Conference 7.286::digital

    I think giving priority to TSFO folk is absolutely the right the thing
    to do.  Look at from their angle...why should you be able to actually
    cause them to be laid off?  
    
    In the long run, DEC will benefit from this policy.  Maybe not in
    your individual case.....but overall.
    

    I agree all avenues should be pursued when tfso people are applying.
    If after an exhaustive search no tfso comes forward, then offer 
    it up for others.

    
    I can see giving TFSO first shot but only as long as the standard used
    is well defined. If a non-TFSO candidate is the better qualified then
    he/she should get it. One of the problems this company has is the force
    fit of people into positions they are either not ready for or
    ill-suited to.
    
    -Ray
    

    Well, I think it sucks!
    
    This is the same old Digital bullshit which gives budgets to empowered
    employees and then makes them get V.P. approval to spend any of it.
    
    Either your organization's goals are important or they are not.  If they
    are (and whose aren't?), then you should decide which candidates are
    best able to advance those goals and act accordingly.  The desire by 
    someone to rectify a stupid hiring decision made in the past by limiting 
    your choice as a hiring manager should not give them the right to compound
    the problem by trading off an overstaffed workforce for one of lower 
    quality.
    
    Al
    

	It's a sorry mess no mater how you look at it.  A lot of it will 
    depend on how much 'priority' is given to the transferee.  If a lot,
    then we'll get too few people leaving the company to meet the head
    count goals and a poorer work force to boot.  If too little, we will
    get much less company loyalty and much higher labor costs with everybody
    covering their ...s to make sure they don't get the axe with a lot of
    lost productivity in the process.

	With the comming of layoffs, I've had to reasses my expected income
    for the long haul.  I can no longer rely on my own efforts to assure 
    that I will have a job two or three years from now and I am going to 
    have to build that risk into my long term plans.  Yes, it also means
    that I will start looking at jobs outside Digital, something I have not
    done up till now.  That means you are going to have to pay me and everyone
    else in this company more if you think we have been doing a good job and 
    want to keep us around.

	I have shifted gears since TFSO and the lay-offs started.  I've 
    shifted my emphasis from trying to get Digital to do the right thing for 
    the long term to doing what is required right this instant.  I don't expect
    the company will do noticably better as a result.  I'll also sell a good
    chunk of my Digital stock, not tommorow or even next week, but soon - 
    before the negative aspects of this upheaval in corporate culture have 
    had a chance to make its awful impact felt.

	I could be wrong, and I will stay around if I am, but I have a 
    family to support and they do take precident over even such a formally 
    wonderful company as Digital.

	I used to love Digital, but I going to have to face the posibility
    that I might have to leave it.  I don't like the idea.

	Now I expect that this will generate a lot of flames.  I just ask that
    you stop and THINK before you start blasting!  But that is too much to ask
    so I might as well shut up...

    
    I had heard rumour that, although a hiring manager will usually look
    for an 80% (ish) match skills---> job when hiring, this % has been
    officially dropped to 40-50% when hiring from the transition pool.
    
    This is *only a rumour*, but it seems to imply that a less well 
    qualified (less able to advance the group towards its goal, less
    suitable, whatever) person could be favoured in some circumstances.
    
    I think the situation sucks.
    It limits the career options of those who are intending to stay
    with DEC for as long as the "pool" is in existance, IMO, and
    permanently wrecks the faith and morale of the employees that DEC
    has elected to keep.
    
    I have a theory that there is "invisible downsizing" going on.
    There are the official programmes - "the package", and now lay-offs.
    I believe that the ripple effects of these programmes and the way
    that they are being handled are causing Digital to lose a third
    group - the "high esteem leavers". These are people who think about,
    and maybe love (or have loved) this company - people who are committed,
    and shocked at recent decisions and events to the point where they
    have decided to take their skills elsewhere.
    They will leave at different times, and DEC will not notice the mass
    movement that is quietly happening.
    
    When the dust settles, and DEC stands back to look at the new "lean and
    mean" workforce that it has so ruthlessly carved out from the old,
    "flabby" Digital, I suspect that it will find it a lot leaner in talent 
    than it planned. They will have thrown out the golddust with sand - the 
    muscle with the fat (to mix my metaphors alarmingly).
    And Digital will be far weaker for their loss.
    
    'gail
    
    

    ....I understand the anger, disappointment, frustration...BUT still
    believe a TSFO candidate should only have to be "qualifiable".  If
    you think you can do better somewhere else, by all means go.  Some
    monstrous ego's are coming through in this note.  Could it be that
    for the first time some DECies are being forced to deal with the
    real world??  Get off it, do your present job, and above all stop
    whining!

