Conference 7.286::digital

    Talk about the height of bureaucracy...
    
    Wow.
    
    -DM-

    I think that task force was identified as one of the unnecessary task
    forces by the unnecessary task force task force.

    Actually, I think that the committee's membership has now grown to
    8,000 as a result of the need to reach consensus among all of the
    potentially affected individuals. At last report, they're still looking
    for a large enough conference room to hold their kick-off meeting :-). 

    What a morbid topic for a discussion, but please tell me more..let the
    games begin!
    
    

    A memo came out a few months ago to Field managers noting that there
    was a general reluctance to pursue corrective action for marginal and
    low performers due to the inability to replace people with outside
    hires (there is virtually no replacement pool of fully qualified internal 
    candidates for most jobs).  The policy change, if I understood it
    correctly, was that an automatic approval to hire from the outside
    would be granted for any req opened as a result of a disciplinary
    firing.
    
    Al
    

>                               The policy change, if I understood it
>   correctly, was that an automatic approval to hire from the outside
>   would be granted for any req opened as a result of a disciplinary
>   firing.
    
    Re .5:
    
    I hope that has one of those implict :-)'s in it. I shudder to think
    that managers will be rewarded for their inventiveness in being able to
    toss people to the street corner. If there are performance problems,
    then dead with them. If we need outside talent, justify it and bring
    them in. Times are tought enough with encouraging managers to spend
    their time drafting written warnings for extra credit.

    The only "streamlining" required is/was a good injection of intestinal
    fortitude in a lot of our wimp managers.

    re .7 Is  that all ?

    re: .6
    
    No :-) expressed or implied.  A poor performer working at 50% is still 
    better than nobody working at 0% if that's the only alternative. 
    Managers should not be inordinately handicapped for sensible
    performance management.
    
    Al
    

    Does this policy apply to firing managers?
    

    RE: .9
    
    A poor performer is not necessarily better than no one.  
    
    1. Poor performers can cause real morale problems among good people in
    a group who are working hard to do their job while they percieve the
    low performer as someone who gets paid for not contributing. 
    
    2. Poor performers can hurt the credibility of a group with other groups
    and therefore hinder the ability of others to do their jobs.
    
    3. Poor performers can cause extra work that is required because people
    have to undo and redo work.

    I honestly couldn't believe reading the replies to .0..
    A good part of the reason DEC is in the position it is IMHO is
    just this LAZAE (sp) fare attitude about poor performers. Believe me
    the poor performer knows just who he/she is. 
    
    They are the ones whos names have been bounced around conference room
    walls for the last 5-10 years. At least in cases Im familiar with yet
    nothing is done due to manager awareness that if they don't have all
    the facts straight then DEC will be in for a lawsuit.
    
    Poor performers hurt everyone they add extra weight to everyone,make
    extra work for everyone and put nothing out.
    
    Would you like to read a book using a single light source of a 20watt
    bulb or replace the bulb with a 75-100watt bulb.
    
    Apparently most people here would use the 20watt bulb and turn on every
    light in the house..
    
    Mike

    re .10 Managers are only fired if they screw up big time. Firing
    a manager reflects very badly on whoever hired them, so they're
    usually passed on to another job, often at better pay. The
    basic reference work on this is 'The Peter Principle' by Lawrence
    J. Peter.

    I agree with .11 and .12.  Poor performers AND poor people managers are 
    COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, not harmless.  Anyone in any role with a certain
    responsibility who isn't performing that responsibility has negative
    impact on the whole.  (Of course, the tricky question in DEC is "Who
    has responsibility for what?")
    
    Accepting poor performance and management is like saying "Any
    information is better than no information."  That just isn't true.  Bad
    information can easily lead us to making wrong decisions - and has. 
    We'd be better off just flipping a coin than having bad information.  
    
    We'd be better off having no one than having bad performers and
    managers, too.

    Not all poor performers are incompetent and therefore counter-productive.  
    People run the spectrum of abilities.  Some people are simply not as 
    productive or versatile or energetic as others. Some of those will fall 
    below the threshold of expected performance.  Many will still contribute 
    marginally to the corporation but not nearly as much as expected.
    
