Conference 7.286::digital

    
    Yep, you're right, "deadwood" probably isn't the way to refer to
    folks.
    
    If somebody works on the Bleen-404 production line, and 404s are
    being phased out, that's one situation.
            
    However, if someone is part of a going concern, and simply does
    the minimum, dodges assignments, comes in late, etc., it's a
    management problem.
    
    If management doesn't handle this second situation, then what ?
    
    Steve H

Re: .0

>    Frankly, I don't believe that better
>    people can be hired, we are already hiring the best.

There are good people out there who would love to work for DEC, but can't
because of our hiring freezes.  They may not be *better* than the best people
working for DEC, but they're certainly better than our deadwood.  We are *not*
hiring the best, at least during a hiring freeze; for the most part we only
hire people fresh out of college.  Our deadwood is consuming headcount that
could be used to hire people who would be *effective* in their jobs, not
ineffective (dead).  People who can't contribute in their current jobs should
be transferred to a group where they *can* contribute.  In the long run this
will be better for them and it will be better for DEC.

				-- Bob

        This appears to be a continuation of topic 788, in which the
        topic note and some replies use the term "deadwood".  Please
        confine further replies to that topic.  This digression is
        now "write-locked".
        
        Tom
        co-moderator

    
    It appears to me that topic 788 is on spinning off smaller
    businesses, and although people have mentioned the "deadwood"
    concept there, I wanted to address it directly.   I would 
    rather not see this topic "write-locked".
    
    I am curious about all those good people we could be hiring.
    Everyone here now was a promising looking hiree, and yet
    some percentage of us have been somehow transformed into
    "deadwood".   How does this transformation take place?   What
    guarantee is there that the next fellow you hire won't suffer
    the same ignoble transformation?

    						Alan.

        OK, sounds good to me.  It seemed at first that this was mostly
        in reaction to 788.*.
        
        I concur -- I view "deadwood" as a devaluing term.  Kind of like
        calling older persons "old farts" or "old fogies".  
        
        Tom

re Note 790.2 by HANNAH::MESSENGER:

> We are *not*
> hiring the best, at least during a hiring freeze; for the most part we only
> hire people fresh out of college.  

        This is a particularly sore spot for me, because we are not
        even allowed to hire an MIT student, graduating this June,
        who has been working for us as a temporary employee for a
        year and who has been given great recommendations from his
        supervisor.

        He has been working on an advanced development project that
        we want to make into a product.  Rule number 1 of technology
        transfer says that tech transfer is most effective when the
        people are transferred.

        Bob

    re: "What guarantee is there that the next fellow won't
         suffer the same ignoble transformation ?"
    
    There IS no guarantee that anyone hired won't slack off, 
    get into a slump, etc.
    
    It is management's responsibility to protect Digital's future,
    profits, etc., by either providing the appropriate incentives for
    the disenchanted worker, or take appropriate action when
    productivity plummets.
    
    Hiring more people to cover the productivity losses of these
    folks becomes then a lose-lose situation:
    
    	1) Digital now pays two people for one person's work.
    	2) The new person (assuming he's motivated) sees that
    	   he's pulling the load for someone else, and perhaps
    	   feels a twinge resentful, and perhaps relaxes a bit.
    
    The "policy" I keep hearing about is "It takes an act of
    Congress to get fired from DEC", and that sort of thing...
    As long as that's the expectation, the only folks who'll
    produce are those with real internal drive...
    
    It comes down to management and the signals being sent to
    employees in many departments.  I don't believe the whip
    should be out, cracking over peoples' heads, but somebody's
    got to look out for Digital, the stockholders, and the
    folks who DO pull their weight....
    
    Steve H
 

Re: .4

>    Everyone here now was a promising looking hiree...

I don't think so.  The way I see it, there's a bell curve of applicants,
ranging from the incompetent to the highly qualified.  It isn't always
easy to rate people correctly, and people change over time (becoming either
better or worse than when they were hired), but by and large it should be
possible to distinguish potential stars from potential non-performers (I
won't use the term "deadwood" if it bothers people).

Every company wants to hire the stars, of course, but there are only so many
to go around.  Companies often have to be statisfied with less than ideal
candidates for job openings, and a certain number of these people will end
up being non-performers, who drag down over-all productivity.  Management
reacts by imposing a hiring freeze to cut costs (and improve productivity?!).
What I was saying in another note is that instead of a freeze there should be
a "cream" of only the applicants in the upper end of the bell curve.  We'd be
hiring more people but we'd be hiring better people -- not because we've
we magically increased the number of stars, but because we've stopped hiring
potential non-performers.

In other words, I'm saying that hiring freezes should be flexible.  Currently
I that college hires are often exempt from hiring freezes (we don't want to
sacrifice our future), and I'm saying that this flexibility should extend to
proven performers with a few years experience.  From what I've heard, yes
these people exist, yes they want to work for DEC, and no we can't hire them
because of our hiring freezes.

