Conference 7.286::digital

    Well, I can't comment on .0 (I have no idea), but it might be related
    to the rumor that Bruce Claflin may become President or COO.  Even PC
    WEEK picked up this rumor and put it on page 3 this week.
    
    It sounds like someone might have thought that if Claflin does get the
    President spot, then Palmer is jobless.  That, of course, ignores the
    fact that Palmer is also CEO and Chairman of the Board.
    
    FWIW
    
    -- Russ

Digital Equipment's CEO resigns

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, March 18, 1997
Source: BUSINESS TIMES (Malaysia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

BUSINESS TIMES (Malaysia) via Individual Inc. : DIGITAL Equipment
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd's chief executive officer and managing director
Jamaludin Ibrahim has resigned from the company.

Disclosing this at a press conference yesterday, Jamaludin said he is
announcing this prior to him actually tendering his resignation to his
immediate superior J Graham Long, Vice President Digital Equiqment
Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.

His resignation will take effect on April 1 this year. He has led
Digital successfully over the past three and a half years.

Digital will not in any way be effected by his departure, he said,
adding that he is sad to leave but is happy that he is leaving the
company in good hands.

He will leave in mid-April to pursue a new venture and challenges
outside the company and information technology (IT) industry.

Furthermore, he will not take over any company nor take over another
persons's position as his next posting will be a newly created one.

When asked by reporters as to which industry he will move to next, he
declined to comment.

He pointed out that his decision to quit had nothing to do with
monetary gains nor anything to do with Digital.

Jamaludin elaborated that he has already served in the IT industry for
16 years and is now keen to try out his skills in a non-IT industry.

Digital is still looking for his successor and possible candidates
will come from either inside or outside the organisation. The company
hopes to secure his successor by July 1 this year when Digital's 1997
financial year begins.

According to him, fewer than ten potential candidates are being
considered for his post. He is and will continue to be involved in the
selection of his successor until he leaves the company this April.

<<BUSINESS TIMES (Malaysia) -- 03/15/97, p. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Feedback] [Index] [Search] [Customize] [Individual, Inc.]
[Main] [Up] [< Prev Story] [Next Story  [Calendar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Individual, Inc.]

>    FWIW, the BOD convened yesterday.
    
  I heard that BP still has all three jobs, for now, but that there may be a
big announcement sometime next week.

     >>That, of course, ignores the fact that Palmer is also CEO and Chairman 
    of the Board.
    
    At the annual general meeting in Boston last November Mr Palmer was
    asked a question about this, namely, whether the company was
    considering appointing a full-time President. His reply was that there
    was nothing unusual about the present situation of him having 3 jobs.
    
    Any shareholder's representative who attended that meeting would, IMO,
    have to conclude that changes are urgent, as there is now a serious
    problem of credibility, given the highly optimistic predictions which
    were made about the future of our company and our employment prospects
    by Mr Palmer.
    
    ..Kevin..

re Note 5191.5 by MKTCRV::KMANNERINGS:

>     was nothing unusual about the present situation of him having 3 jobs.
  
        They certainly are 3 titles, but are they really three
        well-defined jobs (at Digital)?

        Since for most of our history we have not had these three
        titles defined, and even when they have been defined they
        were held by one person, I suspect that there could be
        considerable confusion and a period of adjustment if more
        than one person were involved.

        The rest of the Digital environment expects one person.

        Bob

    
    M.L. Carr can handle 2 jobs, so why do we think B.P. can't handle 3.
    
    I mean look at the Celtics!  They're poised to get the #1 draft pick
    next year, and a high draft pick for years to come!  The Celtic's
    strategy is working!
    
    You never can have too much responsibility!
    
    /art

    DEC, I mean DIGITAL, doesn't make it into radio news here (Munich,
    Germany) too often... today we did: there was a relatively long report
    by a local station here (by their US correspondent) about the
    IBM-SUN-Netscape alliance, and the Microsoft-HP alliance that was
    officially announced today.
    
    The biggest loser was also mentioned: DIGITAL...
    
    The share has broken the 52 week low barrier (but Microsoft and HP have
    fallen a bit too).
    

>    An unnamed DEC oops I mean DIGITAL spokesman admitted that we've made
>    mistakes in the past, but are on track and the future is rosy...

If only this was the first time we've heard that in the last five years. Any 
bets on when we'll hear it again?

PJDM

    That is a very easy one.
    
    My bet is - you'll see it again when the quarterly results are
    announced.
    
    Though - I bet we could see it sooner.

    I dont think anyone believes that a competent CEO cant hold all 3
    jobs...now where were we again?

