Conference 7.286::digital

someone told me today: "It can't work with French people, so it won't"

Didier
[sorry for the 'someone'!]

another comments:

[from an important manager]
"there are much more managers who don't believe in the ODP than you can imagine"

[from a VMS engineer]
"The ODP can work fine only if the involved manager wishes to make it work"

[from a SW specialist] It doesnt' work because it CAN'T work!

[from an analyst] I don't believe in it because I needed it and it didn't work

[from a manager, two years with DEC] I think it is ok if I know what my employees
are doing, ie if they tell me that they wish to 'go higher'

Attached memo is for your information.


Message-class: DECMAIL-MS
From:	NAME: SACKLER
	INITLS: SY
	FUNC: LAW
	ADDR: MSO/D7
    	TEL: 223-8568 <75694@DECMAIL@CELICA@CFO>
Posted-date: 15-Jul-1986
To:	PMC STAFF:: CAROL BURKE @CFO@LEAGLE,
	    DICK FARRAHAR @MLO@LEAGLE,
	    NAME: SACKLER
	    INITLS: SY <75694 @DECMAIL@LEAGLE@*>,
	    JOHN SIMS @CORE@LEAGLE,
	    DICK WALSH @OGO@LEAGLE
Cc:	NAME: ETHIER
	INITLS: MARIETTA <29545 @DECMAIL@LEAGLE@*>
Cc:	NAME: GLOVER
	INITLS: RON <145235 @DECMAIL@LEAGLE@*>
Cc:	NAME: RUGHEIMER
	INITLS: JACK <138288 @DECMAIL@LEAGLE@*>
Subject: Wrongful Discharge Jury Award

Recently a District Court jury in New Hampshire awarded $3.3 million 
to a former employee of Anheuser-Busch's Merrimack, N.H. plant.

The employee claimed he was discharged for filing a job discrimination
Complaint with the State's Human Rights Agency.  The basis of the
Complaint was that he, as a black supervisor, had been denied the same
training opportunities and pay raises generally available to white
supervisors. 

In addition to noting the staggering amount of the award in a
jurisdiction where we have a significant presence we should also note
that the Plaintiff attempted to work an "in house" dispute resolution
process prior to his filing with the state agency.  It was the
ineffectiveness of this process which formed the basis of the human
rights charge and ultimately the foundation for the retaliation claim. 

This case is a powerful argument for a fair and complete "Open Door" 
policy and practice that encourages employees to stay in house with 
grievances.  One of the major undertakings of the Employee Relations 
and Law functions working in collaboration should be a thoroughly 
revised "Open Door" Policy.  We commit to work with the Corporate 
Employee Relations function in this critical endeavor.
    

    re: .4--Gee, I think that the current policy is both "fair and
    complete".  Is it really necessary to "thoroughly revise" it?
    I've only needed it once, and it worked fine for me.
        John Sauter

                I'm inclined to agree with .4. Don't "fix what ain't 
        broke"! However, even though I have also sucessfully used it, it 
        isn't there for all of us (based on some second and third hand 
        stories anyway). Maybe with the influx of managers who weren't 
        brought up in the DEC way, we need to make it a little more 
        spelled out as to who has what responsibilities.
                
                I guess my final analisys says that it needs to be 
        looked at, but cautiously!!!!!
                
                /s/     Bob

In the memo a couple of replies ago, note that the motivation for
doing whatever to the open door policy is not taking care of the
Corporation's people, but avoiding paying out on a lawsuit.

Love that beancounter mentality...

Bob

    re .6
    
    Yes, there are many managers who don't agree to ODP for whatever
    reasons, and that's where some employees are afraid to use ODP...
    because of the "kill the messenger" mentality.
    
    Jon

    The ODP if used to air a complaint just shows you have a bad attitude.
    The management feel that it is a one way door, it leads to the out
    side. You use it to find another job.
    

    I've been with the company for 9 years and have used this policy
    several times and all with positve results.  I believe this is due
    to having managers that respect there employee's input to a 
    situation that needs resolving.  I would not suggest using it as
    a scape goat for releasing frustations but, as a professional way
    of highlighting a problem.  This company is a darn good one and
    I'm proud to be a part of it.  Try working for a small company
    and using this ODP and they might just open the door for you to
    leave.
    