    But this is just sophistry.  The fact remains that, for whatever reason,
    managers were keeping poor performers rather than firing them because
    of the inability to replace with appropriate people from the outside.
    This restriction is now, apparently, removed.  Does anyone disagree
    with the change?
    
    Al
    

    I have been in management here for over 12 years, and I have seen lots
    of examples of poor performers - some are let go; others are not. 
    
    I don't believe that the motivation of most managers who keep bad
    performers is a feeling that "half a loaf is better than none". I
    really feel that most managers agree that a real bad performer does
    more harm than good.  However, the process of removing a poor performer
    at DEC is one that requires (as it should) a lot of checks and balances
    to make sure we are really being fair.  Many managers do not have the
    skill or determination to really manage this difficult process, so the
    typically follow the path of least resistance and let a problem fester.
    
    The real solution to the problem of poor performers being not dealt
    with is in management education. Managers need to really learn how to
    recognize problems, document them, and deal with them. 
    
    It is important that we exercise due care when dealing with performance
    issues - we really want to be fair.  However, fairness is not defined
    as letting someone beat their head against a wall forever trying to do
    a job for which they are ill-suited. Some people are just in the wrong
    job, and could be extremely productive if reassigned to a job better
    matching their skills. 

He was such a poor performer that...






when he left the company, they had to fire two people to replace him.

.16 hits the mark squarely. Managers with sufficient courage will "do something"
when confronted with non-performers. The options are available (re-train, 
demerit, re-assess job objectives, transfer to a more suitable position, etc.)

Managers without courage refuse to recognize the problem, refuse to identify
the problem, refuse to "negotiate"(ie. dialog) a solution, in short,
refuse to act.

    re .16:
    
:	Many managers do not have the
:    skill or determination to really manage this difficult process, so the
:    typically follow the path of least resistance and let a problem fester.
    
    		Then they shouldn't be managers.   It's part of the job
    description; it's part of the responsibility; it's part of the
    accountability.
    
    All of those "many managers" who don't have "the skill or determination
    to really manage this difficult process" should be considered poor
    performers, and dealt with accordingly.
    
    -DM-

    RE .16
    
    One of the few decent management courses I have taken from DME was
    Managing Performance which did teach how to deal with corrective action
    as well as behavioral issues.
    
    RE. 19
    
    Many good individual contributors are promoted into management as
    reward for being good individual contributors.  Often these people are
    more valuable and happy being individual contributors but accept the
    management job because there is not a good or financially rewarding
    career path in their discipline or they are afraid to say no.
    
    Digital Management Preparation seems to be:
    
    Here is your office, terminal, phone, and subordinates.
    
    The system needs to change.

    re .20 Instead of promoting people to managers for the reasons
    you give we institute a policy that states if at least three
    people do *not* apply for the job, and fight hard to get it,
    the req is torn up. That way we make sure that we get people 
    who really _want_ the job, and that the job is not makework.
    
    (My bet is attrition would reduce the # of managers by several
    percent a year under this plan.)

    re .13.
    
    Yes, you are correct and I knew that too. I am just tired of seeing it
    in practice, more at Dec than any of the computer companies I have
    worked for in the past 11 years. The bad ones just keep getting moved
    around and around.
    
    Dave
    
    

    .16 comes closest to another side of this issue that hasn't yet
    been addressed.  Has anyone out there (reading this file) really
    ever seen a firing or fired anyone in DEC?  (Yes, I know its'
    happened).  And, if they have - would they admit it?
    
    I think there is a stigma in Digital, not spoken, which relates
    to our "family orientation."  In others words, as I've heard it
    said, "We don't fire family..."
    
    .16 said < I have been in management here for over 12 years, and I've
             < seen lots of examples of poor performance - SOME ARE LET GO;
             < others are not.
    
    How about it, MAHIMA::TOPPING ?
    
    Do you know any of those managers personally that did the firing?  
    (No names please).  Given all the right criteria;
    
                        - Every other option was tried,
    
                        - The employee wasn't really trying,
    
                        - It was necessary due to demoralizing effect,
                          disruption, etc.
                                                     
                        - It was documented, etc. etc. etc.
    
