Conference 7.286::digital

    Maybe he's just upset that Win Hindle beat him out for the VP of Ethics
    job? :-)

    On a more serious note, I think that Jack Smith has done an awful lot
    for Digital over the years. The last year or so couldn't have been easy
    on him. I hope he enjoys his retirement. He's earned it.

    It's clearly time for a change in management in a lot of ways at
    Digital. Jack retiring opens the way for still more changes than we've
    seen to date. I'm waiting to see what those changes will be and who
    will be moving into new jobs before I get hopeful though. 

    		Alfred

   re:    <<< Note 2310.1 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>
    
    >>On a more serious note, I think that Jack Smith has done an awful lot
                                                                    |
    Why be serious? Besides, what a curious choice of words this is | in
    view of the past 5 years at Digital. (only half smiling)
    

    Maybe now we can buy pens and pencils again.
    
    Jack may have done great things in engineering, but as chief of
    operations he's been, in my opinion, a disaster.
    
    I hope he has a good retirement.
    
    Lets get the company running again now.
    
    	Dave

    
     Note the stock went up to 35 on the news.
    
     Not all of us in Engineering recall Jack fondly.  He
    cancelled some stuff that would have been profitable,
    and gave the OK to some real sick puppies...
    

    I REALLY do hope he enjoys retirement.
    
    Can't tell ya how tickled I am to see him go.

    By the looks of this note, morale is really starting to turn around in
    this company!  (albeit in a twisted way...)
    
    Chris Lane
    

    >must have felt as they saw the book value of the
    >company fall from $70 a share to $35.
    
    
    You mean from $199.50 to $35.    I lost a few thousand, myself.
    
    

    Re .-1
    
    I said book value not market value. If you look at the annual report
    you'll see that the book value never got anywhere near 200.
    
    Dave

    	Pardon my ignorance. Does anyone know (~) how many VPs are in
    DIGITAL (US or worldwide)?
    	Thanks,
    	Sophia

    
      Last month some time, there were 108, but now it's different.
    
      Actually, there are 3 tiers of VP's - Senior VP's, Line VP's,
     and the Sales VP's, and if I remember rightly, there once
     were 4 tiers.
    
      The last 'strategy' type Engineering VP was Gordon Bell, who
      fashioned an EXTREMELY profitable path for DEC.  Jack Smith
      sort of tried to be that way, but never made it.  The new guy
      is Bill Strecker.  This is VERY good news in Engineering, IMHO,
      because Strecker, unlike Smith, is likely to actually have a
      product strategy, and some understanding of what is going on.
    
    

    "Vice President" in a corporation of Digital's size and market sector
    should imply that one either reports to the CEO (ie the second layer), or
    be on the third or fourth layer.
    
    Because of an explosion of giving titles of vice president to regional
    sales, software services, and field service managers in the 80's, the
    title extended down to the fifth and sixth reporting layer.
    
    One and perhaps incorrect argument was to give them signature authority
    to customer contracts where the customer _required_ the signature of a
    vendor vice president.
    
    With the resignation of Jack Smith and the reassignment of Win Hindle,
    the special cachet of "Senior Vice President" is gone.  Only Jack
    Shields was the only other person to be an SVP.
    
    Many other notes have speculated how many layers of management are
    needed to support 80-100K employees.  Digital inarguably has one more
    than it needs and perhaps two.
    
    Far more important than the number of VP's, is reducing the number of
    layers of management, and maintaining adequate business- and
    technical-skilled people who will have direct and frequent customer
    contact.

I hear Ken got an office in Stow for his retirement.

Maybe Jack will get a virtual office somewhere in the greater Maynard area.

    
    
    re: -.1
    
    wonder if it'll have bottled water?
    