    If you have a valid complaint or problem use the ODP, this is what
    Ken Olsen started it for.  Just be sure to use it in a positve manner.

    Does everyone understand how the open door policy is supposed
    to work?  If you have an issue, you are supposed to start with
    your immediate supervisor or manager - if you don't get satis-
    factory results, it's not supposed to stop there; you keep
    going to the next level of management until you get someone
    to listen to you........this does not necesssarily mean you
    will get everything you are seeking, but the idea (to my
    understanding) is to get a fair and equitable resolution for
    all involved.                  
    
    This is not an exercise for the faint-hearted; for many years
    I was a person easily intimidated, so I let a lot of things
    pass that I shouldn't have.
    
    I've been with DEC almost 10 years and have only had to use it
    twice.  I've seen positive results from the open door policy,
    and I have seen that open door get slammed on someone's neck!
                               
    I hired in as a secretary in Regional Product Support; through
    hard work and a very good manager/mentor early on I've been 
    able to move to a WC4 position at the CSC in Atlanta.  Someone
    who would be hired into my current job title would be required
    to have a degree.....in my case hard work and consideration
    given to "equivalent DEC work experience" enabled me to get
    the promotion.
    
    Time changes; my group recently "went away"....we weren't
    suddenly disbanded and made re-asignable, that would have helped
    some of us in our effors to find other positions.... it 
    wasn't something we could readily see coming...and I feel
    management wasn't as candid with us as it could have been.
                                                             
    I was asked to help out another group on a project that has
    become VERY important (to them) because of an impending audit.
    Although the project content is not something I would wish
    to make my life's work, I agreed to work on it because I do
    pride myself on being a team player.  I also pride myself
    on being a thorough and meticulous (for detail) worker.
    
    Time IS of the essence; however when I wasn't moving as
    fast as the project leader apparently thought I should, she
    advised me that if her A** went into the meatgrinder, mine
    went with it!  Mind you, I was being asked to clear up in
    2 months a situation that had been left untended for 3 years!
    
    My immediate manager is new (and is only an acting manager);
    she did try to help, but unfortunately my assignment to this
    project occurred before she came into the group.  However, 
    she did encourage me to take it to the next level of management,
    which I did.                                          
    
    The next level management assured me that my reporting structure
    had not changed, I was merely assisting another group and the
    project leader had no right to talk to me or attempt to intim-
    idate me in any way, and he would see to it that it didn't
    happen again.  He also said he would get some facts clarified
    so that I cannot be made the scapegoat if this project is not
    completed before the audit.     
    
    I feel good about the situation right now, however, only time
    will tell.
              
    Karen
    

    What bothers me about the *stated* ODP is that you (as an employee in
    distress) are supposed to follow up the chain of command **until**
    you find someone who is ready to listen, be fair and do justice.
    
    This is far too much to ask of any and all employees.  As .11 says,
    "the ODP is not for the faint-hearted.."  So how about all those who
    certainly have a right to be heard to correct a "bad" situation, but
    may not (*can not*) want to go through the mental agony of fighting
    a lonely battle.  My wife recently had to use the ODP, and believe me,
    it can be made into a "confidence-shattering" exercise by 
    I-dont-care-a-damn managers.  ("kill the messenger" attitude.)
    
    - mayank
    
    

    re .12
    
    No, ODP is not for the faint of heart.  In field sws several years ago,
    I didn't feel at all comfortable bringing up a situation to vp's at the
    regional level, and even to vp's at the corporate level.  But why did I
    do it?  For the same reasons that I think anyone else would do it:
    
    *  I was right and I knew it, despite the "don't rock the boat and
       I don't give a damn" managers I encountered enroute.
    *  I believed in Digital (still do), and I had faith that I would
       be able to find somebody who would listen, be fair, do justice,
       and basically follow the "do what is right" philosophy.
    *  I believed (and still do) that Digital is the best place to work,
       and I wasn't going to let some manager ruin that for me to serve
       his own self-interests.
    
    Hope this helps.  Whatever is right, do it!
    Jon

Jon,

I don't get it - your note (.13) *validates* all the things that I said in
.12 - ie. that the ODP as it currently exists is NOT for the "faint hearted",
but you haven't answered the fundamental question - is it ANY GOOD if the
company does not ensure that it is possible for *every employee* to use it.

