Conference 7.286::digital

    Is there still the position of "Group Vice President"?
    
    

    "Group Vice President" was never an official title. It was a term
    that Ken used at one time for the members of Operations Committee,
    and at another time for Marketing Committee. In that sense, the
    proper spelling was probably "group Vice President", meaning the
    VP of a group of VPs! But then who ever said DEC was careful about
    upper/lower case :-).....oops, perhaps I should have said dEC!

    "official" title or not, it used to appear in the Annual Report,
    but, I think you're right, it was with the lower case spelling!
    

    Who knows how many VP's we have?  H-floating point format will be
    acceptable.

    Seems to me that I only see a new Digital This Week out lately if
    they have some new VP's to announce!  I'd be curious too to see
    the grand total...
    

    I recall the # of V.P'S being somewhere around 30+...
    

As mentioned in one of the trade weeklies, when refering to the
newly created Senior Vice Presidents...

    This is a good example of the adage that anything used too frequently
    loses its value.  Being a VP used to be a big deal, now everytime
    I turn around there's a new one.
    
    Say.  That was 45 *Senior* VPs?  How many "non-senior" VPs do we
    have?

    Nope, only a couple (3?) *senior* VP's, the rest of them are the
    normal garden-variety VP's.
    
    Jon

.8>    This is a good example of the adage that anything used too frequently
.8>    loses its value.  Being a VP used to be a big deal, now everytime
.8>    I turn around there's a new one.

    Would you prefer that we only had half a dozen VP's and had all
    decision making and commitment responsibility concentrated in the
    hands of a half a dozen people?
    
    Veeps are the officers of the company, with the authority to commit
    the corporation. When you're a 10 million dollar company, you have
    a half a dozen. When you have a company going on 10,000,000,000
    in sales, and when you believe in distributing responsibility, it
    makes a lot of sense to have 50 Veeps.
    
    We ARE a B-I-G company. We have a L O T of customers and a L O T
    of businesses. And we tend to distribute authority, although in
    times past, it may have felt like it was M O R E distributed than
    it is today.
    
    The large number of VP's isn't disturbing in that context. What
    we may see in the future is even more ... as a sign that we are
    continuing to grow and take advantage of our limited window of
    opportunity. Within a few years, I expect to see JUNIOR VP's, VP's,
    Senior VP's and maybe even a fourth level (Exec VP or Divisional
    VP equivalent).

    Your analysis doesn't hold water.  The number of VPs are clearly
    growing at a far greater rate than is the company, no matter what
    metric (# employees, $ of sales, etc.) you wish to use. 

    I think the real answer is that a VP title allows the highest level of
    management to be promoted into some new position.  I.e., instead of
    calling them VPs they could be called "senior <mumble> managers".  The
    problem is that this cheapens the title of VP, which has (should have)
    a special significance. 
    
    As to a VP being able to commit the company to do something, that's
    fantasy.  As far as I can tell, everything is done by committee at that
    level. 

RE: .11

>    As to a VP being able to commit the company to do something, that's
>    fantasy.  As far as I can tell, everything is done by committee at that
>    level. 

I'm afraid you're wrong here.  Only an officer of a corporation can execute
a legally-binding contract on behalf of the corporation.  For DEC to enter
into a contract, that contract must be signed by the President, a Vice
President, the Corporate Secretary, or the Corporate Treasurer.  That is why
banks have so many Vice Presidents, and why seemingly insignificant bank
branch offices may have a VP in charge.  It is also why the need for people
with the VP title within DEC may grow at a different rate than the company
as a whole does.

--PSW

    And as we become more and more of a marketing company, focusing
    on calling at the HIGHEST levels of the large corporations around
    the world, do you think the Vice President of Mumbling at the Widget
    Corporation has his ego massaged by talking to the Chief Senior
    Consulting Manager of Whatchimacallit from Digital? Titles DO count.
    When we were selling technical solutions to technical personnel,
    maybe it was important that we not have a vice president involved...

	Good point Tom, I was talking to my Brother-In-Law (an engineer at
    Standard Oil Co.), and he was describing how a VP (or was it the P himself?)
    from IBM had called the P of Standard Oil to talk to him about his
    "computer system".  Up until then, Standard Oil had been blessed with a
    few VAXes along with their hodgepodge of other (mainly IBM) computers,
    but by "selling high" the IBM exec succeeded in convincing the Standard
    Oil President to get rid of all of his old stuff and buy a complete IBM
    system.

