Conference 7.286::digital

	As Ken Olsen stated in his opening address at IDECUS this year
    when refering to who holds the power in this (or any) corporation:
    "It's the staff!  Their the ones with all the real power...".

						-DAV0

Ahh Gi'day...

    Quiet question, how did you get the "August AW&ST" so early?

    Nit: It's not a monthly (mine's a weekly)

    Re: .0
    
    Makes perfect sense to me.  The engineers job is trying to
    make the real world work the way they want it too.  You have to
    know how the real world works to do the job.  Engineers have no
    time for politics.  That's what the managers are for.  The managers
    don't need to know the real world to do the politics.  Politics
    have nothing to do with the real world.  A good manager will insulate
    his engineers from the politics so that they can deal with the real
    world.  A good engineer will push any political problems up to
    their manager and deal with technical problems with their peers.
    
    I don't see the need for all the politics, but then, I'm an engineer.
    
    As for the suggested substitutes:
    
    Assemblers - They might know some details of the real world that
    	 	 the engineers don't bother to think about.  They deal
    	  	 with the tiny details.  The engineers deal with the
    		 big ones.
    
    Accounting clerks - Bean counters do not deal with the real world.
    		Money should be no object. (Engineer's point of view)
    
    Secretaries - Not much real world here either.  They deal with the
    		tiny details of the politics like the assemblers deal
    		with the tiny details of the real world.  I couldn't
    	      	get the right numbers into the right boxs without them.
    
    Writers - They deal with one side of the real world that seems too
    		tough for me.  How do you translate what an engineer
    		knows about the real world so that anyone can understand
    		it?  The human brain is too much to fathom.  I'll stick
    		to bits and bytes, thank you.

    						MJC               

Ahh Gi'day...

    You're telling  me  that  an  engineer  designing  a better widget on a
    zero-gravity  toilet  has  a  "whole world picture". Some products I've
    seen floating around suggest otherwise (not just Digital products).

    Re: -1
    
    Not "whole world" just "real world".  He has to completely understand a very
    small part of the real world (the Zero-G toilet) in order to do his
    job.  He can't escape from the constrains of reality in the thing
    he is working on.  Although he may not have much of a handle on
    other parts of the real world.
    
    					MJC

    
    Re: -1
    
    I don't mean to be nit picky  (maybe I am..) but why do you refer
    to the engineer as a "he"..you know there are quite a few women
    engineers around.
    
    just curious..
    
    Nisreen

    I'm female, a unit software manager in the field, and I ALWAYS
    use "he" and "him" when referring to some generic person.  I believe
    it's still accepted English is it not?  I don't know of an acceptable
    substitute; I imagine most people would be offended by being referred
    to as "it".  (^;
    
    						(^:	Positive Pat	:^)

    Re: -.7

    > Engineer as a "he".
    
    I don't think I taught about it that much.  The reason is probably
    either:
    
    1. I was thinking of myself. (A "he last time I checked)
    
    2. I was thinking of the people I worked with in the Defense/Space
       industry when I worked for MacDonnell Douglas.  (Almost all men
       in Mechanical and electrical engineering.  Very few women doing
       some software)
    
    3. Lexical laziness as pointed out in reply .8.  I have enough
       of a job trying to write at all.  The extra work to make sure
       that I am up to date on pronoun usage is beyond my skill level.
    
    At any rate I did not mean to offend anyone.  I would rather be
    on the side that is helping more women be part of engineering.
    Please pardon me if I occasionally slip.
    
    				MJC_who_does_write_in_WOMANNOTES_for_fear
                                   _of_causing_offence.

	    [RE .7 & .8 & .9]:  It's not really accepted English
	anymore.  Even English teachers are starting to catch on.
	For details on alternative ways to say such thinks, read
	_The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_, by Casey Miller and
	Kate Swift.
			<_Jym_>

    In  reality  it  always  was  a  matter  of laziness, and the modern 
    tendency  to  drop  older, more elaborate constructs: In the part of 
    England  I come from the older "thee", "thou", "them" and "they" are 
    still  used as genderless references (in speech "they" is often used 
    as  a  singular form which sounds strange to most people, hence) the 
    simplest  way  to  clean  up  .6  is  to pluralise the references to 
    engineers.
    