And whether you like it or not, not everyone in this company is a "brave,
steel-hearted" person like you are.  What you have done is described your
experience and therefore emphasized the fact that working through the ODP
*bull pit* can really destroy you emotionally (and physically), unless you are
ready to face the Bulls.   

Now, are you suggesting that those who may not have the energy to put up and
fight with the I-dont-care-a-damn managers don't truly believe in what they
are fighting for ???  You state
>    *  I was right and I knew it, despite the "don't rock the boat and
>       I don't give a damn" managers I encountered enroute.
>    *  I believed in Digital (still do), and I had faith that I would
>       be able to find somebody who would listen, be fair, do justice,
>       and basically follow the "do what is right" philosophy.

Yes, I too believe in Digital being an excellent place to work, but fighting
a lonely battle against those who have the positional power to harm you (and
are not going to blink an eye when using it), can really shatter someone's 
confidence, self-respect and ultimately - FAITH in this company !!!

So all I am suggesting is that the ODP should also have the following
accompanying clause :
  "if any manager in the chain who should have corrected a problem but did
   not do so AND (very important) placed impediments in the path of the
   employee, should be subject to disciplinary action as if they were the
   cause of the problem."

  Note that this absolves those managers who themselves were not able
to solve a problem, but gave needed help and advice in escalating it up.
The clause is based on the philosophy that "if you are not part of the
solution, then you are part of the problem".  And if in technical matters
this theory is applied in Digital, then why not in dealing with human matters ?

What do the other noters have to say ?

- mayank

    Re: .14
    
    A good idea, however I expect it would be like getting Congress to
    apply the same laws to themselves they apply to everyone else.

    Re: .14
    
    Maybe easy to prove in the most blatant of cases, but I'd bet most
    are fuzzy enough to be a judgement call as to who is part of the
    problem and/or the solution. It's very easy to get emotionally
    charged when there is an obvious wrong being committed, but as with
    human beings it is sometimes a matter of perception or perspective.

    Re: .16
    
    Yes, you are right - there has to be a mellower form of this if at all,
    and it IS a judgement call - but that's why this country is so great
    that if you want something that is *just*, then you have to get enough
    folks behind you and you can make it happen.
    Note that such a clause should atleast deter those who are absolutely
    blatant about it (like the ones my wife is facing right at this
    moment).  Right now, they don't suffer a bit !!!
    
    Re: .15
    
    That sounds like a cynical remark - we do have Ethics committees in
    Congress and sometimes they do work (even if it is on party lines) !!!
    And besides, don't we want to have DIGITAL be a better place than
    Congress ??
    
    "Reach first for the small goals" - Anon
    
    How about some more noters who have experienced the mine-fields (or as
    someone said, the snake-pits) of working the ODP ?
    
    - mayank
    

    So much for ODP, and going *UP* the chain of command.
    What about a digit like myself in an oversea subsidiary, far remote
    from the Great Hall of Maynard? How would I go about ODP if I can't get
    anyone in country level to listen?
    
    HW Choy

    re: .18
    
    that's a very good question that has been bothering me for some time. 
    matter of fact the same query should apply for far-flung sales/service
    offices in US/Europe too !!!  how would you get your case to the
    bigwigs in Corp ?   anyone know the answer to this ?  maybe might help
    the writer in .18
    
    - mayank

    I once had a manager that used the open door policy to talk to a VP
    about her ideas about where a group's directions should be. Her manager
    found out, and she was gone from the group within two weeks. Use ODP
    with discretion.
    
    -George

    I once had an *extremely* sharp technical person working for me who
    randomly got seated next to an Executive VP at a Digital function. 
    They started talking, and the employee expressed some ideas about ways
    Digital could sell some specific products to achieve both more revenue
    and greater customer satisfaction.  The Executive VP told the employee
    to call so-and-so and discuss it with him, and then to call him (the
    E_VP) directly to arrive at a next step.
    