RE: .13

	And Post-it notes and paper clips? Not to mention a 
	steady stream of employees coming in late and leaving
	early.

							mike

    I'm amazed and dismayed at some of the shots being taken among the
    replies to this note.  You're talking about some one who have served
    this company for 34 years and well.  Some of his observations and directives
    of recent periods may have been less than well received.  But, are you
    going to suggest that these very few events sum up his career
    contribution?  Can any of the respondents to this note suggest that they
    have or are likely to have anywhere near the positive imapct Jack has
    had on this company?  I understand the stress level we've all
    experienced and are likely to experience, but is the pettiness
    demonstrated by some of these replies the only means at hand to relieve
    this stress?

RE: .15

	Jack did a HELL of a job for this company for many years. The
	points I made in .13 were, what I considered, poor judgement at
	the time he made them based on the conditions at the time. That's
	ok, everyone does it.. I think his record proves that he is a 
	world class executive and worthy of his positions at the time.
	But, I also believe that it was time for Jack to move forward. That's
	not a "shot". 

						mike

Jack's office will be in MRO1-3 pole m8.


gog

ps.  I didn't see any bottle water, paper clips or post-its :-)

    
    
    No, I don't think I was being "petty".  Glib, maybe, but not petty.
    
    Jack was an important contributor to this company in both good and
    BAD ways.  I believe that he and a number of senior managers were
    guilty of two things, 1) Causing many of the problems we have been
    experiencing in the past 3yrs, and 2) not being able to MANAGE these
    problems.
    
    Did he do great things throughout his career?  Yes.  Had he served 
    "beyond" his effectiveness, YES.  Some of the remarks, albeit somewhat
    cynical, reflect this.  Bottled water and paper clip control were not
    what drove stock to the low 30's, mismanagement was.
    
    Bottom line:  He was employed by this company TOO long.
    
    fwiw...
    
    Jim
    

As with all well known people in both public and private life, there will be
some who will look back and see only the good, some only the bad, and some a
mix. I think we all know that Jack Smith gave alot of himself for the company.
Unfortunately, human nature says that the vocal people are usually the ones
asking the question - what have you done for me lately? Jack Smith was human
and he surely made some mistakes along the way. I hope his legacy will be 
deeper than that. He helped "turn the ship" more than once in the last 30 years
and should be remembered for that too.

    My view is that in the 1960s and 1970s and maybe early 80s Jack Smith
    did a lot for this company and had a lot to do with the building of
    shareholder wealth. I believe the big mistake was when he was appointed
    COO. I can't think of one decision he made (that was communicated) that
    helped the company. It seemed to me he was an really poor choice for
    COO and to be honest the combination of Jack Smith and Ken Olsen should
    take responsibility for practically bankrupting the company with 5
    years of terrible decision making. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and
    if they knew what they knew now I'm sure they would have retired in
    1987.
    
    On the other hand they could have just read some notes strings in here
    or in marketing.note which should have woken them up. I encourage you
    to go read some of the notes strings here and in MARKETING.NOTE from
    the last 5 years and you'll see that a lot of employees correctly
    identified some of Digital's major problems that only now is Bob Palmer
    fixing. Instead during that time Jack Smith as COO was busy worrying
    about whether we had water coolers and how many paper clips we should
    not be buying.
    
    I believe the epitaph for both Ken Olsen and Jack Smith should be.
    
    "They build a $14B company from nothing and then damn nearly destroyed
     their lifes work."
    
    We as employees should feel damn lucky that the board was able to
    distance itself from company management and make some hard decisions.
    
    Dave

    RE: .-1
    
    Well said, Dave.
    
    I think that it goes without question that Ken, Jack, and a few others
    built this company, literally, from nothing to a major entity and for
    that they must be commended.
    
    At the same time, you take the hit for the bad as well as the good.
    
    It seems to me to be a strange phenomenon in our culture that, when
    times are bad, we look for villans to blame and superheroes to pull us
    out.  In some other cultures, this isn't so, but in ours it is.
    