> I dont think anyone believes that a competent CEO cant hold all 3
> jobs...now where were we again?

  We were getting ready to start a pool about at what stock
  price Mr. Palmer will lose all three of his jobs.

                                   Atlant

    Doesn't Palmer really have only 2 jobs?  I always thought that CEO was
    really a designation for the President as being the Chief Executive
    Officer.  Some companies have a different designation for the top
    person, and it was confusing.  At another organization, one might be
    Big Kahuna and CEO the top person at that company was officially called
    the Big Kahuna.  This is separate from the Chairman of the Board, who is
    not a part of the day-to-day operation. 
    
    I've never heard of anyone, at any company, referred to as simply the
    CEO. 
    
    Ben

    re: .16
    
    I used to work for a company where CEO and President were 2 different 
    people.
    
    -- Russ
    
    PS/ By any (slim) chance, are you the same Ben Howard who used to work
    for DEC (when we all still called it that) in the D.C. area?

    >> I dont think anyone believes that a competent CEO cant hold all 3
    >> jobs...now where were we again?
    
    >  We were getting ready to start a pool about at what stock
    >  price Mr. Palmer will lose all three of his jobs.
    
    My bids in at 30, and, given its 27 now...
    
    
    

        >  We were getting ready to start a pool about at what stock
        >  price Mr. Palmer will lose all three of his jobs.
    
    Now now, gambling is not allowed in notes conferences :-)
    
    Really, there are a lot of tedious variations on the 3 jobs routine. He
    may get kicked upstairs and choose another CEO. The sun will come out,
    the fog will lift the share price will rise. The new kid will gain
    confidence and at some stage sort things out on the BOD. So my guess is
    55 :-)
    
    ..Kevin..

    'at some stage sort things out on the BOD'  - so THAT'S the problem...
    

      Quote from the BOD message of support for BP from a while back
    
    >>>>  This week DIGITAL reported financial results that were a
       disappointment to all of the company's stakeholders.  In light of
       reactions, it seems appropriate to reiterate the Board of Directors'
       complete support of the company's direction and leadership.  In
    fact, at our regular meeting today we addressed this topic specifically
    and decided to take the unusual step of communicating directly with the
    people of DIGITAL.

Re: .-1

Maybe we could have that statement put on a laminated
card so we could pull it out for reference every 3 months.

    Anybody out there so kind to explain the difference between CEO,
    chairman and president? Many thanks.
    
    Hung

The top officer of a corporation usually holds the title of
president.

Some companies have also assign the title of CEO (Chief Executive
Officer).  There are also sometimes COO (operating), CFO
(financial), CIO (information) and CTO (technical).

Chairman is the chairman of the board of directors.  In many 
companies the president/CEO also holds this title.

I think of Chairman as being pretty well-defined, but the other
titles are used in various ways by different companies. 

  Some companies (Digital is an example) have one person holding
  the three titles of Chairman, President (of the corporation) and
  CEO. 

  Some companies have a Chairman/CEO and a President/COO.

  Some companies have multiple president titles, one at the top of 
  the corporation, others at the top of divisions.

I remember that KO held the title of president.  No "CEO", no
"Chairman". 

Wes

re: .21

In the sports world stating that somebody has "our complete support" typically
means that they are ready for the chopping block. Now I know this is not a sport
(I hope), but they are both big business, and the language of business never
changes. 

Jim
 

    |    M.L. Carr can handle 2 jobs, so why do we think B.P. can't handle 3.
    
    which one will go first?  What's the over/under?

    Non-US-centric view follows: In the UK a government-backed inquiry has
    recently issued guidelines which say it is A Very Bad Thing for the
    same person to hold multiple different roles at the top of a company.
    The inquiry was staffed mainly by businessmen, so maybe they just
    wanted more snouts in the trough, but they seemed to argue a very good
    case for why too much power in the hands of one person, and too little
    active supervision, were A Very Bad Thing. Anywhere.
    
    regards
    john

    re .25 >>too much power in the hands of one person
    
    I suppose the meglalomaniac (his wife's description) 
    Robert Maxwell would be a good uk example.  His biggest coup was his
    hostile takeover of the highly successful Macmillan Corporation with 
    Chicago junk bonds. (Please excuse the rathole)
    
    re supervision, there should be elected employee representatives on the
    BOD. That would have stopped a lot of of the nonsense of the last 6 years.
    
    ..Kevin..