	This decision was made solely on the high-ranking influence of the
    IBM salesman, and had little to do with what the actual engineers at
    Standard Oil wanted (they wanted more VAXes!).  The positive side of this
    particular story is that my Brother-In-Law and his fello engineers plan
    to slip in a MicroVAX for a "special project" or two, and before long,
    end up with a complete system of VAXes anyway.  But, if we had tried the
    same trick using a "New and Improved Senior Corporate Executive Manager
    Plus", then I doubt if it would have worked as effectively in speaking
    to the President of Standard Oil as would our President or Vice-President.

							-DAV0

re: .14		Someone must have heard you:
.
(forwarding deleted)
.
Message-class: DECMAIL-MS
From:	NAME: SHUE
	INITLS: CHICK
	FUNC: US SALES
	ADDR: MRO3-3/B13
	TEL: 297-6067 <7991@DECMAIL@GRECO@PKO>
Posted-date: 18-Jul-1986


Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT.....SALES VP POSITIONS APPROVED

THE POSITIONS OF AREA SALES MANAGER AND CORPORATE ACCOUNT PROGRAMS
MANAGER HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY DIGITAL'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND BOARD 
OF DIRECTORS AS VICE PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTED POSITIONS.

FOR SOMETIME WE HAVE RECOGNIZED AND EXPERIENCED THAT TO EFFECTIVELY 
ACCESS AND CLOSE BUSINESS AT THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL, WE MUST HAVE 
EXECUTIVE PEERS MAKING THOSE CUSTOMER CALLS.  IN ESSENCE, VPs TALKING 
WITH VPs.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE AS WE DRIVE OUR END-USER BUSINESS 
BEYOND OUR TRADITIONAL TECHNICALLY ORIENTED CUSTOMER BASE.  THUS, THE 
AREA SALES MANAGERS AND THE CORPORATE ACCOUNT PROGRAMS MANAGER, WITHOUT 
A CHANGE IN RESPONSIBILITIES, ARE NOW V. P. TITLED POSITIONS, 
EFFECTIVE JULY 21, 1986. 

OUR TEN NEW VICE PRESIDENTS ARE:

   FRANK BOWDEN		SOUTH CENTRAL AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   HARRY EISENGREIN	SOUTHERN AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   RON EISENHAUER       CENTRAL AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   LARRY GOODWIN        WESTERN AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   RON HEVEY            NEW YORK AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   BOB LONG             SOUTHWEST AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   BILL LYNCH           CORPORATE ACCOUNT PROGRAMS SALES V. P.
   MIKE MARSHALL        NORTHEAST AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   CHUCK PICKLE         EAST CENTRAL AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT
   RAY WOOD             MID-ATLANTIC AREA SALES VICE PRESIDENT

THESE NEW SALES TITLES ARE A VALUABLE TOOL FOR WINNING AGAINST THE 
COMPETITION.  I ENCOURAGE ALL CORPORATE AND FIELD EMPLOYEES TO TAKE 
FULL ADVANTAGE OF THIS RESOURCE.	

< Note 152.12 by PSW::WINALSKI "Paul S. Winalski" >

> I'm afraid you're wrong here.  Only an officer of a
> corporation can execute a legally-binding contract on behalf
> of the corporation.  For DEC to enter into a contract, that
> contract must be signed by the President, a Vice President,
> the Corporate Secretary, or the Corporate Treasurer. 

  Hmm.  I thought that a lot of our paperwork represented "a 
  contract", far more than *any* number of Veeps could ever 
  sign.  Here are some things I thought were contracts, and 
  which don't require individual sign-off by a VP:

    o Field Service Contracts
    o Field-Test Agreements
    o MOFs (Master Order Forms)
    o Software Licenses
    o Software Services Contracts
    o Quantity Discount Agreements

  Maybe even:

    o Employment offer letters
    o UOFs (Unusual Order Forms)
    o Purchase orders

                                   Atlant

    re 14:
    
    	Obviously Chick reads this conference :-).  Now, is he going
    to give you any credit?  I do think this group of VP's is a good
    idea.  VP's selling to VP's does work.
    
    	and...if there are so many VP title floating around can I expect
    one in my next review?  Let's see, vice-president of......
    
Oh, well, passed by again....
    
    GOG

re: -1,

	Sorry George, Starkist wants tunas with good taste...just kidding -
    better luck next time around.

	How many of you want to bet that my note had anything to do with
    this recent announcement?  If it did, that would mark a great day in
    Vaxnotes history for providing DEC executives the information they
    need to make those lightening-bolt decisions when they need to be made.

	Whatever the case, I take back anything bad I ever might have
    said about salesmen.  Did you ever hear the one about the salesman
    who...ooops, I mean programmer...