    I don't want to get into the emotion that is taking place in this note
    right now, but I do want to reply to the base note.  A manager can hire
    non-TSFO candidates if they have honestly reviewed the candidates and
    find that none of them are qualified for that role.  Some managers will
    not want to go through the justification and hire a TSFO candidate
    anyway to avoid unnecessary difficulties/paperwork, IMO.  
    
    I do, though, think that TSFO candidates should be considered at a
    higher priority than "other candidates", but there has to be a
    consideration of their ability to do fill the basic requirements of the
    position.  TSFO candidates that have dedicated 10, 15 20 years to this
    company are not owed a job, but I think they are owed the consideration
    - nothing more or less.  

Re .7:

>   If you think you can do better somewhere else, by all means go.  

	Yep, I'll start looking.  That doesn't mean I'll go, but I sure
    will be looking.  It's disapointing that I have to.  This used to be a
    very nice place to work...

>   Some monstrous ego's are coming through in this note.  

	Not the least of 'em is your own.

>   Could it be that for the first time some DECies are being forced to deal 
>   with the real world??  

	No, I think most of use deal with the real world quite well, but we are
    running a little short of energy when it comes to trying to improve that 
    world.

>   Get off it, do your present job, and above all stop whining!

	You're basicly saying "Give up your ideals and shut up.  Do what you're
    told and stop thinking."  Well, I figure that part of my job is to think,
    so if you will climb back in your tree and stop howling, I think we'd all
    be better off.

What really bothers me about this whole thing is that the easiest technique 
for downsizing... ATTRITION... is not being used very much in my opinion. There 
are people moving on to other jobs within and outside of the company and those 
jobs are getting replacement reqs issued immediately. When I left Corporate 
last year I strongly lobbied my ex-boss to NOT replace me. Being a 
middle-manager in corporate, not filling my vacated position was a very good 
thing for the company (I'm not sure the manager who absorbed my old group 
would agree!). I've seen other situations where replacement reqs (especially 
for managers) have been requested and approved. Very serious thought should be 
given before requesting AND approving a replacement req.

Another major problem is the manager/worker ratio. If I were Jack Smith or
K.O. I would immediately find all People Managers that had less than 10 people
reporting to them and do something about it. 

Jim

re: .0
    
>		What do you think of this model as a hiring manager?
    I think I'd resent not being able to hire my own preferred interviewee. 
    But, I'd temper my resentment with the understanding that, while my own
    goals might suffer in the short term, the qualifyable (transition)
    employee would, in the long term, meet my needs, and the corporation
    benefits.
    
>		What do you think of this model as an interviewer in
>		the decision loop?		
    I'd resent being put into the position
    
>		What do you think of this model as a qualified candidate?
    I'd be pissed...but, try to understand... there were several
    "interesting" opportunities... follow up on another.
    
>		What do you think of this model as a transition employee?
    I'd be happy as hell.  The reason for being in the transition pool is
    to have just such an opportunity extended.  

>		How do you think this model will benefit or detract from
>		building Digital for the 1990s?
    DEC understands the problems it's experiencing now are going to change,
    and are driven by Wall Street.  (at least that's my understanding)  I
    expect DEC is sincere when it says it's best assets are its employees,
    and would prefer to salvage them when possible.  Having experienced
    DECCIES is probably better than "new blood" for the years that come.
    
    

    I find it interesting that the people who were offered package 1 or 2
    are in this pool of candidates that may be getting preferential
    treatment and are getting time to find a new job.  People who are about
    to get the package, get no warning and get no time to find a job.
    If they suspect they are going to get the package and look for a job
    and find one that they are a good fit for they may have to take a back
    seat to candidates who got offered package 1 or 2.
    
    Sounds fair to me, what do you think ?

    If memory serves me correctly, people that transfered into TMP for
    job-search only have 4 weeks to find a job.  I would think that as of
    now, there are no plan 1 or 2 job-search people left.
    
    I have friends on the "outside" that have had to cut down to a 32 hour/4
    day work week, get layed off, have to change shifts or leave, had to
    become part-time employees, etc.  I feel much better off being here,
    knowing that even if I do get let go, I will get a good package to keep
    me going.  
    
    As far as prefered candidates, most people can learn most jobs.  A
    candidate needs motivation more than anything else.  A TMP cadidate may
    take a little longer to get up to speed, but I think this is "right"
    for everyone.  None.....no, let me restate that....NONE of the people
    complaining about TMP people getting prefered status are in TMP.  If
    they were, I think you'd hear a different story.  
    
    As far a attrition goes, if person "A" leaves and the job is filled by
    person "B" who is in TMP, then TMP's headcount goes down by one.  Means
    the same thing to me.
    
      
    Chris D.

    Seems to me person A is more expendable than person B, because person A
    was encouraged to leave first. 

    I'm using person "A" as someone who is retiring, or something on that
    idea.
    
    Chris D.