    Thus

            Not  "whole  world"  just  "real  world".  He has to 
            completely  understand a very small part of the real 
            world (the Zero-G toilet) in order to do his job. He 
            can't  escape  from the constrains of reality in the 
            thing  he  is  working on.  Although he may not have 
            much of a handle on other parts of the real world.
            
    becomes
            
            Not  "whole  world" just "real world".  They have to 
            completely  understand a very small part of the real 
            world  (the Zero-G toilet) in order to do their job. 
            They  can't escape from the constrains of reality in 
            the thing they are working on. Although they may not 
            have  much  of  a  handle on other parts of the real 
            world.
            
    Not  much  of  a  change  but at least it doesn't exclude 50% of the 
    human race.
    
    /. Ian .\  _don't_mind_me_I'm_just_being_a_little_pedantic_
        
        

RE: .10
    Someday in the year 2010 when I have nothing else to do I'll certainly
    have to catch that book!  The title holds the promise of an interesting
    and intellectual experience! 
    
    Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but as a female I have a real problem with
    people who criticize perfectly good words like chairman, salesman, etc.
    etc. etc. the list goes on and on ad nauseum.  If someone else wants to
    go to the trouble to change the way they talk, I have no problem with
    it, but when I use those words and someone tries to correct ME I get
    real, real irritated. 

RE: .11
    "... their job..."
    "... the thing they are working on ..."
    
    Now THAT is incorrect English.  Unless every engineer in the world
    is working on the same job to build the same zero-G toilet.

    
    					(-:	Positive Pat	:-)

    
    re -1: >..but as a female I have a real problem with people who
    	     criticize perfectly good words ....
    
    
    What I would like to know is what does being a female have to do
    with your real problem with people who criticize perfectly good
    words?
    
    Or does being a female give you more privileges of being sexist or
    to stereotype women? you might not mind being referred to as a he
    just because the job you do is steroetyped to be a "male's job",
    but I do have a problem with that. 
    
    I am aware that unconciously people (and I mean people of either
    sex) tend to stereotype certain professions by gender, like if you
    see a female at an office environment the conclusion would be "she
    must be a secretary", and nothing is wrong with being a secretary,
    and the reference to an Engineer as a He, because every engineer
    we happened to go to school with is a male, or every engineer we
    know is a male. 
    
    Sometimes women have to endure so much because of their profession,
    and because of the stereotypes, not only in engineering, but in
    other professions. The longer we allow ourselves to stereotype,
    the longer it is going to be for women to be accepted in the
    professions that are thought of as "male" professions, and the longer
    women have to endure..
    
    So as you see, the wording is not the issue at hand..it is what
    the wording does, and what type of affect it has..
    
    Personally speaking, just as I don't like being referred to as a
    "He", and I have no plans of a sex change operation to become a male so
    I can fit the stereotype of what Engineers are.
    
    
    Nisreen
    
    
    Nisreen

    re genderless pronouns:
    
    This digression has gone on long enough and is inappropriate for
    this conference.  Please debate this elsewhere.
    
  --moderator
    
    P.S.  Lest I get flamed at, this note makes no statement regarding
    the issue itself.
    

    =womannotes= would be a very appropriate arena in which to continue.
    
    (kp7 or select)
    
    					=maggie

    Re: The moderator                       
    
    I agree that this is no place for this discussion.  If people feel
    a need to flame at my use of pronouns ( or spelling or whatever)
    I would be receptive to receiving mail on the subject.  If you choose
    to flame at me in a public conference I feel the need to defend
    myself.  I also have no interest in moving to JOY-OF-LEX
    or WOMANNOTES so I can have the whole world flame at me.  Please
    DO NOT move my note there so that you can continue the execution.
    
    Re: .11, .13
    
    Yes, I agree that I could have written the note in another
    way to avoid the pronoun "he" and, I agree that the note would
    have been better if I had.  I deny that I have excluded 50%
    of the population from engineering by not doing so.  I did
    not choose the pronoun "he" for that purpose.  My pronoun usage
    is only "out of date" not intentionally sexist.

    Please do not hold me up as the enemy of women engineers and use my
    use of "he" as proof.  I find the insinuation an insult.
    
    Re: Nit picking
    
    >Flame on<
    
    So far I have herd almost nothing from anyone about the content
    of .0 or my replies to it.  Why is it that all I get are flames
    about pronouns and spelling ect. every time I enter a note in
    one of these notes files?  Does anyone have anything to say about
    the CONTENT of .0 or my replies?  If not, then why did I waste my
    time to try to contribute?
    
