong with their
	  application to cause this. Because they lacked "support" skills and
	  mindset, it didn't occur to them that the crashes were not
	  synchronised with their program, nor that a VAX can't be crashed
	  like that by user-mode programs. One day as I was passing through the
	  computer room an 11/785 fell over and did a machine check dump. I
	  read off the summary parameter, called for an engineer's black book,
	  and asked the engineer to replace the translation buffer. That fixed
	  the machine! I don't recount the tale to brag (I couldn't do that
	  for any current VAX) but because it exactly illustrates the mistake
	  behind the "resource" mentality.

To sum up, the "resource" model involves pigeonholing people, and that in turn
involves:

	-* Treating people as simple, passive objects.
	-* Assuming people with technical skills are of no direct use to
	   customers.
	-* Assuming technical and business skills are mutually exclusive.
	-* Trying to turn our people into assembly-line zombies.

instead of

	 * Valuing the individual as a source of initiative, strength and
	   creativity.
	 * Encouraging the individual to combine as rich a set of skills
	   as possible.
	 * Empowering each employee to identify directly with Digital and
	   further its interests.
	 * Focussing everyone's efforts on satisfying customer demands in	
	   as simple and straightforward a way as possible.

--Tom

    
    To me, the word "resources" is a generic term, referring collectively
    to such things as money, time, people, expertise, disk space, CPU time,
    etc.
    
    It would be used, correctly, (as in the sentence "We don't have enough
    resources to take on that project.") if you are short of more than one
    resource, or if you don't want to specify which one you are short of,
    or if you don't know which one you are short of.
    
    If, on the other hand, you know specifically what kind of resource you
    are talking about, using "resource" is potentially confusing and
    incorrect.  For example, saying "We have three resources working on
    that project".  People are the only kinds of resources that can "work
    on" a project, so it would be more precise, and correct, to say "We
    have three *people* working on that project".
    
    In high school, English teachers try to teach the kids to be precise,
    clear, and accurate in their writing and speaking.  I think this
    principle should be applied to the use of the word "resource" -- when a
    more specific word is available, use it.
    
    
    IMHO,
    
    Valerie

    re .39
    
    Interesting...  have you been here?  Much of your response describes my
    perception of what is happening to a T. 
    
    So, now that you've stated the problem, what's the solution? 
    Preferrably one that can be implemented painlessly.  Without getting
    the messenger shot again...
    

    re .39
    
    I have a problem with understanding how your manager can get away
    with that crap.  In my branch (at home) it tends to be the opposite.
    SWS doesn't have enough trained AND experienced people (aka resourses).
    We don't have the luxury of pigeonholing people.

    I think .33 phrased my feelings very well:
    
    "As a resource, am I renewable?  Am I expendable?  Or am I precious?"
    
    The "renewable" and "expendable" questions are valid.  With headcount
    constraints being what they are, we are all being required to do more
    with no added people to help.  I don't know the statistics on this, but
    I'm willing to bet (based on personal observation) that we have many
    more people out on LTD/STD because of stress-related illnesses than we
    have ever had before.  That, to me, seems a poor use of "resources",
    especially considering that these over-stressed employees will remain
    on the headcount while they're on disability.  In a way, the people 
    staying on headcount is good because management may be less likely to 
    work their "resources" into the ground. 
    
    But, something somewhere doesn't seem to be working well.  I know a lot
    of people in this company (being a secretary, I deal with people from
    many organizations), and I see a lot of stress out there.  It's only a
    matter of time before people reach their breaking points.  Maybe this
    topic is touching on some of the mindset behind all of this -- maybe
    the thoughts of us as resources are in-line with management thinking of
    us as expendable or renewable?
    
    This is hitting a sensitive cord with me as I have two friends who have
    recently reached their breaking points (I added a topic in this
    conference about one such friend).  I think .33 really hit the mark.
    

	re .33

I personally deeply resent being the object of a "resources" comment, because
it has always preceded a knife in the back.  Putting six people on a job in
place of one does NOT mean the job gets done in 1/6 the time.  It may mean the
job doesn't get done at all.  (Read "Six people working together is not the
same as six transistors working together.")