    The employee called so-and-so, who was very enthusiastic.  He then came
    to me, his manager, and asked what protocol, if any, he needed to
    follow in order to communicate with this E-VP.  I wasn't sure, so I
    went to my boss, who poo-poo'd the whole thing and refused to take it
    seriously.  I discussed it several times with my boss, and he made a
    joke of it each time, saying that these E-VP's are busy people and just
    because they're polite and tell someone to call them doesn't mean they
    expect the person to *actually* call.  I finally told him that the
    employee was going to place the phone call, to which he responded (for
    the nth time) "But he wasn't really SERIOUS!!"
    
    Employee placed the call.  Had another conversation with the E-VP. 
    Talked about how to proceed with implementing employee's idea.
    
    Next day I get called on the carpet WITH my employee for contacting an
    E-VP without my boss's permission.
    
    ODP or not, when you go over your boss' head BE CAREFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    							Pat

       
       
       	You obviously had a manager who didn't respect his employees, DEC
       culture, AND his paycheck.  That VP sounds like he listens to Ken
       and believes one of the top DEC culture-isms..
       
       			He who proposes, disposes. 
       
       
       	I would have found a new manager to work for.. Specifically one
       under the VP your employee talked too.
       
       							mike

Of course, if your employee *didn't* call the VP back, he/she might have
been guilty of insubordination -- a firing offense.

Martin.

> Of course, if your employee *didn't* call the VP back, he/she might have
> been guilty of insubordination -- a firing offense.
    
    
    Well, in reality that isn't too likely to happen.  But technically
    you're right.  The employee felt he was put in a real quandary by the
    manager who was saying he should directly disregard a legitimate
    business request from a *very* senior officer of the company.  I
    finally advised him to go ahead and make the call.  That is when I went
    to my manager and *informed* him the employee was going ahead with it,
    but still was not taken seriously.
    
    No one suffered any career damage from the incident, not even short
    term.  I merely related the story as an example of how you can get into
    trouble talking to someone over your manager's head even when it's
    totally innocent and even designed to make your immediate manager look
    like a hero.
    
    Egos are funny things, aren't they?
    
    							Pat

.21>    Next day I get called on the carpet WITH my employee for contacting an
.21>    E-VP without my boss's permission.
    
    Maybe I missed it somewhere in my last 8 years here, but since when
    does one need his/her boss's "permission" to contact a VP, an "E-VP",
    or even the CEO???
    
    Jon_who's_refusing_to_be_careful_about_who_he_says_Good_Morning_to
    

    Since when is talking to a senior executive about marketing issues
    "going over your bosses head"?  I'm only going over his head if I take
    an issue which properly should be handled between us to a higher level
    without discussing it with him first.
    
    Hell, I used to play racquet ball with our corporate VP of MIS.  I
    didn't need to clear it with anyone!
    
    
    -dave

    I am glad that the discussion on effectiveness of ODP is hot again. I
    was beginning to get the feeling that people are not interested in it.
    Note that in .14, I had suggested a way (maybe radical?) to make it more 
    effective for *every* employee to use it, not just the *steel-hearted*.
    (reproduced below).
    
    The note by Pat describes yet another way in which the not-so-strong
    employee (but who is "correct", knows it, and believes in it) can get
    easily destroyed by a non-DEC-culture manager.  Eg. if Pat (and the
    employee) were not so strong-minded, they would have not only lost the
    initiative to make money for DEC, but also lost faith in ODP.
    
    So what can be done about this?  Well, it makes me sad to hear opinions
    like in .22
    
	> You obviously had a manager who didn't respect his employees, DEC
        > culture, AND his paycheck. ....
	> I would have found a new manager to work for.. Specifically one
        > under the VP your employee talked too.
       
    What Mike is saying is that even though the manager is clearly at
    fault, Pat should have to look for another manager to work for!!! And
    what happens to the *errant* manager?  Nothing ?
    
    If we sit back and think about it, this reply, coupled with some of the 
    other recent replies, are concerned with protecting the employee or
    telling him what he can and cannot do, and restating the DEC culture.  
    Eg.  Jon comes through again
    
    > Maybe I missed it somewhere in my last 8 years here, but since when
    > does one need his/her boss's "permission" to contact a VP, an "E-VP",
    > or even the CEO???
    >
    > Jon_who's_refusing_to_be_careful_about_who_he_says_Good_Morning_to
    
    (BTW Jon, I would be extremely happy working under you as my manager).
    But what's missing is any indication of what a manager should be held
    responsible for, when they do not understand/follow DEC culture!!
    To repeat my suggestion from .14
    
> So all I am suggesting is that the ODP should also have the following
> accompanying clause :
>  "if any manager in the chain who should have corrected a problem but did
>   not do so AND (very important) placed impediments in the path of the
>   employee, should be subject to disciplinary action as if they were the
>   cause of the problem."