						-DAV0

    .17 provokes an interesting line of thought at this hour.
    
    In Digital, we continue to create more and more job classifications.
    Since I joined Digital 10 years ago in a field software services
    position, I've seen a lot of new job titles/descriptions/codes get
    created to properly reward and title people as they grew with the
    company.
    
    For example, in the 70's, I saw the positions of Principal Software
    Specialist and Software Consultant created for field SWS folks.
    I've seen many new marketing, sales and engineering positions created
    since I came out of the field.
    
    All of these new positions are additive (or most of them are, anyhow).
    That is, they add additional titles and honors and so forth for
    folks.
    
    Another approach might be to create job titles where promotion removes
    a limitation (versus job titles where promotion adds an honor).
    Thus, someone might start out as a 
    
    JUNIOR ASSISTANT ADVISING ADJUTANT VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIRECT SALES
    
    at their next promotion, if they deserved a promotion, one of these
    titles might be dropped, making them an
    
    ASSISTANT ADVISING ADJUTANT VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIRECT SALES
    
    after demonstrating their outstanding ability in this position,
    they might be promoted to be an
    
    ASSISTANT ADVISING ADJUTANT VICE PRESIDENT OF SALES (!!!) or even
    
    an
    
    ADJUTANT ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT (which is one below an
    ASSISTANT ADJUTANT VICE PRESIDENT....
    
    you get the picture.
    
    Actually, I think this is the way that many banks work, having 3
    vice presidents for every clerk.
    
    Inside Digital, fortunately, this will never happen. It's far more
    important to reward people by honoring them than to reward them
    by REMOVING A RESTRICTIVE TITLE.
    
    Nonetheless, the analogy seemed appropriate given the lateness of
    the hour...
				;-)
                                                               
    Tom (Junior_Assistant_Pretending_Vice_President_Ex_Officio)
                                   
    
    (Please don't misinterpret this humorous note. The folks ...area
    sales managers... who've just been appointed to VP posts are
    responsible for much larger sales budgets than many of the VP's
    of sales at almost all of our competitors. The ones I know deserve
    the honors they're receiving ... and will use their new titles to
    help make sure we continue to grow and succeed. And I trust those
    I don't know will make it a point to get to know me so I can similarly
    compilment them! ;-)    )              

    
    Tom,
    
    	I go by the same rule I've used since coming to dec, the he**
    with the title, just give me the $$.  If I get a raise then I'm
    doing the job!
    
    Well, time to get to work.....

    From the mile-long DECMail I just received I gather that the new
    Sales VP's are "non-officer" Vice Presidents.  Is this a
    self-cancelling phrase.  Perhaps our customers will create a series
    of "non-officer" VP's for ours to call on so that their "real" VP's
    aren't bothered.  (Didn't the base note say that the PRESIDENT of
    IBM called on the PRESIDENT of Standard Oil?  That's an entirely
    different kettle of fish, folks).
    
    Bill

    Some of the notes arguing in favor of all these VP slots have
    unwittingly argued against themselves. 
    
    When someone says that they're the VP of a bank, you don't take them
    seriously, do you?  I'm willing to believe that there is an anecdotal
    story about how President x called President y on the telephone and got
    an order.  So what?  If a President can't bag an order, who can?

    Also, I completely fail to understand how advocating better marketing
    for DEC gets translated into handing out VP titles like cookies. 
    Sorry, but that's not marketing. 
    
    Only a real dunderhead would be impressed that he was being called on
    by a VP, if the grapevine told him that the company had 1E+6 VPs.
    Given how many rags discuss Digital goings-on, I still maintain that
    this cheapens the title and won't fool anyone. 

>        Only a real dunderhead would be impressed that he was being called on
>        by a VP

    	Doesn't this say it all.  Ever hear of egos?
    

	I need to get my story straight here before we go making any
    assumptions about whether it was the actual President of IBM (unlikely),
    or whether it was a VP, and if it was an IBM VP, then whether it was a
    "non-officer" equivalent at IBM or a "true" VP, etc.  If you'll note in
    my original comment back aways that I wasn't real sure about the exact
    level of the IBM contact, but that whoever it was had called on the
    President of Standard Oil.  

	The reason I went ahead and entered the note anyway (even without
    the exact title straight) was to point out the sales strategy employed
    by IBM in winning sales (over Digital).  Remember how Digital used to
    sell mainly through word-of-mouth in the engineering community?  Well,
    unfortunately, word-of-mouth doesn't always hold water compared to the
    word of Senior Corporate Officers (regardless of their titles), and now
    that we are trying to break into more and more of the non-engineering
    markets, we need to consider the sales tactics employed by big blue.
    Remember also, IBM=Marketing and the sooner we realize this, the sooner
    we will be able to compete with them at their own game (unless we can
    rely on slipping VAXes in under the eyes of the corporate chiefs at
    our customer companies by dealing direct with the engineers instead).