    How did that manager handle it, and how well did DEC, its' employees,
    and their colleagues support that decision?
    
    

    re .23
    
    Yes, I have seen people actually fired at Digital, and have done the
    deed myself, I have also had managers who worked for me do it, and I
    helped them in the process.
    
    I really don't want to be specific at all, because of privacy
    considerations, but a few points can be noted.
    
    The first time for me was the worst.  I went through the entire
    performance improvement process, with documentation, etc. all the way
    through written warning.  Previous managers had attempted to solve the
    problem, but had failed in one way or another.  Finally, I had to do a
    termination.  I worked closely with Legal, Personnel, and my boss, who
    really kept me out of trouble. It was an UNBELIEVEABLY difficult and
    painful experience, even thiugh there was absolutely no doubt that it
    was the right thing to do.  I will never forget it. Since then I have 
    done others, but almost invariably, a resignation occurs before 
    termination.  
                          
    I am happy to say that many more times, the employee was able to
    overcome the problem and became a productive performer, either in the
    same or a different job. This requires very sincere effort on the part
    of all concerned, and a lot of tact and skill.
    

    The exception is a few cases where a very serious rule violation occurs 
    and the employee is dismissed on the spot, with no long process at all. 
    ( I have not done this myself, but have seen it done several times)
                          
    Having been through this process and seen other managers do it, I am not 
    at all suprised that often managers think they can avoid the problem by
    ignoring it.  I have learned otherwise. (The hard way)
    
    Even though many managers would like the process to be streamlined,
    there is value in being sure we are doing the right thing.  The
    processes we now have in place CAN work if the manager is truly willing
    to do the right thing and has a lot of fortitude.

    
    I was thinking about this very subject the other night. I have worked
    here for 17.5 years. In that time, I have personally known two people
    who were fired. They were both certifiable nut baskets -- one carried
    a gun _everywhere_, the other tried to claim a taxi fare from New York
    for his relocation expenses and immediately started harassing
    secretaries. It's safe to say that neither was fired as a direct result
    of their failure to perform to expectations.
    

    
    I personally found an employee stealing, and have known others to
    discover other employees doing the same.  It was reported to higher
    management and termination was affected.
    
    "Performance" is, however, very subjective.
    
    Who is going to call to task a manager who fails to lead, to drive
    change, and who reacts totally on a crisis basis, taking absolutely no
    initiative TO BUILD anything.  Certainly no one below or at a peer
    level.  Yet, just processing reports upward or downward is not real
    performance that contributes to anything!
    
    Who is going to call to task an individual contributor who has become
    apathetic BECAUSE OF LACK OF LEADERSHIP in his or her manager? 
    Certainly not the manager and not likely the peers within the group.
    
    Lack of performance according to well-defined job responsibilities is
    an easy call and requires only a manager to follow procedures to either
    get corrective action or to reach a point a termination.  Yet,
    situations that fit this are limited.  There are THOUSANDS of employees
    in Digital that have had only one written defined job plan in the last
    TEN years!
    
    Amd you cannot just threaten termination to a large apathetic workforce
    that does what's called for, but only what's called for, taking no
    responsibility to create and drive change.  Responsibililty with no
    authority leads to this.  And this gets back to leadership and power.
    
    Demanding that apathetic employees "work harder" likewise accomplishes
    little.  What is work harder?  Five more minutes after five?  90 hours
    a week?  Shorter lunches?  And will just workers working "longer" lead
    to a more successful Digital?  Not likely, considering that
    "management" for the last thousand years has always been pushing for
    maximum "effort" from human beings (dusk to dawn, seven days a week)
    yet it was never quantitative performance that lead to stellar success;
    it was ALWAYS innovative, "qualitative" changes that increased
    productivity and return on investment.  Namely, "thinking" and then
    acting proactively affecting change accordingly, thus building one's
    way to higher levels of achievement.
    

another voice to .26's sentiments


Who is the betteer employee, i.e. "doing the right thing?"
	
  --  The employee who works harder than ever at doing something
      unlikely to succeed/not in the company's interest, something
      only to make a bad effort/manager/program "look good?"

  --  The employee who doesn't?