And shuffling me around from one project to another like a tape dispenser or
a CPU "resource" is to not make efficient use of my time, give me any skills,
or produce something of utility beyond crossing it off some list as:
ITEM X -- DONE.  (Read, "Giving this to me to read over the weekend is useless
-- I haven't a clue as to what X is all about, so I can't do anything with
whatever I'll read.  What do you expect me to do?")

If I had no knife scars, I probably wouldn't resent the "resources" term.
So those that don't are lucky, and may not understand people like me.



	re .43

Anybody check the stress in the support organizations these days?  (How
might you check stress levels?  By the number of people who have left an
organization?)

Do we (read "policy-making management") understand software?  Software
development?  OLTP?  (Or call it DECtp)?  System integration?  (Or only
hardware?)  And how to manage people/organizations to produce these? 
(Instead of empire-build these?)

Do we understand the necessity of training in a company of this size,
diversity, with the number of employees three years and less within the
company?  (Read, "Hire in all the IBM/Tandem people you want, but they
still have to figure out how our products work if we can't find our way
to teaching them.")

Do we understand that training is not even an investment, but an overhead
EXPENSE, and certainly not a luxury?  (Read, "Doing a job is 10 times as
hard, and certainly much less likely to be successful, when you don't know
how....For example, when you get that new-hire speech and when your new manager
sticks you in a cube saying, "It's your initiative that will make you successful
in DEC," and then leaves you there with nothing to guide you in how to be
successful.  Or how even to get started.)

(That is to say, when does, "I'm giving you rope, and you can climb up with it,
or hang yourself with it" become an excuse for not managing/teaching/developing
/helping your people, anymore?)

Do we understand that people doing the training gotta figure it out first?
(Our people who write the documentation/training and do the teaching in Digital
gotta translate from some overworked engineer(s), who may not have a clue about
writing/teaching, and probably do not know much more about a complex software
product but the piece he/she is responsible for, and are supposed to be in
THEIR cube(s) writing software and fighting fires.)

Do we understand that when a company gets as big as we are now, that we have
too many people who have no idea what goes on outside their own "department,"
and don't care about the final products?  (I.e. the things that go into a
customers' hands:  hardware, software, documentation, support, and the thing
that's suppposed to go into their heads -- an understanding of how to work
WITH Digital's myriad organizations when you -- the customer -- have a problem.)

And why are so many people writing so many reports (Add, "which seem to keep
saying the same things")?



As has sometimes been my personal_name in MAIL, can we remember that we
got out of the caves by *cooperating,* and not *competing*.

We did, you know.  We learned how to hunt together.  _Survival of the fittest_
is a misquote.  The true phrase is _survival of the fit_.  It means species
vs. species.  Stretch it to "company vs. company," if you like.   It may come
to US industry vs. foreign competition!   (Read, "Can our managers stop making
our individual organization's/group's/whatever's numbers look better by hurting
some other organization, which is also a part of DEC?  We ARE one company.  
(Aren't we?)  Is anybody watching for this one?

And why has my personal experience been that the better you did your job, the
more work you got assigned, and those that didn't do as well got promoted out?



A beat-up, tired DEC employee, (apologetic about the melodrama, but obviously
not apologetic enough after reflection to not post this in this notesfile),

Bill Linn

    
    re .44
    
    Useful summary. Nicely put, & it does illustrate that resources
    experience frustration.
    
    I came into DEC recently as a mature business manager. I had been
    with a variety of European companies, managing groups >2000 staff.
    
    Until then, I had NEVER been with a company which is prepared to
    turn round to a work unit & TELL them they were now being moved
    geographically into a different organizational empire. 
    
    All of the others I've been with would have discussed the issue
    with staff first, solicited views, understood the impact on output,
    motivation, morale etc - then they would have taken an informed
    decision.
    
    I know of this scenario first-hand. It it a classic case of seeing
    staff as production objects, rather than as human beings. I do not
    know whether this is representative of American (vs European) practice,
    Digital normal practice, or whether it is an isolated example.
    
    The only response is to kick hard to change an inefficient decision -
    not always easy to do & preserve career prospects!