Conference 7.286::digital

Although I doubt it, it's possible that a large percentage  of  the  rumors  are
true ... I don't see that as the real problem/question.

What concerns me is how quickly and easily rumors  run  wild  and  the  apparent
panic  that seems to ensue.  I'm particularly concerned about the low opinion of
ourselves (read that Digital ... ALL of Digital) that has been expressed  by  so
many  in  this conference ... if you feel guilty about Noting (111), don't do it
... if you think that Digital no longer believes  in  "doing  the  right  thing"
(127), perhaps you should look elsewhere ... if you feel consistently wronged by
your manager, take it up with Personnel ... don't assume that all of  management
is self-seeking, unfeeling, and impersonal ... it ain't them and us kid ... it's
us and us.

I know that I've simplified things a bit to make  my  point  ...  it's  not  all
sweetness  and light all of the time.  Sometimes, hard decisions have to be made
... sometimes mistakes and/or  bad  judgments  are  made  ...  sometimes  policy
statements  are  poorly worded ... and sometimes an incompetent is in a position
of power for a short time ... but it doesn't last and it's usually not fatal.

For as far up the ladder  as  I've  met,  my  managers  seem  to  be  competent,
honorable,  and  concerned  people  ...  my  boss  and  her boss are not just my
managers but my friends as well.

Try to remember who you are and who we are ... "whether  you  understand  it  or
not, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

Terry

    re: .0
    
    You've got it all wrong.  Rumors are the consequence of incredibly
    poor internal communication.  Absolutely no news of consequence
    is disclosed by posting a memo or hearing it disclosed at a meeting
    by the manager to whom one directly reports.
    
    This is neither good nor bad, but it does explain the vital importance
    of rumors to the DEC culture.
    
    As one who has been accused of starting rumors, let me tell you,
    one who carefully reads what the trade press says about DEC knows
    far, far more than what's formally disclosed to employees.
    
    The day our stock crashed it was my memo saying "DEC's stock has
    declined by over 20 points today/yesterday in reaction to DEC's
    revision of its Q1 earnings estimate."  My memo informed people of
    significant fact before they got the "official word" by at least two
    days!
    
    Or when "DEC abandons Rainbow", there was no official word for days.
    Nature abhors a vacuum.
    
    I can give you example after example where the absence of "official
    word" created rumors.  As employees, don't you think we deserve
    better?

    Of course, rumours are also a way of "testing the water".
    
    Someone may think of a potential policy but be unsure how it will
    be accepted.  So a rumour is started.
    
    Pretty soon it is being discussed by all and sundry, and providing
    ideal feedback without any repercussions for the originator.  If
    reaction is positive, the rumour becomes fact; if not, it dies away.
    
    
    But I feel that the majority of rumours are started through bad
    communication.  I work in an environment where their is a poor flow
    of information, even that which is directly related to day-to-day
    work.  This has the tendency to cause discussion between those "not
    in the know", who can end up discussing even the wildest of fantasies.
                       
    
    I recommend to all not spreading hear-say but instead pursuing the 
    realities of your current environment and that to which you aspire.

    Rumors are the "informal system's" way of getting things communicated.
    The "formal" system means someone has to take the responsibility,
    get the phrasing correct (and approved by "Legal" :-) ) before it
    can be released officially.
    
    In any organization there are varying degrees of informal
    communications without which things would not work as well. I think
    it is wise to have "rumors" on the agenda!  False ones can be scotched
    before any damage is done, and people who are not "wired" to the
    rumor net get included/informed (and they're going to feel better
    about it than if they felt left out).
    
    Managed wisely (not manipulated) the informal information can be
    quite valuable.
    
    	Rick Merrill
    

Ahh Gi'day...

    Polititians call  'em  leaks. They are used to test public opinion, and
    gauge  reaction  to  proposed  plans.  They can also start because some
    person  is  allowing  some information to be known, in a quest for some
    elevation  in  his/her standing amoungst collegues or subordinates. For
    these  rumours to spread, it's substance must meet some basic criteria:

	- relevance		  ...  it impacts us
	- believability		  ...  feasible in the current environment
	- politically defensible  ...  it has a champion for the cause
	- credibility		  ...  attributable to an "authority"

    Such rumours  are  indicative of poor communication and consultation (I
    cannot  remember  our  last  staff  meeting). I'm sure other classes of
    rumours  arise that are more akin to skullduggery and titillation, they
    have  no  place in a business portion of the organization, but I'm sure
    they meet some human need.
    
			   {dennis{{{ -- Mushroom.

    My belief is that rumors in large numbers when someone misunderstands
    someone else's blue-sky comment.  For example, "Gee, there are a
    lot of companies doing drug testing.  What if that happened here!
    Yeuch!"  easily becomes "There are a lot of companies doing drug
    testing.  We may too.
    
    Burns
    

	I tend not to believe unsubstantiated rumors out of principle,
    but was recently hit by the reality that rumors can turn out to be
    painfully true.

	The rumor I am refering to had to do with a particular
    product which I had been deeply emersed in here at DEC, which was
    having it's problems in certain quarters of the corporation, but
    was not only on the verge of greatness in my organization, but had
    been assured (only days prior) of at least two more years funding from
    my management.  To make a long story short, the rumor came true, and
    I (unlike my "Chicken-Little" counterparts) was caught with my pants down.

	The moral to the story is:  consider everything you hear to be
    a possibility, and (in my case) don't get so deeply involved in a
    particular product (based on assurances from your management, etc.)
    that you don't have any options left if the rumor comes true.

						-DAV0

    I once worked for a computer company best known for its thermostats.
    There appeared to be a standard method of test for policy changes
    to release it as a leak, and watch the reaction.  It was a gutless
    and slimy way to act.  DEC does not appear to use that method, and
    appears to try to communicate honestly.
    The "APPEARS" hedging is because history, like a certificate of
    virginity, is only valid while the ink is wet.  I HOPE it is also
    an indicator for the future.
	Phil Bancroft