    Almost right to the end, there were many people claiming that Ken Olsen
    had some "secret" plan to turn this company around.  To me this just
    defies simple logic.  Why would anyone, Ken Olsen or otherwise, keep
    something like this secret when you're losing $3 million a day?!?
    
    It's difficult and kind of sad to see guys like Ken and Jack fighting a
    battle to show that they aren't quitters -- a battle they eventually
    lost.  There were no villans.
    
    Bob can do a lot of things and I certainly hope he does.  But alone, he
    isn't going to do much more than Ken or Jack could do.  Let's hope the
    new people he's picked ARE the right ones.
    
    Larry

    
    I think the thing that is interesting (and somewhat scary) is that
    by 1988 or 89, a lot of the public pronouncements about our
    commitment to open systems, UNIX, and PCs had the ring of
    truth, but, as it turns out, there weren't many concomitant actions to 
    support those pronouncements.  My recollection is that no one
    in a position of power was (publicly at least) dismissing the obvious
    technological trends by that time, but somehow we didn't follow
    through.  
    
    From my position here at the bottom, it is extremely
    difficult to judge how effective the follow-up *actions* are
    when executives seem to be saying the right words.  When people
    in positions of power, who are also facile with the language, 
    say we are commited to <insert your favorite technology here>
    how do we judge whether that commitment is real or simply lip
    service (I mean before we start losing money)?
    
    Glenn
    

    re: .18
    >	Glib, maybe, but not petty.
    
    Well I suppose there's a fine line between Glib and Petty.
    This forum does not always lend itself to recognizing those nuances.
    
    BTW, I noticed you concluded you reply with "fwiw".  To be a bit glib
    myself, I wonder if you should have interspersed your reply with 1 or
    2 IMHO or perhaps even IMNSHO.
    
    
    re: .19, .20 and .21
    
    I did not suggest that Jack was the perfect Manager or without some
    degree of responsibility for our current situation.  However, the
    sentiments being expressed within this note focused on his perceived
    failings without any reference to his many successes.  I just wanted
    to add some balance to the discussion.
    
    re:	.20
    
    >	the combination of Jack Smith and Ken Olsen should take responsibility
    >	for practically bankrupting the company 
    
    Indeed they share the in the responsibility  ...
    
    ... as does the BOD
    
    ... as does the upper management of the company, many of whom have left,
    some of whom remain
    
    ... as does the middle management of the company, not enough of whom
    have left, too many of whom remain
    
    ...  as do many, many of the employees, who went along for the ride
    oblivious to what was going on around them.

If there is any blame to be laid on Jack Smith and Ken Olsen it is that they 
lost control of what they built, and trusted those beneath them to do the right
thing for the corporation (as opposed to the right thing for each individual 
empire). Once there were enough layers of 'administration' in place it
became all too easy for the unscrupulous to grow (and hide) their often 
non-profitable empires to the detriment of all.

Whether this is something that either man could have actually changed, I do not
think anyone could say for certain.

Perhaps what happened was an inevitable 'corporate entropy' that is bound to
occur any time the fat takes over from muscle.

			/Rod

re Note 2310.21 by BTOVT::SOJDA_L:

>     Bob can do a lot of things and I certainly hope he does.  But alone, he
>     isn't going to do much more than Ken or Jack could do.  Let's hope the
>     new people he's picked ARE the right ones.
  
        Let's hope WE who remain are the right ones!

        Bob

    
    RE: .24 Rod-you said administration, did you mean management?
    
    
    Mike

Re : 2310.26 GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER "A new day has dawned"

I used administration in the sense (as used in susbsytems) of non-technical 
'line' management. We went through a growth period in the 80's where
(their words) technical people were too 'valuable' to be 'wasted' in management
positions- let the 'administrators' take care of things. Thus did we do.

So the keys to the candy store were given away, and a lot of people grew
great empires hiring old cronies from other companies, or more non-technical
people like themselves. Producing took a poor third place to political manuvering
and the hiring of more 'direct reports'. Products and expertese took second place
in importance to the survival and growth of the 'administrative chain'.
Prolific technical contributors became convenient draft animals to be ridden
to the top by 'administrative managers'. 