    "Some 'male' noter in DIGITAL just used the word "he" to refer to
     and engineer."
    "Oh my god!  Call out the guard.  We must descend on him in numbers
     before our children hear him and he destroys their minds with
     his sexist perversions"
    
     Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

    >Flame off<

    						MJC
    

    re .16:
    
    I agree with your flame.  The last few replies have nothing to do
    with the topic note.  That's why I said that the rat-hole belongs
    elsewhere.  Since you felt you must defend yourself and you did,
    let's not have any more rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.  You are
    of course not obliged to continue the debate elsewhere.
    
    Now please get back to the subject.
    
  --Simon
    

Ok boys AND girls :v),

	In the name of keeping the topic (zero gravity toilets? :v) ) on track,
    I will say that I agree that there is no reason why an Engineer should
    have to manage any more than a manager should have to engineer, but
    regardless of the different roles these two people would play in their
    organization, why is it that one get's to "pull rank" over the other if
    he/she so desires?  Is totalitarianism a neccessary evil to any working
    environment, or could things be done differently?

						-DAV0

    The answer is, of course, that the person who controls the funding gets
    to pull rank.  Control over what should be done belongs to managers.
    At DEC, control over how it is done generally belongs to engineers,
    unless the manager insists on meddling.  (If he meddles too much, he
    has to look for new engineers to replace the ones who left for
    somewhere else in the company. :-) ) 
    
    Managers manage.  That means they pull together resources in order to
    accomplish a task.  Engineers are resources.  Money is a resource.
    Machines, materials, and electrical power are resources.  The managers
    that work for them (and these managers' organizations) are resources.
    
    In a business, the task accomplished is expected to generate revenue.
    With the revenue, there are more resources available to accomplish more
    tasks; more resources are combined.  This means, among other things,
    that more engineers are brought in contact with more money and more
    materials, and some of it rubs off.  (I like this part best. :-)) 

    So why are the managers on top?  Why not a group of engineers who hire
    on a manager to work for them as coordinator?  First, because there are
    few if any people who would take the job.  Each engineer would be the
    coordinator's boss, and he would be held responsible for their failure
    to work together if they refused to listen to him.
    
    Second, without the authority to reward or punish, the only reason for
    the engineers to come to an agreement where they really have strong
    differences of opinion about the design would be the success of the
    product itself. While the very best engineers would find this a
    sufficient motivation, there are many engineers who would be tempted to
    say "The heck with this.  This is my piece of the project and I'll
    bloody well do it my way." or "The project goals are off.  I'll make my
    piece so that it will do what this project really should be doing." 

    Finally, there is a long tradition of pipelining ownership of resources
    through managers.  The world has at least 4 or 5 thousand years of
    experience of this form of organization, and almost no experience of a
    successful organization that didn't take this form.  Even successful
    democracies have taken the representative format, where you elect your
    leaders rather than having no leaders. 
    
    The bottom line:  In a perfect world, all forms of organization work
    well.  In an imperfect world, no form of organization works well, but
    you try to do the best you can with what you've got. 
    
    						Ralph

    the last couple of responses finally give me something that I feel
    justifies a response to this topic...
    
    A recent one:one with my supervisor is both relevant to this discussion
    and illustrative of why I'm more satisfied in my present niche than
    in any other recent position.  The discussion centered on the
    difference between working "for" a manager and working "with" a
    manager.  My own philosophy is that in a healthy superior:subordinate
    relationship there is no need to "pull rank" because both are working
    as a team toward a common goal, and I was glad to get confirmation
    (again!) that my present supervisor shares a similar view.
    
    To me it comes down to a matter of personal and professional maturity.
    If we disagree it is usually because there are different priorities at
    work, and the proper resolution seems to be to look at the overall
    goals to resolve the differences.  In very rare cases it might be
    necessary to look to the formal table of organization to resolve
    an impass, but if this becomes frequent it is a sign that there
    is a serious problem somewhere.  
    
    The key to this working is that there must be a common goal, and
    all parties involved must have bought into it.  If this is so then
    most often an objective look at that goal and what it requires will
    be sufficient to resolve questions.  It requires maturity on both
    parts to be able to take that objective look, but it is necessary
    because either party can be right - or not.  Such a partnership
    actually makes both jobs easier, because the agreement on goals
    makes it easier to agree on "what is right" (the Digital creed)
    and promotes trust that each will do what is right.
    
    To me this is the essence of what makes working at Digital so
    attractive, and what really constitutes the cornerstone of our
    corporate success.  I just wish it were more common (although, in 6.5
    years with the company I've had approximately 8 direct supervisors of
    whom I'd say 5 or 6 had the same attitude as I do - not a bad sample,
    although a couple of those 5 or 6 did have other problems, like
    difficulty at times in acheiving the objectivity required).
    