    I didn't read it correctly. Here is what I was getting at: If person A
    was offered one of the first packages and chose instead to try to find
    another job in the company and was given preference over person B who was
    not offered either package and was layed off; it wouldn't make any
    sense, because person A was more expendable that person B. In fact, if
    person A had not gotten the job and had been forced to leave, person B
    might not have been layed-off.

    re: .16  Using your scenario(sp) I would say that each was just as
    expendable as the other, they just became expendable at a different
    time.  Fortunatly for A, he became expendable when TMP could take him
    in.
    
    Chris D.

    In all this discussion regarding layoffs, no one has mentioned
    anything about a hiring freeze.  I've noticed that Digital is
    still hiring from the outside.  It surely will not do any good
    for this company to layoff five or six thousand people if they
    end up hiring that many people back.  It appears that this is a
    trend....I wonder what corporate's view on this issue is?
    
    

    Re: .18
    
    	1) How is it that you are aware of digital still hiring from
    outside?  Facts only please.
    
    	2) If #1 is true, is it not possible that the specific skills
    required to fill a position are not matched by those individuals for
    which it has been determined (not by me) to be in excess?
    
    Example:  Digital has won contracts with customers that require
    delivery of services, support, etc.  If resources are not available in
    the field (or in the location required by the customer) to deliver what
    should digital do:
    
    	a) wait until an internal resource "surfaces" - thus delaying
    project revenue.
    
    	b) ask the customer to cancel the contract because we cannot
    deliver as specified & when specified.
    
    	c) get the necessary resources to deliver the services, generate
    revenue and fulfill the customers' contract.  Next contract please!
    
    I'm not suggesting a free-for-all regarding hiring - but I don't wish
    to see business, revenue and potential profit for digital go to other
    firms because WE have an imbalance of resources.
    
    FWIW
    

    I know a supervisor who has several reqs and can hire from outside--he
    recently asked me if I knew potential candidates outside DEC.
    
    The positions are quite specialized, and while he'd rather hire from
    inside, there aren't many compiler people with expertise in CISC
    code-generation free internally.  If, by chance, you are such a person,
    please send mail!
    
    These openings are in JOBS, I've been told.
    
    			-John Bishop

    I wonder of .0's scenario would change if he were a minority woman. How
    does our AA hiring policy compare with our TFSO hiring policy?
    
    TFSO hiring guidelines is very similar to AA. The manager does't hire
    THE best qualified candidate, he hires a qualified minority
    candidate, if one applies. Similar to transition candidates, if one is
    qualified, he hires them.  

    
    	As was mentioned in another topic, the CSCs (Customer Support 
    	Centers) are hiring, and have even advertised outside of the
    	company to fill slots.  Openings are in Colorado Springs and
    	Atlanta.
    
    	The hiring managers would MUCH rather hire internally.  While
    	I am not one of the hiring managers, it would still fill me
    	with a sense of accomplishment if some of our group's reqs
    	were filled with personnel otherwise destined for layoff.  To
    	know that we rescued a DEC career (if the individual wanted
    	his/her career to continue at DEC) from certain disaster adds
    	that much more meaning to the team that we are trying to build.
    
    	But at the same time, the needs are IMMEDIATE and cannot
    	accommodate training of an unqualified (although qualifiABLE)
    	candidate.
    	
    	One other factor that forces us to hire externally is the fact
    	that the candidate has to be willing to relocate to Colorado
    	or Georgia.  That, in itself, causes many qualified internals
    	(and externals as well) to remove themselves from consideration 
    	for these positions.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    .22
    
    Joe:
    
    That last paragraph says it all.  I'm with Remote Sales Support
    in the Atlanta CSC; when we got the go ahead to hire.....there
    were some (such as myself) who worked elsewhere in the CSC,
    but had a skill set RSS could use.....no training required....
    I was on the phones in 2 weeks.
    
    The next group of permanent hires came from All Hands On Dec
    people.....who were "willing" to relocate and that definitely
    is the operative word here......we initially had many more AHOD
    people, but not all were "willing" to stay permanently and some
    were not offered permanent positions because they were unable
    to acquire the skill set even after some months of effort....we
    hand a big problem to resolve and our time was limited also as
    to how long we could wait for someone to ramp up to speed.
    
    The last group was from the C.O.D. program.....but when the last
    package was announced we still had 7 open reqs....they were killed.
    Whoever mentioned specific SW groups, i.e. Ultrix, etc....probably
    are now the only groups within the CSC allowed to add headcount,
    is probably on target.
    
    My district has had a tremendous growth in headcount....a few 
    came from the CSC in the Springs....but most came out of the New
    England area..  The folks from NE who are staying in touch with
    DEC friends there are hearing of people they care about now 
    suffering through very real fear.....again though, the operative
    words must include "willing to relocate".  I'm not trying to
    invalidate the people who felt leaving the NE area was not a
    viable option for them....but I do feel once folks decided to
    stay in NE *after* the TFSO process started, they were making a
    conscious decision/choice (although it may not feel like
    that to them now). 
    