>  Note that this absolves those managers who themselves were not able
> to solve a problem, but gave needed help and advice in escalating it up.
> The clause is based on the philosophy that "if you are not part of the
> solution, then you are part of the problem".  And if in technical matters
> this theory is applied in Digital, then why not in dealing with human matters ?

    This may be a little radical as .15 pointed out, and also hard to
    determine that a manager is at "fault" in many cases, but Pat's case
    did not seem like that (and the harassment that my wife is facing right
    now also is not "fuzzy").  It is quite clear from the incident (as .22
    says) that the manager did not respect the employee and follow DEC
    culture.  That in the company's books ought to be a very big offence;
    
    what do the noters say ? can we get such a clause attached to the ODP ?
    
    - mayank
    

    one might ask "why are you so keen on this clause" ?
    
    well, the reason is simple: because without something like this to
    deter those with positional power, there will always be managers who
    will make the following statement true "the ODP is nice on paper, but.."
    What do they have to lose ?
    
    And all we digits (who love the DEC-way) dearly want to see the ODP work 
    well, don't we ?
    
    - mayank  who_would_support_the_clause_even_if_I_was_a_manager
    

    If you believe in it, do it.  Adding more words to the paper won't
    deter those who think "the ODP is nice on paper, but...".  The ODP
    was designed to provide a last-ditch reporting path for problems,
    including problems making ODP work.
    
    I've only had to use ODP once.  I carefully followed my management
    chain up, one stage at a time, telling each manager that I was going
    to the next.  I was successful: the irritant was removed, and I never
    got any flack about what I did.  In my case, no "steel" was required.
        John Sauter

    Re .29
    
    It's easy for you to say John that "if you believe in it, do it".  I am 
    glad that ODP worked for you, but my wife too has had to use ODP only
    once (she believed in it and knew that she was right), and it hasn't
    worked for her.  She took it as high as she could but the "irritant"
    is still there - matter of fact, because she has complained, another
    irritant has been showing his "skills" to get back at her for
    complaining against the management.  And all this after their supposed
    committment to "improve" !!  IT HAS NOT WORKED...
    
    John, what a contradiction in your statement when you state that
    (a) you followed the management chain up, one stage at a time, and
    (b) you did not need any steel.
    
    just think about it a little - an employee telling the boss' boss that
    I am not satisfied with you and am going up higher !! sure, it's as
    normal as saying "oh, the airconditioner is not working today, fix it
    or I am going up to your boss."  no steel, huh ??
    
    Besides, you have to look at the content of the complaint.  I am
    surprised people still make such statements: "if it worked for me, it
    gotta work for you."   One of the earliest notes in this topic said a
    very true thing "it only works if the management wants it to work".
    And in these times of crisis for the company, who cares about the
    employee ?  (Note, I am not saying that no one does).
    
    - mayank
    

:    matter of fact, because she has complained, another
:    irritant has been showing his "skills" to get back at her for
:    complaining against the management.  
:
    
    	If she can _prove_ this to be true, then the open door policy
    should take a detour to a lawyer.
    
    -Monty-

    yes, she can and has tried to prove this to the higher ups - he said
    we can't say anything now, we will have to do an 'investigation' and i
    will also speak to your personnel rep - the person who in the first
    place has been highly unsupportive.
    
    we did meet with a lawyer and are working that route - but it just is
    frustrating that the ODP has NOT WORKED AT ALL.
    

    I think it bares repeating that the ODP does not just mean going to
    personnel and/or your bosses boss. You can keep going up the line all
    the way to KO. Someone who tries the bosses boss and stops there has
    either succeeded there or given up. I personally don't understand
    giving up if it's important.