The other problem is: what do you do with the non-performers?  Given that
you'eg talked to them, tried to help them and offered them training, I think
they should be transferred to a group that is able to make use of them (it's
tricky firing, people and anyway I, for one, wouldn't have the stomach for it).

				-- Bob

>  The other problem is: what do you do with the non-performers?  Given that
>  you'eg talked to them, tried to help them and offered them training, I think
>  they should be transferred to a group that is able to make use of them (it's
>  tricky firing, people and anyway I, for one, wouldn't have the stomach for it).

    I guess you never heard about Gordon Bell's NOD (No Output Division)?
    
    

    re .9: NOD
    Somewhere I have a copy of that memo.

Re: .0, .4

It's occurred to me that you were talking about people who are currently
unproductive because their jobs have disappeared (e.g. the people in
manufacturing), whereas I was talking about non-performers who *do* have
real jobs that they could be doing.

As I said in another note, I do support efforts to retrain and find jobs for
people in the first category.  The problem is that there's a hiring freeze
to force us to hire from within DEC, and yet the people without jobs don't
have the skill set that we need (my group is looking for someone who can
write Ultrix device drivers using TCP/IP, for example).

The way around the hiring freeze seems to be to hire consultants (someone
here must have gone to the Mike Dukakis school of management ;^) ).  That's
expensive, plus the consulants move from one project to the next so frequently
sometimes that they lose context -- there's a learning curve no matter how
good you are.

				-- Bob

    RE: .11  Bob,
    
    	Well, I suppose I meant both categories.   There are different 
    reasons for each person who becomes a non-performer.   I know in
    my own case there have been projects I did very well on and others
    where I have had problems.  I am the same person, but find I
    depend on the context in which I'm working.   Once a person gets
    into a rut, it can be very hard to escape the situation, but I
    think that anyone who has experienced the pleasure of doing good
    work, will never lose the taste for it.   I'd like to think that
    everyone can be motivated by the self esteem from learning to do
    something well.   I guess this is a lot harder in the world of
    hi-tech, where everything changes so fast.
    
    	At some point while reading the descriptions of people as
    "deadwood" in here, something snapped in my mind and I suddenly
    was unable to believe that all the people so labeled are really
    beyond use.   Perhaps I am wrong, and too idealistic?  
    
    						Alan.

    "DEadwood"... is'int that a management expression to denote management
    failure??
    Managements can make mistakes as well. I see that management's job
    is to channel the human resources of the company into productive
    areas. If deadwood is created it is usually for the same reason
    as in the lumberyard... It was not properly controlled.

    Quote.    
>    As I said in another note, I do support efforts to retrain and find
>    jobs for people in the first category.  The problem is that there's a
>    hiring freeze to force us to hire from within DEC, and yet the people
>    without jobs don't have the skill set that we need (my group is looking
>    for someone who can write Ultrix device drivers using TCP/IP, for
>    example). 
    
    Continuing on the principle that the employee is a raw material
    resource for the company,,, many managers (also employees by the
    way) forget that all people have a value. They therefore forget to 
    plan for their employees and set up training programs so that the 
    raw material will become a finished product... a device driver 
    writer... at the time that it is needed.    
    
    The mark of a good company (like DEC is) are good employee training
    programs... We cannot always expect to find the necessary skills
    on the open market. "The lagging edge of technology can."
    
    Employee security ... an employee is not canned because the manager
    failed to plan his future.... It takes anything from weeks to months
    before a new employee becomes productive. Depending on level and
    complexity of job.. amount of interaction need etc.

    "DEADWOOD" should have negative connotations, just like lazy or
    ignorant.
    
    DEC is like a poorly managed forest where fire control is so effective
    that deadwood has been piling up for years.  We need a forest fire
    and we need it bad.
    
    This "motivation" and "productive area" crap is just that...if not,
    then I'm sure that you would have no problem with your local hospital
    management using these techniques with the deadwood doctors scheduled
    for your upcoming operation.
    
    The future belongs to the efficient...and deadwood is not efficient.
    
    Paul

>    As I said in another note, I do support efforts to retrain and find
>    jobs for people in the first category.  The problem is that there's a
>    hiring freeze to force us to hire from within DEC, and yet the people
>    without jobs don't have the skill set that we need (my group is looking
>    for someone who can write Ultrix device drivers using TCP/IP, for
>    example). 
    

    
    So, how long have you been looking for this person?  8 months? or
    longer?  6 months?  4 months?
    
    I noticed as I was looking for a new job (and a career change) that
    a LOT of engineering jobs had been on the market for 6 plus months.
    They were looking for the perfect fit.  I found one job that *I*
    would have been perfect for, the job was perfect for me, and yet
    because I lacked 25% of the skillset for the job was not hired.
    The lower level of management wanted to hire me and train me, but
    the upper level of management wanted to wait to find someone who
    didn't need to be trained.  MEANWHILE, I could have went through
    training, and been productive for them, and they ARE *still* waiting
    to find the perfect fit.
    