I look at corporate entropy as a theory that success creates its own seeds of 
destruction. Create a successful, productive team with potential and you'll
have the riders and the hangers-on trying to get into a position of control
of that team, or enterprise. The enterprise grows, but it no longer is driven
by the vision and desires of its creators, but by the career aspirations and
agendas of those that come later. 

Expounding on this could be a topic unto itself.

		/Rod

    Re: -1
    
    	  Having in the past seen concrete examples of the "corporate
    entropy" phenomenon that you describe, I can attest to its existence
    and to its destructive effects.  The interesting debate is with regard 
    to the inevitability that the term entropy would suggest.  Can one fend
    the parasites off indefinitely?  Perhaps long-term success can be
    defined in part by the measure of how well the organism/organization
    can keep them out.

	re .27:

	A classic description of what goes wrong. This sums it up
	in a nutshell.

	Let's face it, there are precious few people altruistic enough
	or intelligent enough to work for the good of the company as
	a direct end in itself.

	That leaves two basic motivations:

	1. The job itself - making a better product, exceeding quota,
	   getting a good customer satisfaction rating, finishing that
	   program, being complimented for putting together a great demo.

	2. The rewards of success - money, power, status, deference.

	As far as I can make out, the first motivation leads to good
	results, although the individual contributors' enthusiasm does
	sometimes need a bit of organising and directing.

	The second motivation seems harmful, mainly because the person
	doesn't much care about how success is gained - and it turns 
	out that the best ways are not ways which involve doing good work.

	In fact, I think enthusiasm for the job is the only reliable
	basis for quality.

	/Tom

    
    Re: .27, .28 (Entropy)
    
    Fascinating subject when applied to organizations.  I just
    finished a book called "Complexity" by M. Mitchell Waldrop.
    The book describes the goings-on at the Santa Fe Institute, where
    a group of scientists are exploring what they are calling "life
    at the edge of chaos".  This interdisciplinary group includes
    physicists, biologists, computer scientists, and economists
    (with at least 2 Nobel Prize winners in the mix).
    
    The book is absolutely rife with provocative ideas, not least
    of which is the computer simulations that show the tendency
    of agents (cells, organisms, firms, economies) to agglomerate
    into ever more complex forms, based upon very simple start-up
    states and very few "rules" of behavior.  The tendency, they
    argue, is for agents to continue to move toward a balance
    between the "ordered regime" (death, stasis) and the 
    chaotic regime, and to somehow continually walk this tightrope
    between the two extremes.
    
    A couple of the more daring thinkers even speculate that the
    second law of thermodynamics made need modification; that
    there is a countervailing force to entropy.
    
    Interesting stuff.  I recommend the book.
    
    Glenn                                     

Re: .-1

That does sound very interesting. I wonder how up-and-coming microsoft will
deal with the problems of success.

Applying the celluar model you describe to the situation here would (IMHO)
lead to a disturbing situation:

The 'cells' that participated in the demise of the enterprise are a lot like 
a cancer. Only in the cases in my experience the healthy cells have left or
are in the process of leaving, (or are powerless to act), while the 'cancer' 
remains.

Growth seems much less likely than, say, death and dissoultion.

I see some signs of radical change and reorganization, but I don't see us 
cutting out the cancer. 

			Regards, 

			Rod

  <<< Note 2310.31 by 38AUTO::LILAK "John Galt came, but I missed the boat" >>>
                   -< And if the celluar model applies..... >-

That does sound very interesting. I wonder how up-and-coming microsoft will
deal with the problems of success.

	I read an editorial in one of the PC mags recently (unfortunately, I
	don't remember which one).  It basically pointed out that while IBM was
	having a real problem, in some degree due to Microsoft's aggressive
	actions, it was ironic that Microsoft was already showing signs of
	large company monolithic syndrome.  I know that there are hoardes of
	companies out there that wish it Godspeed in that direction -- IBM
	probably being one of them.