    When I've seen announcements for companies filling these roles
    (President, CEO, Chairman) the differentiators seemed to be as follows:
    
    	President -	In charge of day to day running of the company,
    			responsible for all aspects of day to day
    			operations  (COOs typically do not have
    			responsibility for such things as sales being
    			more narrowly focused on logistic aspects of
    			operations)
    
    	CEO -		Responsible for the 'strategic' direction of the
    			business; e.g. determining what business(s) the
    			company will be in and the criteria for those
    			decisions.
    
    	Chairman -	Agent of the stockholders.  Responsible for
    			maximizing their value.  Possibly even overriding
    			the other senior management is the BOD aggrees it
    			is necessary.
    
    Peter D.

    re .29
    	Yep, that seals it, he is the single most resposible for our
    	current position. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
    

    Are there any of our (successful) competitors with a single top manager
    working so hard like Bob?

>    Are there any of our (successful) competitors with a single top manager
>    working so hard like Bob?

IBM: Lou Gerstner is Chairman of the Board and CEO.  They don't have anyone
called President.  Sounds like a single top manager - and very successful.

HP: Lewis Platt is Chairman, President and CEO.

Sun: Scott McNealy is Chairman, President and CEO.

------

The problem isn't that BP's the Chairman, President and CEO.  Maybe the
problem is that he isn't Lou Gerstner or Lewis Platt or Scott McNealy.
Or maybe it's BP's board or management committee.  Or maybe all of the
above and more...  Who knows?

-Mark

    Re: .17 - Yes, Russ it is me. Used to is still the operative phrase. 
    As somebody may find out this afternoon, there are no permanent
    employees.
    
    Re: others - I still think of CEO as similar to Head of State (I think
    many CEO's think of them the same way for other reasons ;-)).  In one
    country it is a Queen, in another a president.  In some countries the
    President may not be the Head of State.  
    
    Now watch: This afternoon it will be announced that Palmer will
    continue as President but resign as CEO just to prove me wrong.   
    
    Ben

From PC Week


Digital's Claflin may move up the corporate ladder 

A forthcoming management shake-up at Digital could mean greater authority for
Bruce Claflin.

Several sources said that Claflin (right), Digital's worldwide vice president
and general manager of the Personal Computer Business Unit, is in line to
assume the post of either president or chief operating officer of the company.

Robert Palmer has held three titles: president, CEO and chairman of the board.

At CeBIT last week in Germany, Claflin declined to comment on the speculation
but acknowledged his success in refocusing the PCBU on enterprise sales and
Windows NT.

"When I got here, there was no strategy," Claflin said. "We have made
significant progress in operational management and inventory."

The moves could happen as early as this week, sources said.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

re: .33
    
>    Now watch: This afternoon it will be announced that Palmer will
>    continue as President but resign as CEO just to prove me wrong.   
    
Wasn't it supposed to be next Friday (end of quarter and all that)?  If it
was similar to the KO announcement it would be the Thursday before results
are announced (whenever that is).

- paul

    I had heard a rumor that an announcement was to be made at 4 p.m. EST
    that would be of significance.  Perhaps it was of no significance at
    all.  This is the rumor (well, rumour) note.
    
    Ben

    The problem is simply this... When you look at various companies that
    have made comebacks the methods have always been focus, swift and
    decisive action toward objectives and a lean/mean hands-on management
    effort.
    
    If you look at Digital's approach over the last 6-7 years this strategy
    (or any of its elements) are absent.
    
    Digital remains a very bureaucratic machine with a great deal of 
    insulation (management layers) as well as some "central" groups who's
    contributions are hard to nail down.
    
    What you have is a complex maze of dense hierarchy that makes it
    difficult not only to assign goals and objectives to, but makes it
    almost impossible for failure to be consequential to anyone.
    
    It also appears that when consequences (both positive and negative)
    are in order, they are extremely slow to be enacted. Another symptom
    of an ineffective management machine.
    
    For a company to survive today it has to be nimble. It needs to be able
    to make fast decisions. Its management team (at all levels) needs to
    have the authority to make decisions without 20-30 upper level
    approvals. Another symptom of a lack of trust in the competency of
    management. The process itself screams for scrutiny and the questioning
    of why it exists. The management must continually assess itself and 
    improve upon itself proactively, not reactively. I simply don't see
    this.
    
    Chip

    
    Re: -1 that is a tactic!
    
    
    Kinda reminds me of our own government.
    
    Like the comedian once said in an analogy:
    
    what is the opposite of 'PROgress'??
    
    CONGRESS!
    
    chet

    Well, I just got paged for a "Mandatory Con Call" on wednesday, and we
    all know what "Mandatory Con Calls" usually do...
    
    .mike.

    Wednesday came and went. Is there any smoke coming out of the chimney?
    What colour is it?
    
    ..Kevin..