If you say the employee who doesn't, what does "doesn't" mean, when the
manager is holding your reviews in his/her hands?  Defining your job?
RE-defining your job?

The above is why I hate hearing this harangue about "deadwood."  An 
apathetic worker may be a badly managed, misused one.  I've certainly
seen it often enough.

I hate the harangue, that is, unless the individual is also hawking
leadership and responsibility, as .26 does.  In other words, the "deadwood"
is identified as management busy managing "up" rather than doing its job.
Which is leading people.

    
    Yes, .26 talks a good line about leadership and responsibility.
    
    For an example of how .26 _enacts_ leadership and responsibility, see
    DELTA_IDEAS note 87.5.
    

    
    REF:  <<< Note 1202.28 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >>>

    
    >><<Yes, .26 talks a good line about leadership and responsibility.>>
    
    >>For an example of how .26 _enacts_ leadership and responsibility, see
    DELTA_IDEAS note 87.5.>>
    
    And your personal attack, Wild Bill, adds a great deal of intellectual
    thought to the topic of this note.
    
    Enclosed is said DELTA_IDEAS note 87.5 and I stand on my reply.
    
    I will NOT be a co-dependent to dysfunctional local management
    practices that by lack of local action to support AN EXECUTIVE
    COMMITTEE endorsed program for Employee Involvement, is saying
    essentially to Ken Olsen, "to hell with that and employees being
    encouraged and supported to think."
    
    And I will NOT support hypocracy, either locally with management not
    caring about encouraging employees to think and do, or within Notes
    just to "look good" to those such as yourself.
    
    Your cheap shots, Wild Bill, reflect nothing but emptiness of content.
    
    Pray enlighten us now with your counter argument on 87.5 on WHY I
    should have responded differently, relating both to the idea and to my
    response.  And then give us a 200 line detailed rebuttal on why my
    logic and intuition is flawed in my arguments and actions.
    
    Speak.
    
          <<< CAPNET::CAPVAX$PAGE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DELTA_IDEAS.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< DELTA_IDEAS >-
================================================================================
Note 87.5             Cutting Waste Produces $$$ US:CARNELL               5 of 5
ODIXIE::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF"    18 lines  19-SEP-1990 13:17
                     -< empowerment without authority=zip >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    REF:            <<< Note 87.4 by DNEAST::LADNER_WAYNE >>>
                       -< putting money where mouth is >-

    >><<so, now that you've had this idea, have you taken the time and
    'empowered' yourself to put up these stickup notices at all of the
    printers in your building?>>
    
    >><<Take responsibility!>>
    
    Since all the management within this building has elected to ignore the
    DELTA program totally for an entire year now, I concluded there was
    neither need for employee involvement at this facility nor cost cutting
    ideas.  Thus, I did not put up the stickers but nevertheless still
    submitted the idea to DELTA.
    
    Regarding responsibility, pray tell us, what is the responsibility of
    said management?  Who owns exclusively the authority to drive change? 
    

>   by ODIXIE::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF" >>>

>    I will NOT be a co-dependent to dysfunctional local management
>    practices that by lack of local action to support AN EXECUTIVE
>    COMMITTEE endorsed program for Employee Involvement, is saying
>    essentially to Ken Olsen, "to hell with that and employees being
>    encouraged and supported to think."
    
>    Since all the management within this building has elected to ignore the
>    DELTA program totally for an entire year now, I concluded there was
>    neither need for employee involvement at this facility nor cost cutting
>    ideas.  Thus, I did not put up the stickers but nevertheless still
>    submitted the idea to DELTA.
    
>    Regarding responsibility, pray tell us, what is the responsibility of
>    said management?  Who owns exclusively the authority to drive change? 
 
    We all drive change.  
    
    The way your attitude comes across, you seem to be saying that you want 
    others to do your work for you.  More specifically, you expect
    management to be the leader for your idea. 
     
    If *you* believe in it, *you* make it happen. Don't wait for official
    committee approval to take action.  By doing so, you are only contributing
    to "dysfunctional local management practices... by lack of local action
    to support AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE endorsed program."
    
    If you don't choose to take action, that is your perogative (sp?), but
    don't blame your lack of action on someone else.
    