    Most of my new co-workers said they were basing their decisions
    on if/when "IT" happened, they knew the pickings would be slim
    in New England, so they were willing to uproot their families, etc.
    
    I do feel compassion for people who felt a move wasn't viable for
    them; but this has been coming down now for quite awhile....it
    does sound like some folks "tuned it out" because it was painful
    to deal with.....and now reality is setting in.
    
    If I had stayed with my former group (project specialist with a
    group that is admin/overhead and being transitioned to CSC/CS);
    I could have gotten that first and most lucrative package......
    Three years ago I decided it was time to become direct labor and
    an IC......didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and
    that's when I started looking.
    
    I will say I've observed abuses of the process as it was announced
    in Livewire.....my hope here is those managers who axed someone
    qualified to keep someone "nearer and dearer" to their hearts
    remember......you live by the sword, you die by the sword......
    
    Karen
    
    

    In my particular office, there are 56 customer service engineers
    reporting to 3 managers. If the rest of the corporation were scaled
    accordingly I don't think we would have such a massive headcount
    problem. When you hear of stories of 1 manager for 1-3 employees,
    then you suddenly realize why we are in such a mess. If you want to
    compare overhead to direct labor employees and figure out the ratio
    of such, then you'll know why DEC is in deep sneakers. In my 10 years
    at DEC I could never fully understand the multi layer managerial scheme
    of things, but since LAYOFFS are happening many managers have built
    their little domains and think they are bullet proof. I hope if LAYOFFS
    are world wide consumated that it reaches where it will the most
    good...

RE:

>================================================================================
>Note 1363.22  Anonymous - Not necessarily the best candidate for the job 22 of 24
>CSC32::J_OPPELT "Caution -- Massachusetts driver."   25 lines   7-FEB-1991 13:57
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    
>        As was mentioned in another topic, the CSCs (Customer Support 
>        Centers) are hiring, and have even advertised outside of the
>        company to fill slots.  Openings are in Colorado Springs and
>        Atlanta.

Well, since the subject has migrated over to this note...

>    
>        The hiring managers would MUCH rather hire internally.  While
>        I am not one of the hiring managers, it would still fill me
>        with a sense of accomplishment if some of our group's reqs
>        were filled with personnel otherwise destined for layoff.  To
>        know that we rescued a DEC career (if the individual wanted
>        his/her career to continue at DEC) from certain disaster adds
>        that much more meaning to the team that we are trying to build.
>    
>        But at the same time, the needs are IMMEDIATE and cannot
>        accommodate training of an unqualified (although qualifiABLE)
>        candidate.

This is another word recruiters at CXO love - immediate.  "We can't 
wait for someone to relocate, train, etc., we need someone 
immediately."     Bullcookies.   Some of these jobs have been open 
before Christmas - and I'll wager they'll be open for a while longer.
How long does it take to hire and train someone from the outside, vs. 
transferring and/or training an internal candidate?   Furthermore, 
most of the jobs posted at the CSC are jobs that need to be filled on 
a somewhat regular basis (and could have been predicted over 1 year 
ago!).   If the needs are so immediate, then what pray-tell have they 
been doing so far, and what will they do until the new-hires are 
up-to-speed??   Really, I'm sure that there is a legitimate need for 
these jobs.   But since 1) nobody has curled up and died because they 
have not been filled thus far, and 2) They seem to be needed on 
somewhat of an ongoing basis, then why, why, why is there not some 
type of internal training program for internal folks?    

>        
>        One other factor that forces us to hire externally is the fact
>        that the candidate has to be willing to relocate to Colorado
>        or Georgia.  That, in itself, causes many qualified internals
>        (and externals as well) to remove themselves from consideration 
>        for these positions.
>    
>        Joe Oppelt

I know of someone in the Shrewsbury (formerly Westboro) MA CSC that 
recently applied for a LATERAL transfer to CXO.  This person is 
someone who is obviously qualified and was even interviewed for the 
job at CXO.   This person is willing to transfer to CXO on 1 months 
notice, WITHOUT relocation.    Now, are you ready: This person just 
recieved a letter from a CXO recruiter stating that they would not be 
able to extend an offer to this person (no explanation was given).   
One of the recruiters claims that the jobs are being filled, and 
that the jobs in the jobs book don't exist, yet there is a posting 
for that very same job as recent as 3 days ago!!     Still convinced 
we are "doing the right thing"? 

-John

Re: .25 & others

I'm already located in Colorado Springs (but in a different building from the
CSC) and have submitted my resume to be considered for any position open in
the CSC (my most recent job has gone away).

