Conference 7.286::digital

    Several of my managers have told me that part of *their* review
    depended on them doing JPR's on time and well. A district SWS
    manager (now several big steps above that) told me once that
    SWS managers were overhead not revenue generaters. He felt that
    managements job *was* to get things done for employees.
    
    I don't know what not having JPR's in ones file says about an
    employee. I'd take it up with personal and/or ones managers boss.
    JPR's are one of the best ways to know how you're doing and what
    one could do to get a better raise.
    
    		Alfred

    Good example of why we have, and need, an open door policy.
    
    MFG
    

    one factor that might influence my approach is the rating given
    in the last JPR.  
    If I were concerned over having some entry in the personnel file
    I might look into inserting my own entry formally advising personnel
    and my manager that I had requested JPRs and got only verbal responses.
    Particularly if I were happy with the last one entered and did not
    hope for a significantly better rating I might indicate that my
    entry was simply intended to document my assumption that the previous
    positive evaluation was still true based on the lack of negative
    feedback.  Of course if I did not consider the last JPR as positive,
    or felt there had been improvement, I might handle it differently,
    or at least might indicate that fact.
    
    I might consider this along with using the "open door" because if
    the manager's JPR reflects his performance in writing JPRs for his
    employees there could be repercussions from calling attention to
    the problem.  For the same reason I might start out in Personnel
    rather than going up the management ladder looking for open doors.

    (I speak from some degree of personal experience, having had a period
    during which I requested but did not get feedback which was culminated
    by a JPR that I felt was based on factual information interpreted in
    a consistently unfavorable fashion - it's not at all clear to me
    that dissenting from the review conclusions is an effective means
    of establishing a positive interpretation, whether it's a review
    that might've been positive and came out neutral or one that was
    negative but might not have been).  My own conclusion from experience:
    be careful not to burn yourself.
   

    Thanks for the input; I agree completely with the approaches outlines
    in .3 and .4.  However, the JPR process in this district has taken
    a different approach.  I don't know if this is becoming the new
    Digital de facto standard or not, but here's how it works:
    
    Both the manager & the employee are given a review sheet filled
    with questions on various "dimensions".  A "dimension" is something
    like "Professional Appearance", "Technical Abilities", etc.  For
    each question/statement within each dimension, both the manager
    and the employee rate the employee on a 1-5 scale.  This is done
    separately.  After that, the employee & manager get together to
    compare notes, discussing any "point values" that differ.
    
    Although I (I mean, "my friend") have not yet gone thru the actual
    process, one particular thing that makese him nervous about it is
    that he asked "What if I think I did an outstanding job in a particular
    area?", to which the manager replied "That would rate a 3; I would
    expect a senior level person like yourself to be excellent".
    
    Jon

    The impact (or ramifications) of not having JPR's in his personnel
    file would be in my mind serious in the following ways:
    
    	-nothing in writing to highlight his accomplishments (or lack
    	thereof).
    	-nothing in writing to highlight his short/long term goals.
    	-nothing in writing to access his skill set
    	-assumptions having to be made with regard to his activities
    	(or lack thereof).
    I hope that he has kept track of his accomplishments and activities
    and have references and then visit his local personnel office 
    A.S.A.P.!
    
    I'm suprised his managers manager has not stepped in.  Managers
    have to list all employees who are due for JPR's and salary 
    increases in their monthly reports (they also have state when 
    they were completed).  Managers are measured on the timeliness
    of JPR's and salary reviews!!!!!
    
    I wish him luck!!
    
    	

    Fortunately, "my friend" is no longer working in that district or
    even in that area of the company.  I was just curious about what
    the official policy is.  I don't know how the manager there are
    measured; if it is indeed the JPR timeliness that plays a part of
    that measurement, well, feel free to make your own conclusions....
    
    Jon

    ....wouldn't the basis for success of a JPR be the job plan?
    
    I haven't had (I mean, a friend of mine) hasn't had a job plan in
    5 years.  And it has hurt. 
    