	Bryan

>	actions, it was ironic that Microsoft was already showing signs of
>	large company monolithic syndrome.  

    i always wondered about this, what do you think is the critical
    number which above it this "large company monolithic syndrome"
    starts to creep in?

    i think it is about 5,000-10,000 employees, depending on many other
    things offcourse.  i think MS now is about 14,000 or there around (?).
    

    \nasser

             <<< Note 2310.33 by STAR::ABBASI "free like a bird" >>>

    i always wondered about this, what do you think is the critical
    number which above it this "large company monolithic syndrome"
    starts to creep in?

    i think it is about 5,000-10,000 employees, depending on many other
    things offcourse.  i think MS now is about 14,000 or there around (?).
    
I think that the actual number depends most strongly on the way the company
is organized, the vitality of the managers and the degree to which they are
committed to communicating with their employees, how much the individual
employees are 'empowered', and so on.  I don't believe in absolute numbers
automatically implying 'monolithic atrophy', although clearly larger
companies are more likely to move in that direction than small ones.
Larger companies may also have a predisposition towards less enlightened,
more rigid management structures and thought processes (although that may
have more to do with how long they have been around than the number of
employees).

Anyone read Tom Peters' latest book "Liberation Management: Necessary
Disorganization for the Nanosecond Nineties"?   I'm slowly ploughing my way
through it right now.   While sometimes I find his style a little annoying,
he makes a lot of good points, and I can see how the significant
restructuring of many companies that he describes (in one case reducing
numbers at the middle/upper management levels by 95%) could be emulated in
today's Digital.  IMHO, we clearly need something much more drastic than
what is happening right now...

Bryan

	In one of the bazillion interviews with Bill Gates last year, he was
	asked whether he thought he could manage Microsoft with 10,000+
	employees the same way that he had when the population was in the
	hundreds. He said that yes, he could.

	That single remark tells me that Microsoft is in for some major
	growing pains in the next couple of years (of course, raking in
	money hand over fist can help assuage those pains quite a bit).

	Roy

Yes, that's what I've heard.  That the success of Microsoft is still attributable,
in large part, to Gates still being involved in all aspects of the company.

Hard to imagine he can keep it up, but then he's did become the RICHEST man in
america

		Bob 

    
    Two things.  First, someone asked me to post the full reference
    to the book I quoted in .30:
    
        COMPLEXITY
         The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos.
    
        Auth: M. Mitchell Waldrop
        Pub: Simon and Schuster, NY, NY
        copyright 1992
        ISBN 0-671-76789-5
    
    Second, re: can Gates manage microsoft as it grows:
    
       He should hire Ken Olsen as a consultant.  Ken is probably the 
       only living person to grow a company from zero to multi-billions, and
       remain at the helm for 35 years.  Most people are really good
       entrepreneurs, or really good professional managers.  He was
       both.
    
    Glenn
    
    

re: .37

>       He should hire Ken Olsen as a consultant.  Ken is probably the 
>       only living person to grow a company from zero to multi-billions, and
>       remain at the helm for 35 years.  Most people are really good
>       entrepreneurs, or really good professional managers.  He was
>       both.

I don't believe that KO would be good in that position. I think the
problem with this company is a *direct* result of KO  misplacing trust
in some people, management and personnel in particular, to do the right thing.
I have direct personal experience in KO refusing to even consider any
evidence to the contrary. He let management and personnel systematically
and completely distroy the morale of this company - everything that was good
about this company when I started working for DEC over 18 years ago. Because
we were making money hand-over-fist not too long ago, we could afford the
waste and cover up the bad management practices.