    -psk   
    

    
    Re .29:
    
    .30 encompasses my thoughts eloquently and completely (thank you),
    in a lot fewer than the 200+ lines you seem to require - and demand - for
    even the simplest ideas.
    
    But I can boil it down even futher...
    
    

    
        		Put up, or shut up.
    

    
    REF: .30 and 31.  "YOU do it"
    
    Dysfunctional garbage veiled in attack by innuendo, put down and an
    addictive manipulative practice, "I won't be responsible to lead as
    management, YOU do it for me."
    
    You do it?  Do what?  The issue of the idea memo suggestion to DELTA as
    posted in 87 in DELTA_IDEAS was NOT about stupid stickers.  Focusing on
    the 'example' of stickers was a petty putdown by the author of 87.4 and
    attempt to divert attention from the REAL theme of the idea submitted
    (posted below) for consideration by executive management.  Which was
    that the situation was NOT going to be resolved by one or two BIG ideas
    from management (like streamline firing to get rid of LOTS of people,
    or BUYOUT programs, as two examples) or a couple of little ideas (like
    bottled water, as another example).  The real solution lay only in a
    million changes, most subtle, as exemplied by Toyota (who now has made
    in the mundane business of autos $18 billion in cash) and that could
    only happen when all employees were empowered with authority and had a
    carrot like equal profit sharing.  And the current "system" was a
    disincentive to employees, especially MANAGERS, to nurture creativity
    and change.  THAT was the idea in 87, not stupid stickers that you
    would have all think, thereby putting me down via this garbage of "YOU
    make it happen by YOU doing it."
    
    Since that IS the idea submitted, please educate me how I can do this
    Monday morning?  Shall I just declare it here, "Equal profit sharing
    for all commences Monday, Oct 1, 1990.  Anything over 15% operating
    income as a percentage of revenue goes into a bucket to be equally
    divided by all at year's end.  Everyone now is empowered to drive a
    million changes to reach in ONE year 20 billion in revenue with 20%
    operating income so all can divide the difference (a billion) as a
    bonus profit check.  You all now have responsibility to create and
    drive change, with authority to make it real, since now all "groups as
    groups" make change decisions, as this is no longer the sole
    prerogative of managers, some of who, wishing to protect career
    interests and ambition, have in the past made no decisions and
    exemplied no leadership, especially in supporting employees in thinking
    and participative management.  In fact, take a vote of confidence as a
    group, and if negative, give your leader 90 days to improve.  If no
    improvement, a second negative gives your group the right to elect a
    new manager who will LEAD you to achieving higher excellence, getting
    this company $20 billion in revenue and 20% op profit.  That's your
    goal.  BUILD!"
    
    Oh, wait.  Gosh, I proposed and I just did, but this isn't going to
    happen is it.  For I do not have the AUTHORITY to implement my idea,
    the REAL idea posted in 87.0, now do I.  Shall I storm the bastille and
    take it by force?  Or is my speaking, expressing my opinion to Ken
    Olsen and company actually the "doing" which my authority DOES allow.
    
    You preach, and you manipulate, making co-dependents of us all, saying
    its OUR fault to fix other's deficits, and you contribute little to
    creative intelligent exchange of ideas and evolving them.  You are
    professionals of a well-practiced art in the halls and alleys of
    Digital: attack by put-down and suggested innuendo to silence those who
    you do not agree with, whose ideas for change threaten you.
    
    The REAL idea of 87 as posted in 87 of DELAT_IDEAS, below:
    
          <<< CAPNET::CAPVAX$PAGE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DELTA_IDEAS.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< DELTA_IDEAS >-
================================================================================
Note 87.0             Cutting Waste Produces $$$ US:CARNELL            5 replies
SCARGO::WEISMAN_E                                   157 lines  25-JUN-1990 19:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davide Carnell @ALF
ODIXIE::CARNELL

DA1286 - Cutting Waste Produces $500,000,000 In Net Operating Income

If certain "rules" were changed, such as if there was equal profit sharing 
with no cap, and if there was true empowerment with authority, and if the 
bureaucracy and good ol' boy system were blown out, and if creatvity was 
mandatory in every employee, and if there was a driving passion instilled 
within every employee, and a few other changes in the rules, then I submit 
each of our current 125,000 employees could find and create, by LOOKING, at 
least one proactive idea for change that could cut waste and increase 
productivity, somewhere.