    The "job plan" as defined in that particular sws district was clear,
    simple, & concise and applied to all sws personnel: produce revenue.
    JPR's aside, a good part of the determination for the amount of
    the salary increase was based on how much green stuff was generated
    by that employee over the past year.  Any activity not falling into
    this "job plan" was generally frowned upon.
    
    Jon

    I used to be a pre-sales Software Specialist, and when a new manager
    took over our unit he developed a 17 page Job Plan!  If we did one
    thing each day for a year we still couldn't do everything before the
    next JP&R! 
    
    It seems curious that with hundreds of Districts around the world, all
    with roughly the same goal, e.g. to generate revenue, there isn't a
    standard Job Plan for each discipline.  Obviously local conditions
    would require local adaptations but the basic outline could be there. 
    
    At the moment, in theory at least, it may be prove beneficial to move
    to another District whose Job Plan is easier to work to than your
    present one.
    
    Re .0 :-
    
    During the period without JP&Rs, did you have a Development Plan
    in place?  If not how did you and your manager decide which courses
    to send you on?
    
    Graham
    
    

    Development plan?  What's that?  (Does that answer your question?)
    
    How were courses decided, presumably you mean Ed Services courses?
    Part of the "plan" was that each unit manager was allocated a certain
    number of "slots" in various courses.  S/He would then assign
    specialists to course training based on: (1) who was (ugh) not assigned
    to a revenue-producing activity, (2) who was generating the LEAST
    amount of revenue at the time, (3) who would be assigned in the
    near future to working on a product where those skills would be
    required but not present, and (4 - lastly) who had specifically
    requested a particular training course.  "Career path-ing", at least
    from my perspective and many others, was not a factor.
    
    Speaking of training, that was rather interesting also.  As of about
    12-18 months ago, going to a training course that was being taught
    outside the region is a rare experience.  Specialists were expected
    to drive their Decmobiles to the regional training site, a mere
    10-11 hour drive.  Yes, for a week-long course, that meant driving
    all day Sunday to get there, all day the following Saturday to return.
    Reason: you have a Decmobile that you're paying $24/week for, and
    as far as the weekend driving requirement, Digital is investing
    in your training so you should be willing to invest some of your
    own time in your own training also.
    
    Jon

    In Software Services, "your job is to produce revenue" is a total
    abbrogation of the management function.  For a software specialist,
    it's his job to apply the skills he's learned to achieve some specific
    business goal according to a plan, and to advance his personal skills
    in the process.  The mission of Software Services is to add value to
    the customers' usage of DEC hardware and software, not to produce
    revenue. 
    
    A manager who sits on his hands and says to his individual contributors
    "Go and produce some revenue today" is not going to succeed and
    is going to lose his best performers.
    
    To non-Software Services readers out there: Not all Software Services
    managers are like this.  It's been my privilege to work for very
    good managers here for 11 years in Software Services.

    Not at all in defense of the "go produce revenue" mentality, but
    a few lines to shed some light on how that mentality may have gotten
    started.  As of last year (FY85), I was told by one of the sws managers
    that (in this district, at least) all sws unit managers have had
    their salary review dates changed to occur in August.  For some,
    that changed the normal 12-13 month review cycle to 18-19 months.
    Why?  Because one of the primary "tools of measurement" for a sws
    unit manager is the infamous bottom line.  By August, the numbers
    are in and have been compiled.
    
    Also, starting in FY86, a swsum estimates his budget for the year
    based on estimated revenue generation, a large part of which is
    based on the number of folks in his unit.  If he loses some folks
    from his unit during the year, that fact no longer is accounted
    for if he misses his budget figure.  ie, if you have 10 sws folks,
    you might estimate $500K for the year; if 4 of them quit during
    the year, that swsum is still accountable for $500K.
    
    Again, not at all in defense mode, as I personally feel that this
    system has some flaws.
    
    Jon

    A software services unit manager that has much more than average
    attrition ought to be accountable for it.
    
    Also, a 10-specialist unit that has a budget of only $500,000 per
    year had better be eliminated: it's not profitable.
    