    			Alfred

    Re .33
>    I think it bares repeating that the ODP does not just mean going to
>    personnel and/or your bosses boss. You can keep going up the line all
>    the way to KO. Someone who tries the bosses boss and stops there has
>    either succeeded there or given up. I personally don't understand
>    giving up if it's important.
    
    Al, she has not stopped at the boss' boss.  She has taken her
    complaint to a person who is at the top in handling ODP issues at DEC;
    any complaints that go to KO, John Sims etc. end up in his pile.
    
    And the offensive behavior, personal harassment etc. still continues.
    So would you say 'give up' now or would you say she SHOULD HAVE
    succeeded ?  (big difference between 'should have' and 'has').
    
    (She is looking to transfer to another group, but that should be besides
     the point, right ?  ODP should work either way...)

    - mayank
    

    If what you [.34] say is true, then:
    
        1] Get an outside, unbiased view from someone in career
           counselling. Or whatever.  Just get to a pro who can see
           the issue in spite of your very-involved viewpoint.
           
        2] Get a few inside, biased opinions, from your (her?) peers
           and peers of the problem manager.
           
        3] Make sure you have a career option.
    
        4] Challenge the lack of ODP responsiveness openly in one of
           the "State of the Company" things, preferably with Mr. Olsen.
           
    By way of editorial comment, if, in fact, Mr. Olsen does NOT get
    involved in the ODP, but rather shuffles things off to 'the complaint
    department', then the leader is in danger of losing contact with
    the followers.  That would be a sad thing, but it would also explain
    a lot.
    
    Also by the way, my own experience with a complaint to the top got
    me a personal letter from Tom Watson Jr. which, quiet investigation
    revealed, was his policy.
    

    Re: .35
    
    >  If what you [.34] say is true, then:
    	are you suggesting that I am shooting the breez nay, just inventing
        stories ?  sorry if i sound sarcastic, but i am tired of people
        saying "is this really true ?".  no personal offense either side.
    
    >    1] Get an outside, unbiased view from someone in career
    >       counselling. Or whatever.  Just get to a pro who can see
    >       the issue in spite of your very-involved viewpoint.
    >    2] Get a few inside, biased opinions, from your (her?) peers
    >       and peers of the problem manager.
    
    Don, I do not understand this point. what are you saying ? unbiased
    view of what ? to what purpose ? who do you think is going to say
    anything against a manager who is so powerful that no one wants to
    discipline him ?
    
    >    3] Make sure you have a career option.
    easy to say - and am sick of hearing this in the same breath as "ODP
    does work if you want it to".
    
    >    4] Challenge the lack of ODP responsiveness openly in one of
    >       the "State of the Company" things, preferably with Mr. Olsen.
    Don, if in private mtgs nobody has done anything, this would be
    foolish. and IMHO, this is unnecessary.
           
    > By way of editorial comment, if, in fact, Mr. Olsen does NOT get
    > involved in the ODP, but rather shuffles things off to 'the complaint
    > department', then the leader is in danger of losing contact with
    > the followers.  That would be a sad thing, but it would also explain
    > a lot.
    Try getting him involved and you will see whom you get - I will give
    you the name - offline.
    
    > Also by the way, my own experience with a complaint to the top got
    > me a personal letter from Tom Watson Jr. which, quiet investigation
    > revealed, was his policy.
    Great (i suppose it was IBM).  what's that to do with digital ODP ?
    
    - mayank
    

    re .36
    
>   >    1] Get an outside, unbiased view from someone in career
>   >       counselling. Or whatever.  Just get to a pro who can see
>   >       the issue in spite of your very-involved viewpoint.
>   >    2] Get a few inside, biased opinions, from your (her?) peers
>   >       and peers of the problem manager.
>   
>   Don, I do not understand this point. what are you saying ? unbiased
>   view of what ? to what purpose ? who do you think is going to say
>   anything against a manager who is so powerful that no one wants to
>   discipline him ?

    I hope I'm not putting words in Don's mouth, but I think for "unbiased"
    you should read "non-emotional." Your goal is not to _discipline_ the
    manager -- that's something that comes later between them and their
    manager. Your goal, hopefully using ODP to your advantage, is to have
    management consensus agree that the "right thing" for DEC to do is what
    you want, not what your manager wants. That means: manager cannot win if
    they persist in their current behavior; manager's manager and Digital
    can lose if they persist in their behavior. (Your goal, step one, is
    manager wipes hands of situation and tells _their_ manager, "You handle
    it" or at least, "Help me resolve this, I can't be objective".)