I've had two interviews (for quite specialized jobs) by contacting the hiring
managers directly.  But the only response I had from the recruiters was a form
postcard mailed to my home acknowledging receipt of my resume! 

After submitting my resume to one hiring manager and not hearing anything for 
two-and-a-half weeks, I phoned last week and was told that the position had 
been filled some time ago.  But it was still posted this week...

I'm well qualified for many of those jobs, so why can't I get any further than
this?  There's got to be something wrong when they're advertising externally
in other cities and ignoring qualified local internal candidates who are 
available immediately.

-  David (frustrated in CXO1)

    re .26

    	Did you ask the hiring manager why you did not get the job?  What
    	you believe to be "qualified" may be a misconception.

    	And Technical Qualification is not the only quality necessary.  
    	Please understand that I am not making any judgments about you
    	in particular, (I do not know you at all) but other qualities that
    	are important (sometimes they can outweigh certain amounts of
    	technical ability) are good verbal and written skill, and 
    	interpersonal relations.  We don't want someone who is going
    	to piss off the customers every time they call in -- even if they
    	*do* give the perfect answer every time!  There are other qualities
    	as well.

    re .25

>Some of these jobs have been open 
>before Christmas - and I'll wager they'll be open for a while longer.

>most of the jobs posted at the CSC are jobs that need to be filled on 
>a somewhat regular basis (and could have been predicted over 1 year 
>ago!).   

    	I don't know about other jobs, but the slew we have open right
    	now only opened up last month.  DEC gave us the reqs UNSOLICITED
    	because they want to emphasize and grow this particular piece
    	of the business.

>and what will they do until the new-hires are up-to-speed??   

    	Hire people that can fill the jobs immediately.  We have received
    	some very promising resumes from both internal and external
    	candidates who can step in without alot of ramp-up.


>recieved a letter from a CXO [RECRUITER] (my emphasis  JMO)
    > stating that they would not be 
>able to extend an offer to this person (no explanation was given).   
>One of the [RECRUITERS] claims that the jobs are being filled, and 
>that the jobs in the jobs book don't exist, yet there is a posting 
>for that very same job as recent as 3 days ago!!     Still convinced 
>we are "doing the right thing"? 

    	We've discussed the effectiveness of RECRUITERS elsewhere in
    	this notesfile.  Has the person talked directly to a hiring
    	manager?  In addition, the fact that they work at the CSC/MA
    	does not necessarily mean that they are technically qualified
    	to support anything in another CSC.  There is probably little
    	that I'd be technically qualified to support at CSC/MA or CSC/AT.


    	Joe Oppelt

    I finally had to comment on internal vs. external hiring.

    When I was a PSS manager, there was a period of about a _YEAR_ or so
    that we could not get secretaries because only "internal transfer" was
    approved for all secretarial positions. "Digital" had *no problem*
    enforcing this rule with an iron fist.

    If we are *really* serious about reducing headcount, then we should try
    enforcing internal hire *only* for some period, say six months or so,
    and see how it works. I realize that technical skills are much more
    specialized than secretarial. However, that would really put our feet to
    the fire to solve a bunch of issues. And if we are *serious* about
    downsizing -- that it will really happen -- there will be more candiates
    than positions.

    I firmly believe that anyone who is technical can learn something else
    technical. What takes a lot longer to learn is how to find your way
    around Digital, and that's knowledge that is lost and then needs to be
    retrained everytime "(someone leaves DEC+someone else joins DEC)=
    0 change in headcount" happens.

    Zero change in headcount is not a zero sum game for DEC, it's a losing
    game.

    /Peters

    	re: applying for "any job open"
    
    	To count on internal resume-routing to get your resume to the
    	proper hiring manager is simply foolish.  Perhaps it should
    	not be that way, but resumes just ARE NOT circulated very well
    	within this company.
    
    	If you have applied for "any job open", yet you still see open
    	jobs, chances are that the appropriate manager hasn't even SEEN
    	(let alone considered) your resume.
    
    	It has always been my experience here (DEC) that you have to apply 
    	for a specific job.  You cannot count on someone else getting your 
    	resume to the manager for you.  "Someone" includes personnel.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    
    
    To go along with Joe's statement of the need to contact the hiring
    manager and not count on Personnel to do the appropriate routing--
    when I was hired from the outside several years ago, the day I received
    my written offer in the mail, I also received a letter from the same
    Personnel office stating there were no jobs available and DEC was not
    interested in me at that time!   (I had also received a phone call
    the same day from another group making arrangements to do a technical
    interview.)
    
    Definitely contact the hiring managers for the areas for which you
    are qualified.
    
    Mary Jo

re: .30
    
>    	It has always been my experience here (DEC) that you have to apply 
>    	for a specific job.  You cannot count on someone else getting your 
>    	resume to the manager for you.  "Someone" includes personnel.
    