    To comment specifically on what Ralph said to start off .19:
.19>    The answer is, of course, that the person who controls the funding gets
.19>    to pull rank.  Control over what should be done belongs to managers.
    I actually view this as shared control.  The funder does determine
    the specifics, but the workers ratify that when they accept (or
    retain) the job.  After that, the goal is shared and the managers
    and workers should work as a team with nobody pulling rank (no "coder's
    vetoes" either!).

    But of course, that is the ideal, in the best of all possible worlds.

    	Is a "manager" (by definition) really what is needed in a synergistic
    project team environment?  The following defintion is taken from my copy
    of Websters 7th New Collegiate Dictionary:

    manage:... 1 : HANDLE, CONTROL   2 : to make and keep submissive
    3 : to treate with care : HUSBAND  4 : to alter by manipulation
    5 : to succeed in accomplishing : CONTRIVE ~ vi  1 a : to direct or
    carry on business or affairs  b : to admit of being carried on
    2 : to achieve one's purpose  syn see CONDUCT


re: .19,

>    So why are the managers on top?  Why not a group of engineers who hire
>    on a manager to work for them as coordinator?  First, because there are
>    few if any people who would take the job.  Each engineer would be the
>    coordinator's boss, and he would be held responsible for their failure
>    to work together if they refused to listen to him.

    	My question is not "why are managers on top?", but instead, "why is
    anybody on top?".  To put engineers in control of their manager would only
    reverse the situation instead of enhancing the project team environment.
    As far as responsibility for any failure to work together, this would
    ultimately fall on the team as a whole, however certain members of the
    team whose roles involve such things as group communications, conflict
    resolution, contingency planning, full or shared leadership, etc. could
    be held more responsible than others whose primary responsibilities did
    not directly involve the team's working environment.
    
>    Second, without the authority to reward or punish, the only reason for
>    the engineers to come to an agreement where they really have strong
>    differences of opinion about the design would be the success of the
>    product itself.  While the very best engineers would find this a
>    sufficient motivation, there are many engineers who would be tempted to
>    say "The heck with this.  This is my piece of the project and I'll
>    bloody well do it my way." or "The project goals are off.  I'll make my
>    piece so that it will do what this project really should be doing." 

    	Again, the success of the team's project(s) should be how rewards are
    based, and if teams break off in diverging directions midway through a
    particular project, then the resulting dual projects would have to both
    prove their respective successes to justify rewards as well.  This would
    allow for intra-corporate entrepreneurship (intrapreneuring) in situations
    which would otherwise cause people to want to leave their present positions
    (or even the company) over divergences which might actually spawn incredible
    breakthroughs in technology (most great discoveries are unplanned).

>    Finally, there is a long tradition of pipelining ownership of resources
>    through managers.  The world has at least 4 or 5 thousand years of
>    experience of this form of organization, and almost no experience of a
>    successful organization that didn't take this form.  Even successful
>    democracies have taken the representative format, where you elect your
>    leaders rather than having no leaders. 

    	Welcome to the information age.  Ancient forms of hierarchical organi-
    zation (similar to IBM computer systems architecture), are being replaced
    by peer-to-peer team environments.  True democracy has yet to be imple-
    mented, but modern information technologies (such as Vaxnotes, etc.) may
    help to provide all citizens (as well as employees), a voice (vote) in 
    the issues which effect them.


re: .20,

>    My own philosophy is that in a healthy superior:subordinate
>    relationship there is no need to "pull rank" because both are working
>    as a team toward a common goal, and I was glad to get confirmation
>    (again!) that my present supervisor shares a similar view.
 
    	Glad to see this happening.  Maybe we're on our way after all.
   
>    To me it comes down to a matter of personal and professional maturity.
>    If we disagree it is usually because there are different priorities at
>    work, and the proper resolution seems to be to look at the overall
>    goals to resolve the differences.  In very rare cases it might be
>    necessary to look to the formal table of organization to resolve
>    an impass, but if this becomes frequent it is a sign that there
>    is a serious problem somewhere.  

    	I think it is important to have a "formal table" of organization
    to fall back on in times of differences.  There is a major area of
    contingency planning and conflict resolution which must be agreed upon
    by each project team member early on in their involvement with the project
    to ensure that the team is able to "ride the waves of change" and to
    deal with the possiblities of divergences, etc.