Now we cannot afford the waste, but much of the same management is still
firmly in place - management by intimidation and retribution. Notice that
RP did *no* reorganization of the upper levels of personnel so he must be
trusting them. But they are precisely the people who have destroyed the
spirit of the company. I see no fundamental change in the company's
direction yet. Nor do I have a good feeling that Win Hindle (who is in a
position in which he could really improve things if he were to choose to
do so) really gets it yet either.

Granted, RP has brought in some new people to head up his divisions, but
they will have trouble being successful unless they fix the no-morale problem
first. Perhaps this was discussed elsewhere (sorry, I don't have time to fully
follow this file), but did anybody notice at the DVN introducing the new
division heads that only one (Willow) had anything substantive to say?

I have a feeling that Microsoft has gotten to the point that it would
be unmanageable by somebody as trusting as KO, and Jack Smith, for that matter.
A good manager must get data directly from the source and be able to weed
out bad management - our DEC management has not yet realized this.

re .38  (and several varied other notes)

> Granted, RP has brought in some new people to head up his divisions, but
> they will have trouble being successful unless they fix the no-morale problem
> first. Perhaps this was discussed elsewhere (sorry, I don't have time to fully
> follow this file), but did anybody notice at the DVN introducing the new
> division heads that only one (Willow) had anything substantive to say?


What on earth do you expect from a 2 minute blurb, primarily aimed at 
letting us see the faces of those in charge and to reinforce the 
positive message that this company can be made to work?  All the VPs 
said what the editors allowed to be left in.  Healthcare being a "new" 
departure got a longer blurb time to explain why the company was 
concentrating on it.

I've only worked at Digital for 4 years so in theory missed the "glory 
years".  I still prefer to work here than aywhere else.  I also know that 
in the last 6 months I have had numerous communications sent out from 
BP's account, seen him several times on DVN's, have seen the majority of 
the VP's and been told what areas they are responsible for and have been 
sent statements of the Company's intentions and a structure diagram.  In 
the previous 3.5 years I received NO communications from Ken Olsen, or saw 
what he looked like other than in two digital magazine articles (when he 
retired), or had any idea what the company structure was or a clear 
indiction of who was in charge of what.  IMHO it seems things have changed 
for the better.

Also bear in mind (Seems to have been overlooked by a LOT of noters in 
this file) that BP KEEPS saying, "we ALL make a difference", "we must 
ALL look at ways in which what we do can be changed to help turnaround 
the company".  If this isn't a mandate to highlight what's wrong with 
travel/expense procedures, to start working in new ways I don't know 
what is.  What do you want the man to say to convince you that YOU have 
to do something too!!!? 

If you go against an expense policy or procedure because doing it a different 
way will save money, there is no justification for sacking/reprimanding you. 
If you DO get reprimanded - escalate right up to BP if you have to!!!  
But for heaven's sake stop sitting around and moaning that "ways of 
working don't make sense (but there's nothing I can do about it)."

Cathy - who is feeling VERY optimistic working for a group which through 
hard work, unwavering commitment, the willingness to continually change 
and take individual responsibility has continued to meet and exceed targets 
and make profit.

Re: .39
>> What on earth do you expect from a 2 minute blurb, primarily aimed at 
>> letting us see the faces of those in charge and to reinforce the 
What I had expected was some content. Each of the eight other division heads
could have put together the same sort of 2 minute presentation that Willow
Shire did so that folks in their respective departments would know where we are
headed and the problems that lie ahead. If it took longer, then they should
have taken longer to do the job right. That would have shown leadership.
What they showed was we're in for more of the same.

KO and Jack regularly sent around a "Management Memo" for the last several
years. I guess you just missed it. Somebody must still have copies around if
you want to see what it was. But they *did* communicate. What they
*said* was great. Unfortunately, the management below them knew they
wouldn't bother to make sure that what they said was carried out. They did
not want to acknowledge people bringing them data that contradicted what
they said about integrity.