And how do you propose that we find out who the hiring manager is?  It's
not listed on most of the VTX JOBS_US reqs.  Sending MAIL to the Recruiter
asking for that information is a guaranteed waste-of-time.  What do you do?;-)

re: .31

Same thing happened to a friend of mine.  Amazin', ain't it?
									paul

    
>And how do you propose that we find out who the hiring manager is?  It's
>not listed on most of the VTX JOBS_US reqs.  Sending MAIL to the Recruiter
>asking for that information is a guaranteed waste-of-time.  What do you do?;-)

paul,

I call the recruiter; each job posting has a recruiter's phone
number. I sometime ask for the SRI so that I don't apply for a
job that's way outside my salary range.

calvin (in transition pool)

>================================================================================
>Note 1363.33  Anonymous - Not necessarily the best candidate for the job 33 of 33
>CSC32::C_HOE "Sammy will be THREE in 3 months!"      12 lines   9-FEB-1991 17:05
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                            -< call the recruiter >-
>
>    
>>And how do you propose that we find out who the hiring manager is?  It's
>>not listed on most of the VTX JOBS_US reqs.  Sending MAIL to the Recruiter
>>asking for that information is a guaranteed waste-of-time.  What do you do?;-)
>
>paul,
>
>I call the recruiter; each job posting has a recruiter's phone
>number. I sometime ask for the SRI so that I don't apply for a
>job that's way outside my salary range.
>
>calvin (in transition pool)

Calvin, for the benefit of all of us job-seekers, has a recruiter ever 
given you the name of the hiring manager?  If so, I'd like to know 
where you were blessed with this experience.   It's been my personal 
experience, along with folks I've networked with, and apparently other 
people in this notesfile, that:

1.  Recruiters do not, as a general rule, return phone calls or answer 
MAIL, unless it specifically fits in with *THEIR* agenda, ie. hiring a 
minority or transition candidate.   (Note:  no digs intended 
whatsoever for folks who fall into these 2 categories).   

2.  If by some chance you actually contact a recruiter who is not at a 
meeting, out at the cafe, on vacation, ad naseum, they usually seem to 
tell you that the hiring manager or themselves will call you back.  Oh 
- I'm sure they really DO plan to call back, really - why else would 
they mark it in their 1998 calendars?


Now, back to the question: I think the best way of finding out who the 
hiring manager is, is to talk and network with people, and use the 
Digital Internal Guide to Organizations

John

>>>...for the benefit of all of us job-seekers, has a recruiter ever 
given you the name of the hiring manager?  If so, I'd like to know 
where you were blessed with this experience.

Perhaps it's my attitude. I am pretty persistant. I had gotten
response by mail and by phone from recruiters in PKO, BTO, CTS
and here in CXO3. I usually ask if the job (by req number) is
still open andwho the hiring manager is.

I also utilize my internal network here in CXO3.

Granted, most recruiters have their hands full but time the call
so that they're between lunch, meetings, etc. ie time your call
at just before the hour, after 8:10 am, etc.

calvin 

    I think I might have mentioned this before...if so...my apologies.
    
    The only time I've ever heard back from a recruiter was when she
    called me to slap my hands for going around her to interview for
    the job I presently hold.
    
    She made the decision I was not even qualified to interview based
    solely on my former work group (which accounted for a miniscule
    amount of my time with DEC).
    
    I WAS persistent......just be prepared to take your lumps if you
    stomp on some egos.
    
    Karen
    

    re .32

>And how do you propose that we find out who the hiring manager is?  It's
>not listed on most of the VTX JOBS_US reqs.  Sending MAIL to the Recruiter
>asking for that information is a guaranteed waste-of-time.  What do you do?;-)

    	Ah!  That's what separates the special candidate from the masses
    	of common humanity.

    	Many times a manager will see the efforts of the persistent and
    	resourceful person (who manages to make it directly to him/her)
    	as the factor that separates that person from all the rest.

    	So what do you do?  Get managers' names from entries in the
    	JOBS notesfiles.  If that is not the correct job for you, ask
    	that manager who s/he knows that does manage an operation that
    	is appropriate for you.  Never mind that they may tell you the
    	other group is not hiring.  Contact that group anyway.

    	Ask friends about openings in their area.  Expand your own 
    	network.  If a hiring manager realizes that your network reached
    	him, he may see your network as an asset down the line when his
    	project needs to fish out some obscure skill or resource.

    	When you hear of someone talking about openings in their area,
    	rather than wasting your time debating with them about lack of
    	information on those positions, you might want to contact them
    	directly and find out what you need to know.  Several internal
    	resumes are being considered at this time because they contacted
    	me to find out more about the jobs I mentioned we are trying to
    	fill.  It wasn't important that they had or hadn't heard about
    	the openings prior to reading about them in DIGITAL.  Nobody wants
    	to hire a whiner.