    The software services unit manager by accepting that job "buys into"
    some hard financial goals.  His software specialists have "task
    completion" goals.  The software unit manager doesn't pass through
    his budget, that's a formula for disaster.  With everyone worrying
    about profitability, who's going to solve the customer's problem?
    
    In Software Services, the "assets" march out of the office in the
    evening.  Traditional manufacturing management doesn't work in the
    consulting business.

    <<flame on>>
    re .14: the sws assets march out of the office in the evening???
    I beg your pardon?  Having done some consulting in NY recently,
    I can see where's that's true in NY as you can hear a disk block
    being written after 5:30pm, but I can guarantee that that is the
    exception, not the rule.  Most sws folks are tremendously dedicated
    folks, not 8-5ers, despite the fact that they face [maybe] more
    stress in their jobs and have to overcome obstacles not familiar
    to folks who work in the "greater Maynard" area.
    <<flame off>>
    The $500K figure was only an example, not intended to be an exact
    figure.
    
    I can see where a sws unit manager buys into a tough position when
    he accepts the job, but shouldn't there be some kind of trade-off
    between the various elements of the job; ie, putting specialists
    in revenue-producing activities, customer satisfaction, EMPLOYEE
    SATISFACTION, employee career development/growth, etc.  When a sws
    manager concentrates 90%+ of his/her energies into the revenue aspect,
    it goes without saying that the other areas will suffer.
    
    Jon
    

    Spare us from your snide and pompous remarks about the work habits of
    Software Services in New York. 

    Performance Reviews, indeed.
    
    As of this date I have been involved in a battle with a (former)
    erratic and irrational manager to (1) get a performance review,
    (2) not get a "5" as her response for "being made" to write my
    performance review, and (3) unfreeze my salary, which she has tried
    to have frozen for three (3) years.
    
    Let me tell you, this is no simple task. I have had to go all the
    way up to the VP level to get any action at all. At lower management
    levels, the response has been "sorry; we have to support our lower
    management," and "tough," and "if you'd come to me six months ago
    perhaps I could have done something to help," etc.
    
    So I am now at the point where my performance review is three months
    overdue from a manager who would as soon run me over with her car
    as look at me. However, personnel is on my side (I think), so the
    outcome should be positive: 1. Get a review 2. Get a review that
    reflects my performance (not a 5) 3. Get the raise I should have
    gotten last month 4. Get my salary plan unfrozen so I can get another
    raise before 1989.
    
    Lots of laughs ...
    
    

    .18
    
    
    Have you tried looking for another manager, as in another job?
    
    

    re  .18
    
    People in this conference keep using the "change managers -- change
    units -- change jobs within DEC" as a solution.  IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY
    IN THE STICKS. 
    
    Some districts have very few (1 or at most 2) delivery units at a
    location which may cover three states and may easily be 5 or 6 hours
    from other district locations.  Thus, unless a technical specialist
    wants to change to a sales support unit or attempt to transfer to
    another location (with all the hassles that includes) there is often
    nowhere to go.  Generally, you learn to work with the cards you're
    dealt, or go find another company to work for. 
    
    Dave    

    re .20:
    
    Dave, changing managers is not always easy, but hardly ever impossible.
    
    I am going through the process right now. I've decided to leave
    my district for a number of reasons, but I don't wish to leave the
    company. The benefits for working at DEC outweigh the cost, in the
    long run.
    
    The big question to ask about changing managers is "Am I willing
    to move?" There are *lots* of jobs out there. I realize that if
    you have a family and home, that makes it harder, but not impossible.
    
    I have an advantage, that there are several other districts in my
    geographic area, and I'm looking seriously for a job here, but if
    the 'right' job came along, I'd be willing to make a move.
    
    The willingness to make that jump is a personal decision that has
    to be resolved when evaluating a career move. If you like where
    you live, it makes it harder.
    