>   >    3] Make sure you have a career option.
>   easy to say - and am sick of hearing this in the same breath as "ODP
>   does work if you want it to".

    That's why "The Little Engine That Could" is a children's book. I think
    the other part of the advice you've been getting is "get professional
    help so you can play hard-ball competently." ODP sounds nice, "just drop
    in on your boss's boss if you ever have a problem," but it is _not_
    soft-ball.

    re: .30
    
    I did not need any "steel" when telling my boss' boss that I was not
    satisfied and was going higher, because my management chain was
    understanding of my problem, and supportive.  I guess that isn't
    universally the case.
        John Sauter

    Although it may be difficult to avoid discussing specific cases, it's
    probably best that individuals ONLY discuss their own affairs in
    public.
    
    thanks
    
    - ���
    Co_Moderator

    RE: .34 I was not refering to any particular situation. It just seemed
    that a lot of people try one level over their bosses head and stop
    there. I don't understand giving up at just one level. Now if things
    go all the way to the top and still don't work than there is always
    bringing in outside agencies (Courts etc). I never meant to suggest
    that ODP was the only way to go just that people should try it
    completely before they go outside.
    
    		Alfred

    I also have had the problem of getting to the "top".  I do not know
    what the alternative is if you disagree with the "arbitration" of
    Corporate Employee Relations?  Someone once suggested to me that
    I forward all documentation directly to K.O.'s home address.  That
    is probably the only way of assuring it doesn't get shuffled off
    prior to him ever seeing it.  Some times it seems as if we love
    the fight more than the victory.  Then again sometimes we don't
    want justice; we want vengence.  
    
    Joe

	I wouldn't got sending stuff off to Kens (Mr. Olsen??) home address
	UNLESS I had everyting VERY clearly documented, including going right 
	up to his direct report on the matter..  Getting Ken involved is
	something not to be taken lightly. And IMHO, if it really has
	to go that far then the whole issue should be looked at by an
	outside group (lawyers, counselers, kindergarten kids, etc..)
	prior to dumping it on Ken.  He's a great guy and I know he believes
	in "Do the right thing" or we'd all quit  but he DOES have an $11-12
	Billion company to run and it's hoped that he has hired very
	competent people to take care of these situations properly.

	I'm not ruling out going to Ken.. Just saying that you better be
	prepared..

							mike

It's been stated peripherally elsewhere, and probably in this topic as well,
that the Open Door Policy doesn't guarantee that you'll get your way,
only that you'll get your say.
There are matters that deserve to stop at one's boss, or his boss, or 
at some other level below the top.
Sometimes the plaintiff is WRONG, even when he KNOWS he's right.
This is not obstructionism on the part of a link in the ODP chain,
but often just prudence.  The wisdom of the ODP is that each link
can't stop you from going on, but he can advise you not to bother.

The examples cited in this topic aren't specific enough for others to
really know whether the "fight" was right or not.
Are we talking clearly illegal matters, like sexual harassment,
or subjective disagreements over job performance and whether a 
promotion is warranted, or problems with elevating the need to fix the air 
conditioning in someone's office?

Anecdotal reports about peoples' successes or failures with ODP
are MEANINGLESS without some indication of the problem being addressed.

I don't mean to trivialize anyone's personal involvement (and apparent
anguish) with the process,  but the readers of this topic can't offer
help, or even sympathy, without a better picture of what the problems are.

- tom powers]

    Re .43
    Tom, to begin with, let me assure you that 95% or more of the employees
    that end up walking the ODP chain to obtain 'justice' and fair
    resolution to their complaints are not doing it just for the fun of it,
    nor for 'subjective' matters.  They can PROVE that they have been
    wronged by their immediate management and the only reason they have had
    to approach the 'top' is because the other links in the ODP chain have
    not resolved the problem 'justly'.   
    