So I said, let's see how long it might take today to find a single way to 
cut waste and increase productivity, just by assuming all the above, and 
thus being "driven" to LOOK.

45 minutes.

I am standing in a long line at one of our facility's expensive Xerox 
machines.  Current person on the machine finishes and walks away, WITHOUT 
CLEARING THE SPECS SET ON THE COPIER!  Next person steps up, does not press 
the "clear all" button and just changes the number of copies desired and 
hits the print button.  Boom.  7 copies, about 25 pages each, run off, all 
screwed up, because the lens was set for 120%.  Person had to start over.

Wasted paper, machine cost, time.

This person finishes, and walks away without clearing the specs, just like 
the person before!  Next person steps up, changes only the number desired 
and hits the print button.  Boom.  Same problem.  Now 5 sets messed up 
because the spec was set at "staple" and this person did NOT want them 
stapled.

Wasted paper, machine cost, time.

Based on an observation of two samples, I deduce this is "probably" 
universal throughout Digital.  How many copiers throughout Digital?  
100,000?

Times say 20 instances like the above per day?  Thus 20 cases per day times 
100,000 times 250 business days?  Conceivably, five hundred million 
instances per year.

Derived proactive action to reduce this waste might simply be to put a 
yellow 3-M stick 'um over the print button saying "PRESS CLEAR ALL BUTTON 
TO CLEAR PREVIOUS SPECS BEFORE YOU BEGIN -- CUT WASTE"

Potential direct dollar savings just in paper waste reduction?  $250,000 a 
year?  Less?  More?

Much more?

Who knows.  Suffice it to say, however, there WOULD be SOME dollar savings 
and increased time productivity.

So I submit this idea to a Digital idea suggestion box.  Somewhere.

And say there was management support for massive ongoing "fine tuning" 
change and employee involvement and empowerment on all employees' parts.

Stickers would be up on all copiers within 24 hours in this building, 
because the idea makes enough "common sense" to at least "try it" to see if 
indeed it works.

Now let's say that literally and virtually ALL employee ideas go into A 
SINGLE WORLDWIDE VAXNOTES CONFERENCE (write topic only), plus tracking, 
implementation, and REPLY discussion by any employee on the system.

With all employees driven, motivated by the open equal profit sharing with 
not cap, they would be accessing it daily, or at least weekly, and the idea 
WOULD BE UNIVERSALLY IMPLEMENTED WITHIN 7 DAYS.

BECAUSE every employee is driven passionately to MAKE MORE MONEY FOR 
Digital so enough "EXTRA" is generated to create a sizable profit sharing 
check for themselves come the end of the year.

And with all such checks being EQUAL for everyone, interdependently linked, 
this pivotal change nurtures not only a driving passion to make more NET 
PROFIT with Digital's resources, both as a percentage, and in NEW profit 
via INCREASED REVENUES, and ensures that all good "common sense" ideas get 
looked for, created, and driven into reality universally, QUICKLY!

And it nurtures greater INTERNAL COOPERATION AND HARMONY versus personal 
competition up the corporate ladder.

Now some managers and executives may argue that this idea is pidling and is 
of no consequence and not worth "worrying" about as we "do our daily 
business" where we'll get BIG bucks via BIG sales!

Not when we get only small margins on our BIG sales.

Further, I argue that 1,000,000 implemented "little pidling ideas" 
exemplified in my example will equate to $500,000,000 just in reduced 
waste, which drops immediately to the Net Operating Income line.

But no manager is going to create them; only all 125,000 employees, 
individual contributors and managers alike, working as a single driven, 
passionate team can generate and implement 1,000,000 actual ideas, EVERY 
YEAR to "fine tune" the millions of moving actions generated by 125,000 
employees every day within Digital.

Can't be done?  Why not.  Toyata does it every year, and has for years.

Is this being done now Digital?

No.