    	View personnel as a formality.  (Personal opinion.)   Don't wait
    	for someone to find you a job.  Find it yourself.

    	When I was looking for my current position, I *DID* contact 
    	personnel, come to think of it...  I got the recruiters' names
    	off of reqs that looked promising.  I got several recruiters'
    	names and sent them a letter asking for managers' names (and
    	not necessarily hiring managers' names) so that I can send them
    	mail to ask for informational interviews.  I wanted to ask them
    	on what training I should focus.  I wanted to ask them what their
    	groups did.  I wanted to ask them what skills are valued in their
    	groups.

    	Informational interviews are less threatening to grant -- both
    	as a recruiter and as a hirer.  Suggesting that you want to
    	contact the manager by mail is also less threatening.  No
    	appointment is necessary.  The manager can attend to it at his/her
    	leisure.  They are not put on the spot.  Do not send your resume
    	in your request for information.  Entice the manager to request 
    	it from you.
    
    	These are some of the things that worked for me.  This is how
    	I view the hiring process -- both inside and outside DEC.
    
    	Your mileage may vary.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

Excellent input, Joe Oppelt!

calvin

    Try note 6.* in SVBEV::Survival_guide,  for "Who's who in DEC."
    
    Sorry can't figure out the kp7 thing.
    
    C-

    Ya know... I'm genuinely curious:  If Personnel really is nothing
    but a formality, if they're just a bureaucratic obstacle course
    set up between the job-seeker and the hiring manager, then why
    don't we reduce headcount by dumping them entirely?
    
    Half a smiley on the above, but only half.
    
    Seems like EVERY guide to job-hunting I've ever seen advises that
    the candidate find some way to avoid the personnel department.
    Also, based on some of the stories told in this note, it seems
    as though Personnel sometimes keeps qualified candidates from
    filling slots to which they'd be perfectly suited; therefore,
    managers should be disappointed with them as well.
    
    So: anybody got any GOOD Personnel stories to tell, or are they
    prime candidates for transition? 8-)
    
    --jim
    

    re .40

    I'm sure I'll get told if I have my facts wrong or if the story is
    purely apocryphal...

        When Townsend (?) took over AVIS (?) he got rid of the corporate
        personnel department completely: "It's not a question of the quality
        of the work you do or of your abilities. We just don't need that
        here anymore."

        He had one corporate personnel staff person left for the entire
        company. He told her: "If you come to me with a requisition for more
        staff, make sure you hand in your resignation letter along with it."

    Admittedly, there are probably things we have to do/prove to not
    jeapordize our ability to do government contracts, but really...

    /Peters

    There are one or two good recruiters out there, you just have to be
    lucky enough to either have them working for you or for you to have
    contact with them. We had a recruiter one time that we took the time to
    explain what the job was, what we were looking for and what specific
    skills were necessary for the job. We made sure we took the time to
    explain very carefully what we were looking for and that the recruiter
    understood. With that groundwork, the recruiter came up with several
    good candidates for the job. Of course, we don't know who was turned
    away or why, but on the receiving end, it worked out.
    
    On the other hand, as a veteran of a job search, I'm in the camp that
    says that most recruiters can be done without.

    It seems to me that transitioning the Personnel Department would be one
    way to ensure a hiring freeze.  It might also be a good way to entice
    some folks to look within the company for trainable personnel.  It
    might also encourage use of notes, phone, mail and personal contacts to
    fill job positions.  What value is added by Personnel that justifies
    its existence?  Isn't that basically the same question being asked of
    most organizations at Digital right now?
    
    Steve 

    Having sat on both side of this <I was a recruiter for someone else
    before DEC> I can tell you that the hiring manager could fix the
    recruiter problem if he/she wanted to.  But recruiting is not where
    most of the resources are in personnel, so dumping all the recruiters
    won't make the dent most people think it will, and we will still have
    the check those EEO, AA, and other goals that the government attacks
    large companies for.
    
    As for the person who was attacked by the personnel rep for defeating
    the system by going around her.  I sure hope you informed her manage-
    ment of her lack of professionalism. 
    
    Let me tell you, most managers do not tell recruiters what they are
    looking for.  They fill out standard check lists of the things they
    want in the candidate and they do not give the recruiter leeway or
    direction for other things to accept in lieu of the standard list.
    