    Yes, problems like 'subjective' disagreements or resolution on a 
    'non-functioning air-conditioner' do not deserve to go to the 'top' 
    (everyone will agree to that), but if you think about it carefully, any
    employee that has had the courage to take his/her case even 3 or 4
    levels up the chain is either RIGHT (by any yardstick, and *they* know
    it), or is SUICIDAL (since he/she is risking one's job and reputation in
    order to get 'justice').  Would you agree to that ?
    
    And since you have asked for more context, I can give you that atleast
    for the notes that I have entered (in case you didn't get it from my
    previous notes): YES, we are talking of acts like culturally and
    sexually offensive remarks inspite of verbal feedback from the employee
    that they object to such things; deliberate harassment over performance
    (for an employee rated "2") immediately after return from maternity
    leave; clear violation of Digital's policies on Employee conduct and
    Harassment (read them sometime; they are pretty explicit); selective
    discrimination in treatment and professional advancement; etc. etc..
    
    And Tom, not just this case, but most other cases that people have
    reported are along similar lines - something that we don't need in a 
    company that believes in "Do the RIGHT thing". (read note 889 for
    example).
    
    Re .37,.40
    Yes, we did get 'unbiased' and 'professional' advice both internally
    and externally - ODP certainly is not soft-ball.
    
    Re .41
    Joe, if you are not 'satisfied' with the arbitration of Corp ER and
    strongly feel that justice SHOULD be done, take it even higher - usually 
    one of the people in the Executive committee.
    
    - mayank
    

    I would like to post an update to my note in .30:
    
    > ODP hasn't worked for her.  She took it as high as she could but the 
    > "irritant" is still there - matter of fact, because she has complained, 
    > another irritant has been showing his "skills" to get back at her for
    > complaining against the management.  And all this after their supposed
    > committment to "improve" !!  IT HAS NOT WORKED...
    
    After repeated unprofessional behavior even subsequent to her complaints,
    some positive changes have been finally made by the Corp ER mgr whereby
    she has room to breathe. She is still not anywhere close to problem
    resolution, but 'official' acknowledgement has finally been made that she 
    has a valid complaint which cannot be solved by a mere 'slap on the wrist'
    for the errant party.  Only the future can tell if the RIGHT thing
    will be done...
    
    - mayank

    The latest DTW says that a revised ODP goes into effect January 1.  Does
    anyone have any details on the revised policy?
    
    In the last couple of years I've given a lot of thought to ODP and what
    can be done to improve it.  Having had personal (and negative)
    experience with ODP, I have a couple of observations:
    
         ODP DEFINITELY isn't for the faint of heart.  As a matter of
         fact, it can even destroy those of us who think of ourselves
         as fighters.
    
         Don't expect assistance from Personnel.  It would be a lot 
         less painful to shoot yourself in the foot.
    
    My solution to making ODP more uniformly fair and just is an Employee
    Arbitration Committee (EAC).  I wouldn't dump the current ODP, I'd
    just add the EAC to it.  It can be very intimidating to have to run
    the entire gamut of the management chain.  EAC would be available to
    employees who choose to not go all the way to KO or to employees who
    went all the way up the chain of command but received no satisfaction.
    EAC would be the court of last resort within DEC.
    
    The EAC would include representatives from management, personnel,
    EAP, law, (one of each) and workers (4).  An EAC so structured would
    give employees the feeling that they're utilizing a process where the
    deck isn't stacked against them from the beginning. 
                                                       

re: .46
  <<    My solution to making ODP more uniformly fair and just is an Employee
  <<    Arbitration Committee (EAC).  

Strictly off the top of my head, I think they've done just that.  Only instead
of a committee, it's called an ombudsman.

	/M

I'm wondering if anyone has had succesful experiences with ODP in one
of the following areas:
	(1) negative performance review comments that could not be
		substantiated (by the manager) with documented prior
		discussions
	(2) verbal or written warnings that were similarly lacking all
		the necessary documentation as per Corrective Action
		policies
	(3) relief from duties or transfer into a "termination" pool
		with no warning or apparent lack of correlation with
		actual workforce needs

It would be especially useful if you had success working the ODP on
issues like the above SINCE the new ODP went into effect, and could
share your successful tactics/methods with others here.

								paul

    Can anyone give me more information about the "new" ODP,
    or the ombudsman?  If the latter truly exists, who/where is
    she or he?
    
    Thanks,
    	    Pennie