Proof?  Call randomly 100 employees throughout the world and ask them the 
last time their manager asked EACH for their ideas to cut waste, increase 
productivity, generate new products and services and businesses, increase 
margins per sale and product, and increase our effectiveness in building 
markets, customers, revenues, margins and net operating income.

And then championed those ideas that made enough common sense 'to try' into 
reality.

Ask then each for details of all the ideas each has indeed created in the 
last ninety days and how each employee championed and drove his or her own 
ideas into reality.

I perceive you'll be lucky to find even a handful who are "looking" and 
"creating" and "driving" constructive CHANGES into reality to build a 
better and more successful Digital, greater than what is.

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR ANY EMPLOYEE TO DO THIS.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES FOR EACH TO BE CREATIVE.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES FOR MANAGERS TO ENCOURAGE, NURTURE, 
SUPPORT, AND DRIVE CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS FROM THEIR DIRECT REPORTS FOR CHANGE, 
TO FINE TUNE ALL ACTIONS WITHIN DIGITAL, INTO REALITY.

THERE IS IN FACT A  "DIS-INCENTIVE" TO DO ANY OF THE ABOVE.  IN SOME PARTS 
OF DIGITAL, TO BE KNOWN AS A PASSIONATE CREATOR OF IDEAS FOR CHANGE IS TO 
BE LABELED A TROUBLEMAKER WHO WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY BOTH 
MANAGEMENT AND COWORKERS.

Thus, why bother.  "That's CORPORATE'S JOB -- they'll figure out and tell 
US what needs to be done and changed."  Just do "your job" and "what your 
boss says to do" and you will succeed.  Traditional career path for 
personal growth.

My continued argument: Change certain rules to change the culture to change 
the discipline in how Digital works and we WILL make LOTS more net 
operating income and LOTS more revenue and margins.

Imagine.  All employees linked into a living network of human thought 
focused on continuously fine-tuning all actions, and creating innovative 
new actions, all towards building every day a better and more successful 
Digital, far, far greater than what has already been achieved.

Regards,
David

    
    ...so put the stupid stickers on the stupid copiers, save the company
    some money, build your credibility in small increments, and go on from
    there.
    
    The short of it is, Dave, you finally came across a small but CONCRETE,
    SUBSTANTIVE idea to improve things around here, but you didn't have the
    seed to do anything about it -- or worse, you are convinced you should
    have the power to demand that someone else do something about it.
    
    ----------
    
    Now I'm going to walk away from this obviously unproductive rathole. But
    I haven't given up on you, Dave -- I'll be watching DELTA_IDEAS note
    87 for signs of true ambition.
    

I know of one supervisor who was fired. This was about 6 years ago.
(No, I will NOT give his name!)

He finally took the hint that his superiors wanted him to leave.
All his employee req's were rejected, for example, and he was heavily
criticized by his superiors.

So, he sent his resume around.

His manager got a call from someone, either a headhunter or a competitor -
informing his manager that he had put confidential information in his
resume. (Future product ship dates, for example.)

He was out that day.

Now this isn't the same as being fired for nonperformance, but it shows
that people do get fired.

    REF:           <<< Note 1202.33 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >>>
     -< Your contribution to copier efficiency lacks substance, still... >-

    >><<<Now I'm going to walk away from this obviously unproductive
    rathole. But I haven't given up on you, Dave -- I'll be watching
    DELTA_IDEAS note 87 for signs of true ambition.>>
    
    Since you launched the attack, chivalry says I get to make the last
    closing reply to the rathole.
    
    Enclosed below is my reply from DELTA_IDEAS.  For further dialogue on
    co-dependency in Digital, see topic 1208 in this conference.
    
          <<< CAPNET::CAPVAX$PAGE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DELTA_IDEAS.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< DELTA_IDEAS >-
================================================================================
Note 87.6             Cutting Waste Produces $$$ US:CARNELL               6 of 6
ODIXIE::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF"    69 lines   1-OCT-1990 10:16
                       -< do the right thing, ethically >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    In response to those individuals continuing to harp around stickers,
    WHICH WAS NOT THE IDEA presented to DELTA and Executive Committee
    members as posted in 87.0, let me elaborate here, where the arguments
    should be made, why it would be WRONG for me to post 3-M Post-it
    stickers, as was the "example" used in presented the MAIN idea in 87,
    which was to change the cutlure in this company so that there is
    REAL empowerment with authority instead of a co-dependent organization
    where some managers take NO responsibility for leadership but are quite
    willing to take all the reward.
    