    	This "formal table" could well be a traditional hierarchical form
    of team decision making, or it could be a more progressive peer-to-peer
    environment; either way, it would be nice to know what the team environment
    is up front before commiting one's self (whether they be a manager, or an
    individual contributer) to the project team.

    	Various VAX utilities exist to handle some of the tedious sorts of 
    project management tasks (with plenty of room for more and better such
    utilities such as team organizational structuring, contingency planning,
    etc.), but there will always be plenty of room for the charismatic influence
    that a certain team members might possess which provides team leadership
    and helps facilitate that "psychic bond" which is neccessary in a syner-
    gistic environment.  If a team member (or members) possessing these
    qualities and taking on this team role wants to call themselves a manager,
    then it's ok by me.
    
    						-DAV0

    Re .21:  
    
    OK.  The "information age" opens up certain physical possibilities for
    keeping track of and making informed decisions by consensus.  It
    doesn't much alter the psychological necessities, though. 
    
    Accomplishing anything requires the exercise of power. I suppose it
    doesn't matter much which source of power you draw on, or even if all
    that power resides in one person, provided it resides in people acting
    together.  One management text I read once listed seven sources of
    power: 
    
    (1)	Physical strength		    (5)	Personality
    (2)	Economic power			    (6)	Authority
    (3)	Knowledge			    (7) Persuasiveness
    (4)	Performance

    Authority is intended by the text to mean "positional power" -- being
    the boss.  Depending upon authority in order to get things done is
    "living on borrowed time".  Nobody can get away with "pulling rank" on
    a regular basis, but only to cover the occasional gaps in their other
    sources of power.  Like the clutch on a car, it is useful, but easy to
    burn out and expensive to replace. 

    Most entrepreneurial people and engineers distrust authority but love
    to develop the other kinds of power. I suspect this is part of the
    reason for all that untaken vacation time.  It isn't just that we love
    our projects, but also that by being a star performer, we get a certain
    amount of power, and that feels good.  The same thing for getting a
    reputation as a "guru". 
    
    In fact, some folk I know, who wouldn't be caught dead managing
    anything, love power, but see authority as "cheating" or "having power
    without earning it".  I don't share that view (because the power that
    comes from authority alone is precious little power), but I can
    understand it. 

    Of course, the most thrilling exercise of power is when a group of
    people act in harmony, exercising their power over one another together
    toward the accomplishment of a common goal.  If the goal is a good one
    and the mutual plan really is headed in that direction, it can be one
    of the most beautiful experiences in the world.  It doesn't happen very
    often, but that doesn't say it couldn't happen more often. 
    
                                  ----------

    "Intrapreneurship" is one way of resolving irreconcilable differences
    in a group, but it has a potentially very high overhead.  Either:
    
    (a) the approaches are so different that they represent two different 
    	products that won't directly compete in the marketplace (in which 
    	case, you win), or 
    (b) you will have to eventually axe the "loser" without profit, (in 
    	which case you lose -- you could have prevented the overhead by 
   	simply backing the winner), or 
    (c) you will confuse your customers with two products that do the same 
        thing but don't talk to each other.  (Maybe you win, maybe you
    	lose, but it doesn't do great things for your reputation.) 
    
    Certainly, you should know what you will do with the loser before you
    start and this should be a prime consideration in the decision about
    what to do. There's nothing "magic" about "intrepreneurship" or any
    other approach; it depends on the situation. 

    						Ralph

   ***The occupations in this next little item may be freely substituted
    to fit personal tastes.
    ***The term "Man" as used in the item is meant in the "Generic"
    sense..as in "Mankind"...and not the "gender" sense...
    
    
       "An Engineer is a man who knows a great deal about very little
    and who goes along learning more and more about less and less until,
    finally, he knows practically everything about nothing."
    
       "A Salesman is a man who knows very little about many things
    and who keeps learning less and less about more and more until he
    knows practically nothing about everything."
                                                           
       "A Purchasing Agent starts out knowing everything about everything,
    but ends up knowing nothing about anything due to his long association
    with Engineers and Salesmen."
    
    

    
    From a long departed and highly respected HW engineering group manager
    here in Palo Alto:
    
         "Employ only those organizations and individuals  
          who demonstrate passion, performance, and a sense
          of urgency; and who add value by their involvement.
    	  Do not involve individuals and organizations that
    	  cannot respond to critical path needs!
    
          Functional results are paramount!  Processes exist
    	  to achieve success, but cannot be allowed to gate
    	  results.  If a process cannot meet the needs of
    	  the program, modify it or discard it!"