Again, BP is saying all kinds of great stuff, but I've seen nothing to
indicate that he means what he says. The state of the company has not yet
gotten bad enough to force him to do that. I've been refused a meeting with him
to present him with some "interesting" data. Win, too, refused to meet with
me until I published the note about the $40K bonuses. I spent
40 min with him and he, too, said some great things, said my ideas for
improvements were good, but then so did Jack Smith and nothing happened.

>> What do you want the man to say to convince you that YOU have to do...
That's exactly the point. There is *nothing* he can say that will convince
me. But there's *lots* he can *do* to convince me and as far as I can tell
so far, he has not done them. I would *love* to be convinced.

You and RP are correct that we *all* make a difference. We *all* bear some
responsibility for the success of the company. But *management* is
responsible for providing an environment in which the workers can be
successful. IMHO, to say they have failed to do so is too kind because that
implies that they tried to do so. I have personal experience and very close
experience that indicates to me that much of upper management is not in it
for the success of the corporation. BP needs to hear that and to hear data.
Thus far, he has refused to entertain the notion that much of upper level
management operates contrary to his stated goals. The workers must stand
up and make management accountable. I've been attempting to do just that
for quite a few years now against formidible opposition.
So I *have* been doing my part. I guess you are fortunate that you have
not experienced management at its worst. Try complaining about an abusive
manager to personnel and see what happens. Or look into the data of somebody
who has.

>>If you go against an expense policy or procedure because doing it a different 
>>way will save money, there is no justification for sacking/reprimanding you. 
What you say makes lots of sense. What's so frustrating is that the
intuitiveness of what you say escapes much of management.
Talk to somebody who was directly told by his CC manager that what
he was doing was "right" for the company but didn't help the CC and so he
should stop. He follows this notes file so if you ask him to contact you,
I bet that he will. Or ask me and I'll ask his permission to send you his name.

I'm glad for you that you work in such a wonderful group. It's people like
you who will carry the company in spite of upper management, not because
of it. I have seen too much to believe that your
type of group is in the majority. I am spending lots of energy attempting to
make management in the area who are not like yours accountable for their
actions.

    
    Re: .40
    
    W. Edwards Deming would agree wholeheartedly with your point about
    management's responsibility.  Management controls the process.  They
    have the responsibility to support workers by leading the effort to
    establish and manage a process that will produce the results that
    are needed to make the company successful.  If what BP is asking for
    is that kind of behavior and he is not getting it, then management
    are not doing their job.
    
    Steve
    

Re: .41
Precisely! Workers would love nothing more than to contribute to making
Digital successful but incompetent and corrupt management prevents many
people from working at their peak. Morale is at an all-time low not just
because we're losing our shirt. Management must look into the mirror to
find the real cause of no morale. BP *says* he wants to fix it and so
does Win, but I've not seen any initiative indicating they really want
to do what it takes to fix it. Ross Perot spoke of politicians talking a lot
about the deficit but not wanting to really get down to the business of fixing
it. It's the same with this company. It just hasn't gotten bad enough
yet for them to really get out there and fix it. It got bad enough for me
a long time ago, but I am not in a position to fix it.

    The issue at hand is not the specific management skills or merits of
    any individual, but the corporate ethos towards the use of said
    management skills. KO had, and still has the where with all to get us
    out of the slump. Unfortunately, he was fighting a corporate entity
    that has grown too large and too lazy. On one hand we have middle
    managment that is pleading for empowerment by the executive, and on the
    other hand we have middle management that is at a lose for executive
    direction...
    
    
    q
    

    re: .-1

    That's a pretty good recitation of the "if only Ken knew" hypothesis.

    Enough people braved middle layers of management ire to tell Ken, and
    Ken certainly had to know of the external opinions of Digital held by
    customers and shareholders.

    So it's clear than Ken Olsen knew.  We know from interviews that Ken
    could be intimidating and threatening in person, and we know from the
    historical record that he lacked the ability to lead Digital away from
    the disastrous course the company has been on since 1988.
    
    Digtal doesn't need "tough", it needs to "wise up and change".