    I was harangued more than once for sending a candidate who did not
    qualify and was rarely bothered by management when noone was forwarded
    for weeks on end.  Doesn't take long for the recruiter who isn't sure
    exactly what the manager to take the easy way out.  Every manager who
    told me to pass along all resumes got them with no screening, about a
    week or so later, I got the complaint that they did not have the time
    to weed thru the stuff.  So it was back to the standard check lists.
    I do not know how many times I told them that looking for someone who
    has done it all means looking for someone who is bored with it all.
    But they were too busy to spend the time explaining what they needed
    in terms that I could understand so I could screen effectively and
    not eliminate valuable candidates.  DEC has a limited number of re-
    cruiters and from personal experience many of them are not DEC em-
    ployees but are outside contractors hired to do a clerical screening
    job not real recruiting.  These clerical screeners are not likely to
    use the network to find the resources that exists internally, but they
    have friends on the outside who will galdly screen candidates for a
    fee and forward resumes to them.  This is not an indictment of any
    specific individual but a wake up call to managers with requisitions
    to get the service they are paying for from personnel.  It is also
    a warning to these managers that they have to partner with their
    recruiters if they expect to fill their requisitions.
    
    You milage may vary, but a good recruiter makes the employment process
    alot smoother and a mediocre one makes both candidate and manager wish
    that personnel were not involved in the hiring process.
    
    Paul Neveu  _now_in_Software_Consulting_
                _because_at_least_customers_want_the_service_I_can_deliver_
    

    Paul:
    
    As the person who got her hands slapped for going around the
    recruiter.....alas I didn't report her to her management....
    because I knew it wouldn't do any good (that's the bad news).
    
    The good news is this particular recruiter no longer works for
    DEC.....
    
    The point about needing folks  to check EEO, AA and other
    goals is valid.....but maybe this task shouldn't be the responsiblity
    of the recuiters.
    
    Now I KNOW what Pogo meant.....
    

    In an attempt to resume since the excellent .37:
    
    1- In most cases (ALL of mine since 20 years on board)
       you get your new job out of your personal network.
    
    2- In past days of massive hiring we needed recruiters 
       for pre-screening the canditates and associated 
       administrative work
    
    3- Today we still need HRO for their administrative 
       legal and often human-aspects support associated
       with hiring, transfer etc...
    
    (as a relatively recent people manager, I'd probably violate
     company and worklaws a few times per day without HRO support)
    /fred

    re .41 Townsend mentions the Personnel dept. ("Get rid of 'em")
    in "Up the Organization." I agree. 

RE: .45

>ORABX::REESE_K "just an old sweet song...."          15 lines  13-FEB-1991 23:06
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  -< We have met the enemy and they are US!! >-
>
>    The point about needing folks  to check EEO, AA and other
>    goals is valid.....but maybe this task shouldn't be the responsiblity
>    of the recuiters.
>    

Right.  I am a firm believer that this responsibility can be given to 
the managers.   I also agree that they are prime candidates for 
transition.   We do need some good HRO folks, but certainly not 
anywhere near the amount of people employed in personnel today!
IMHO the recruiters should have been the *1st* to go!

I have worked closely with a manager in the process of hiring an 
internal candidate.  It was evident to me (and the manager) that the 
job could have been done much more efficiently, properly, and 
professionally with the complete absence of the recruiter.   The short 
story is that it took the manager weeks of persistently harassing the 
recruiter to get him to schedule this person for an interview, barring 
the time necessary for approvals, etc., it took weeks for the manager to 
get the recruiter to call the candidate to extend an offer, etc.  

Bottom line is, for the amount of hiring that most managers in Digital 
are going to be allowed to do in the next few years, they could be 
doing it much more efficiently if they didn't have to beat the 
recruiters into doing their jobs.

For those who say, "there are a few good ones out there", I say that 
if that is the case, then these are the *ONLY* few we can 
afford to keep.

John

    Having spent quite a few years prior to DEC providing IS services to a
    Human Resources group, I would make the following observations:
    
    1)  There are some things that Personnel does that need to be done by
    	SOMEONE, and they are sufficiently related that having a single
    	group to do them makes sense:
    
    		Tracking and complying with government reporting
    		requirements.
    		Maintaining the records necessary to do the above.
    		Administering benefit plans and records.
    
    2)	Given that you havce such a group, there are other tasks that it
    	makes sense to assign to them:
    
    		Payroll processing (why keep 2 sets of records).
    		Handling routine labor relations and union negotiations.
    
    3)	Unfortunately, once you have such a group they also tend to think
    	up all sorts of wonderful new tasks to increase their headcount:
    
    		Compensation planning (JEC etc)
    		Executive Manpower Management
    		Career Development
    		Employee communications
    		Recruiting
    
    It is essential that a Personnel group generate as many of the latter
    tasks as possible.  If they were forced to stick to just the items in
    1), their mission would be limited to doing the necessary work at the
    lowest cost and using the fewest resources.  Who can build an empire
    based on those criteria?  Thus, the existence of a group of activities
    whose goals are internally defined and therefore expandable at will is
    necessary of Personnel (and its V.P.) are going to grow and prosper.
    
    
    -dave