	I suggest we continue to keep the respect of the engineering
    community, but keep in mind that the engineers (like ourselves) are
    typically only the pawns in most corporate structures, and unless we
    are advocating some sort of a revolution in corporate structure, I
    think we are going to be forced to play ball by the existing rules
    and crown the title of VP's to our best salesmen so they don't have
    to be snubbed by the VP's and P's that they will have to be calling on.

							-davo

    > Only a real dunderhead would be impressed that he was being called on
    > by a VP

    Since when did we require a customer to pass an IQ test before we'd
    take his money and sell him a computer?  Dunderheads have money
    too!  (^;
    
    						(^:	Positive Pat	:^)

    A service agreement executed under standard terms and conditions may be
    signed by an authorized Digital employee who is not an officer and binds
    Digital since it was a standard contract pre-approved by Digital.  That
    goes for any non-negotiated contract as well. 
    
    An officer has the authority to sign [any] contracts that bind a
    corporation. That's by definition: _that_ authority distinguishes
    employees from officers. 
    
    If we have indeed promoted managers to vice presidents without the
    authority to contractually bind Digital, that's strange.  There's no
    requirement for VP's to be officers, however it does show some lack of
    good faith in having our non-officer VP's negotiate with customer
    officer-VP's and then end the negotiating with "I'm a VP but I can't
    sign a legally binding contract for Digital, I'll pass this up to my
    boss's boss for a signature." 
    

One question: Are there any *women* at the VP level in our
wonderful corporation? (I was reminded by the recent article
in DTW about the mother-daughter Consulting engineers (or was that
Senior Consulting, or Corporate Consulting, or...))

Bruce

    Ilein Jacobs (sp?) was promoted to VP not too long ago. Also
    Roseanne Geadono (I know that one is spelled wrong) has been a
    VP for a number of years.

    		Alfred

    re .27
    
    They're Senior Consulting Engineers. There are still no women in the
    technical tree at Corporate Consulting or higher.

>============================================================================
>Note 152.11                 Senior Vice Presidents                  11 of 29
>MILDEW::DEROSA "Obviously, a major malfunction."   13 lines  20-JUL-1986 13:04
>                           -< re: -1: wrong >-
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Your analysis doesn't hold water.  The number of VPs are clearly
>    growing at a far greater rate than is the company, no matter what
>    metric (# employees, $ of sales, etc.) you wish to use.
>

I don't  know  how  152.11 calculated his numbers but the absolute number of
officers  has been growing at a rate less than the sales growth rate.  Based
on the annual reports, here are the actuals:  


                Sales
	YEAR     $B     VP's and other officers
	----    -----  ------------------------

	fy85    6.686           39
	fy84    5.584           38
	fy83    4.271           29
	fy82    3.880           35
	fy81    3.198           37
                        

    Mentioned in the Proxy Statement for FY1986 is that the Board of
    Directors voted to let the President assign titles as he sees fit.
    
    This explains, for one thing, that several new Vice Presidents are
    _not_ officers of the corporation.  As I pointed out earlier, it is
    bizarre.  It took a vote from the Board of Directors to elevate
    these managers to "Vice President" without letting them also become
    corporate officers (ie legally bind DEC in a contract).  They are
    not listed among the list of officers.  The former area sales managers
    are examples of such promotions.

Re .31:

Pat, could you clarify this twice-mentioned "only officers can bind
DEC in a contract" assertion with respect to the point raised in .16 that
many people would seem to be agents of the corporation, and many of them
have customers sign things like field service contracts without it
resulting in writer's cramp for the VPs?  Must all unique contracts
be OKed by an officer before they can be used?
				/AHM/THX

    re: 31
    
    You are correct.  In principle, authority to bind the corporation
    in a contract originates not with the Board of Directors, not with
    the Presidents, but with each individual officer.
    
    Managers who sign contracts that are fill-in-the-blank forms do
    so with the knowledge that the terms and conditions therein are
    approved and that they are designated to sign that type of contract
    by some sort of written policy that originates with an officer.
    
    A contract-from-scratch _can_ be signed by an officer without further
    approval, but in actual practice you can bet that there will be
    review by all the managers, vice presidents, and legal counsel,
    that the contract will possibly affect.
    
    The "VP but not officer" thing is symbolic, but at that level in
    the corporation symbols and appearances take on a life of their
    own.