    The facility in which I work (area hdqs) has NOT supported employee
    involvement and DELTA for an entire year now.  To post the stickers
    would be co-dependency, covering up and supporting demonstrated lack of
    leadership, thereby ensuring its continuation.   What happens when Ken
    Olsen and Jack Smith send down a memo to managers asking for details on
    how they are supporting employees getting involved to come up with
    ideas to reduce expenses by one billion dollars, as is the current
    desire by KO and JS, and to build more effectively customers, revenue
    and margin.
    
    Can you envision this response by a bureaucrat self-centered manager:
    
    Dear Mssrs. Olsen and Smith:
    
    In response to your request for details on how I as a manager have been
    supporting employees getting involved to create ideas for reducing
    expense by one billion dollars and to build more effectively customers,
    revenue and margins, I am happy to report the DELTA program was a
    complete and total success with my people contributing their share of
    creativity!  A total succuss, Sirs!  Several people have created ideas
    they have sent to corporate DELTA that will impact large areas of the
    company, possibly saving tens of millions!  And even locally, we have
    had ideas implemented, saving money in subtle ways that will add up,
    Sirs.  Like a sticker on copiers to ensure clearing of commands that
    WILL cut wasted paper costs.  A total success, Sirs, and I am proud to
    have been a part in providing the necessary leadership to have made it
    happen.
    
    In fact, if I may be so bold, my leadership as a manager has been
    outstanding in bringing about greater employee involvement because
    these employees became involved despite GREAT ODDS!
    
    What were the great odds?  Why the lack of my doing anything!  I did
    not promote the DELTA program, I nurtured no one, I set up no DELTA
    councils, I encouraged no one to contribute, I did zip.  Yet, despite
    all this, many employees created ideas, and a few even implemented
    some!  Is not such great leadership on my part self-evident when
    results were attained from people under me despite such obstacles!
    
    And I even had to put down and intimidate many of these people because
    they created wacky ideas, like changing OUR RULES of all things, such
    as the employee who submitted the idea, posted in topic 87.0 of the
    DElTA_IDEAS VAXnotes conference.  It was fortunate I was able to
    concentrate on the true value of said memo, namely the fine idea on
    stickers, successfully ignoring all other content.
    
    As a consequence of your now recognizing my self-evident leadership
    that I provided as part of my responsibility as a manager with sole
    control over authority to change and do anything, I eagerly await my
    promotion from you to the higher level of big cheese, with appropriate
    increase in salary, stock options, bonuses, and corner window office.
    
    What I did locally for hundreds of employees I can readily replicate
    for thousands.  I am a proven commander who gets RESULTS!
    
    Your most obedient manager,
    A semi-swiss cheese awaiting promotion to big head cheese
    

    I sure get grumpy when I get to pull over (using DWNotes) LOONG
    DUPLICATES of notes in OTHER conferences that I have no interest in.
    Taking up network bandwidth and disk space.
    
    If you guys wanna squabble, do it over in DELTA_IDEAS.
    
    If I were moderator of this conference, these recent replies would've
    been deleted immediately.
    
    karl

    re .23

	Like .24, I, too, had to "terminate" someone once.

	It was a long (14 months) process full of performance discussions,
warning stages, counseling, EAP, documentation, etc, etc.  It took an 
incredible amount of my time.  Keeping the person on board hurt the morale 
in my group.  Twice when I was ready to fire the person, Personnel balked 
at the last minute and claimed I needed more documentation.  

	Even though there was no question that it had to be done for the
good of the group, as well as the individual, it was very hard to do.
I felt physically sick afterwards.  But I still knew it was the right
thing to do. 

	I think my group would have been much better off if I had been
able to shorten the process.  I would welcome any attempts to make the 
process shorter, as long as the fairness is retained.  

	It's an experience I hope I never have to repeat.

Frank