    Jim
    

    Yeah, I agree.  I transferred out of Chicago when the opportunity came,
    uprooting my family and having my wife change jobs, taking our
    daughter out of school, etc.  I'm just saying it ain't necessarily
    easy.  And it seems like running to a new unit with its probable
    problems should be the last solution to a problem.
    
    Dave    

    It's all a question of what you want to do.  If you want to do
    approximately the same job, but for a different manager, you may
    be forced to move.
    
    Perhaps it's better to decide that you're hunting for a new job.
    Then consider location of any possible position as just one of many
    factors.
    
    For example... I took over a year to decide that I'd found a new
    position that was worth uprooting my family for.  I'm currently
    in the process of relocating from the field (Princeton, NJ) to the
    `greater Maynard' area.  The job was worth it.
    
    Bob

    Someone explain to me why it never seems to be the manager's need
    to look for another job/position.  Why do managees not participate in  a
    meaningful way in the performance appraisal of their manager? I've
    seen very few examples of this in my 11+ years with DEC, and I've
    had several of these managers that needed some points off from the
    employee side.
    
    I've heard this sense of frustration time and time again and experienced
    it myself; it really leaves one with a depressed morale and a sense
    of hopelessness, especially when one has tried their hardest to
    do their job in a position/location that suits them to a high degree
    of satisfaction.

    jack

    I agree with earlier replies .Unless I missed a memo the open door
    is still in effect.You and/or your manager(s)have a problem.
    This kind of "I don't have time to talk to you about your performance/
    job plan/future"... is complete nonsense!That kind of management
    is not helping anyone who works for this company and needs to be
    addressed by everyone.(Is a soapbox needed here??)[]
    
    good luck
    reis
    

    
    RE: .24
    
    > Why do managees not participate in a meaningful way in the
    > performance appraisal of their managers?
    
    
    What a great question (idea).  Wouldn't it be nice...
    
    jt
      

	I heard a Field Service story about a manager who was real casual with 
PR's, to the point of letting his people fill them out and mail them to him 
for signature.  One guy put some ungodly requirements on the MANAGER in the 
section where it was appropriate, waited six months, and when none of them 
were done, confronted the manager AND his boss demanding to know why he hadn't 
been "assisted" as documented.  Some real changes were made the next period, 
including the IC being moved to a management track job, where he has done 
quite well.

    
    
    A performance review is very rarely ever a done deal. You have the
    right to ask your manager to go with you to personnel and his manager
    to to mediate. It will take time --- maybe as long as 6 mos. but
    if you feel the review is unjust and can substantiate your claim
    get it looked into. With a 5 performance level it is almost gauranteed
    that not another manager within the co. will touch you unless he
    is really hard up for help, and even on the outside a 5 is not going
    to look good. Don't count on back pay but try to negotiate with
    upper management and personnel for something that will help take
    out the sting.  
    
    Iwent through it once and do not envy you at all. good luck
    
     

Re .28:

>... and even on the outside a 5 is not going to look good.

I hope you realize that the only way someone on the outside is going to see
your performance review is if you give it to them, or they have
governmental powers.  I've never been in the position of having a
prospective employer ask for such data, so I have no idea how people react
to such a request.
				/AHM

From Personnel Policies and Procedures, 6.18 Employee Privacy:

"
                               INTERNAL USE ONLY
                              External Disclosure

Digital provides information to outside sources relating to present 
and former employees in three situations only:

     o Without a written release the Company will only verify 
       whether an individual is/was employed by Digital, the date 
       of that employment and the last current position held as 
       given by caller/writer.

     o The employee has approved (in writing) the verification/ 
       release of specific information.  In such cases the 
       information will be released directly to the employee unless 
       the information is being used to verify credit information 
       (e.g. credit cards, mortgages, bank loans) in which case the 
       information may be sent directly to the financial 
       institution.

     o Digital is required by law to release the information.

     o Manager's Files should not be released to outside sources.

     o Normally, requests for release of employee data to external 
       sources are done through the local Personnel organization 
       with the support of Payroll when necessary.  Individual 
       managers should not release employee information in these 
       circumstances.

Notification:  An employee will be notified that access has been 
granted to his/her employee file(s) under the following circum- 
stances:

     o When an individual other than the employee's manager(s)/
       supervisor(s), Personnel Department or Law Department 
       accesses the file.

     o When Corporate Security or the Internal Audit Department 
       accesses the file to complete their assigned 
       responsibilities.

     o When the Company is legally required to grant access to an 
       outside agency conducting a review or investigation 
       pertaining to an individual employee.

NOTE:  In the event that access to a file is granted to Corporate 
       Security or Internal Audit in the course of an individual 
       investigation and the notification of the employee would, in 
       the opinion of the Group Personnel Manager (or designee) and 
       Corporate Security, jeopardize the investigation, the 
       employee will be notified after the investigation has been 
       completed.  In all other cases the employee will be notified 
       in advance.
"

    The meat of the matter in .29 is that any other comments by managers
    or personnel can lead to very juicy lawsuits for defamation of
    character.
    And this we don't need.
    

    
    
    re. .29  policy quote..
    
    very true .. information cannot be arbitrarily disseminated but
    when you apply for a job one of the things you are asked is if your
    past or present employer can be contacted.
    
    Tell them no and forget about it...your resume winds up in the file
    13 based on the assumption you have something to hide.
    
    Tell them to contact a past manager and they may wonder why your
    leaving out the current one.
    
    Tell them to contact personnel and they get the info in your folder
    just as written with no explanations. not necessarily the numbers
    but the comments and descriptions.
    
    A personality conflict paints you in the role of Peck's Bad Boy.
    An incompetent manager -- ditto.
    
    Your only protection is documented proof of your claims and a
    documented proof of your appeal through what amounts for channels
    within DEC.
    
     

    Re: the idea of a manager being reviewed by his/her
    managees -
    
    This *does* happen at DEC.  I am a supervisor, and my manager
    asked the people in my group for their input into my review.
    However, *his* manager never asked any of us for our input
    (which would have been favorable, BTW) for his review.
    
    So, the problem addressed by earlier replies here may not be
    the immediate manager (who may or may not know anything is wrong),
    but whoever is at the next level up!  
    
    Bruce

        Are there many places out there where peer input into one's
        performance review is used?  We are engaging in this discussion
        with local management and they are blowing smoke at us about
        how corporate personnel won't allow it.  Anyone know of any
        'official' stand on this?
        
        mark

    When I was working in sws in the field, I used to save all the attaboy
    memos from sales reps that I had helped out with this/that/otherthing,
    and those were used as input to my PR.  Nobody ever seemed to have
    a problem with it -- can't believe corporate personnel "won't allow
    it", or would sales reps in this case not really be considered "peers"?
    
    fwiw
    Jon

    Re: .33: 
    
    In my case, my supervisor seeks out people like developers and other
    writers with whom I have had a particularly close working relationship,
    and attaches their remarks to my official review. 

    re .33
    
    Sounds like a crock to me.  In my unit, all PA input, PA review,
    EVERYTHING, is done by my co-workers.  The PA system we use is one
    we developed, measuring skill sets that are appropriate for our
    jobs (internal software support for US Area FS and SWS).  Our manager 
    simply makes sure all the required bits are done, and done in a 
    timely fashion.
    
    My last manager required you to get at least three people to provide
    a technical review on you for your PA.  What he did with it depended
    on the phase of the moon, but he did solicit it.
    
    Susan Vickrey, IISG/TBU

    re .33:
    
    It is very common among seasoned managers to solicit input for people's
    performance reviews from their "customers". In the home office,
    that frequently means the individuals or groups that they support.
    
    I had a manager one year that collected input from all of the people
    who reported _to_ me! It was very interesting and I am sure that
    it affected my review that year. So, there are good managers that
    not only use peer review, but subordinate review.

    What Peter describes is also common practice in my area, but it
    does vary from manager to manager.
    
    The P&P book says that it's the manager's responsibility to review
    employees' performance, but it does not say anything about how this
    review is produced.
    
    Bruce