    Another manager that I interviewed for wanted "the perfect fit"...
    and then it took him 3 months to decide WHAT he was looking for...
    
    Personally, I think if a person has had reviews that are 2 to 2+'s,
    have a track record of learning, and being productive, then a manager
    who has not found the perfect person after several months, should
    be willing to train the person. He may have picked up a diamond
    in the rough, that will take his business beyond all expectations.
    
    Just my 2� worth...

    
    re .16
    
    Isn't there a time limit on finding a new position?
    
    /prc

Re: .15

>    So, how long have you been looking for this person?  8 months? or
>    longer?  6 months?  4 months?

That's a fair question, but I can't really give you a good answer; my
information came from conversations with my supervisor.

The situation, as I understand it, is: one day, upper management suddenly said,
"This [hardware] project is our number one top priority, and YOU have to help
them out by writing device drivers!"  The hardware project has been around for
around a year, but we weren't told to help them until about 2 or 3 months ago.
(This is guesswork on my part).

We actually didn't need one device driver, we needed two: one for VMS and
one for Ultrix.  There are only a handful of people in DEC with experience
writing VMS device drivers, and none of them were available, so we hired
someone from within DEC, put him through device driver training, and he's
now busiliy at work.

We also need someone to write the Ultrix counterpart.  Trouble is, no one in
our group has much experience with Ultrix at all, so we won't be able to give
this person much (or any) help -- we're looking for an expert.  We're already
taking a chance by training someone to write their first VMS driver; we don't
want to take an even bigger chance by training someone to write the Ultrix
driver.

It seems to me that the logical thing for us to do (assuming we can't get a
vice presidential signature to get around the hiring freeze, which is what I
think it would take) is to hire a consultant, but I haven't heard anything
more about this.

To some extent upper management is at fault for not anticipating that our
services would be needed.  I'd rather not get into details about the specific
project, though.

				-- Bob

    I think the term "deadwood" applies to some people, but only under
    limited circumstances.  It's cruel to apply the term to a
    manufacturing person whose line was shut down; the shutdown wasn't
    related to the person's productivity.  It's cynical to apply the
    term to someone who is simply near retirement age; we all hope to retire
    myself some day (I already know my last day 8^).  And it's stupid
    to apply the term to a new or junior employee who's always in training,
    because that person is really a shoot who may well grow into a redwood!
    
    But we can all identify the people who aren't pulling their weight, who
    are taking advantage of the fact that once hired they are very
    difficult to dislodge. (The card players fingered a few replies ago
    certainly are hard to defend!)  Some of us just work harder than
    others, producing more output of higher quality in less time, taking
    responsibility rather than shirking it.
    
    By the way we classify human beings, ten percent of us are always
    exceptional in one way or the other.  (Have you ever noticed that?)
    Ten percent of us are stars, so ten percent of us must be deadwood.
    The provocative reply about the need for a "forest fire" is
    interesting.  I'd be for it, but then, of course, I'm a star, and
    NOBODY thinks I'm deadwood.  8^)  (Just kidding just kidding just...)
    If only there were a way of getting rid of those you need to get
    rid of while keeping those you want to keep!  Ah, but no one's found
    the trick yet.  Announce a l*y*ff and the best people, who are most
    desireable and thus most mobile, jump ship.  Announce an **rly
    r*t*r*m*nt program and the most senior and experienced people jump
    ship.  Ask your managers to ladder their employees and it comes
    down to picking A over B because they just LIKE A better, for no
    good reason.
    
    Face it--deadwood is inevitable in a large company.  Hire three
    people and you may get three stars; hire three thousand and you've
    got to slip up.  Besides, there's only so much cream floating around.

    WE ARE FAILING BY NOT REPLACING OLD SKILLS WITH NEW AND COMPETITIVE
    SKILLS AS NEEDED TO REMAIN AS LEADERS.
    THE PEOPLE WITH ENORMOUS EXPERIENCE WITH OLD SKILLS COULD THEN BE
    CALLED "DEADWOOD";HOWEVER JOHN NASBITT ON "RE-INVENTING THE CORPORA-
    TION"REFERRED TO THIS PEOPLE AS A COMPETITIVE EDGE AT A DIFFERENT
    LEVEL OF THE BUSINESS AS TRAINERS,CONSULTANTS ETC.
    MY CONCLUSION IS THAT DEADWOOD IS AN APPARENT PROBLEM BUT IN REALITY
    WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO BEST MANAGE THIS SO POORLY CALLED RESOURCES.

    To repeat an old saying; there aren't students who can't learn,
    only ineffective teachers.

    re .14
    
    Another analogy would be that Digital is like a big lake behind
    a dam filling up with silt.  Eventually the lake fills up with mud
    and no matter how much energy the dam was producing, eventually
    the flow gets cut off and production grinds to a halt.  Maybe we
    need a good "flushing".
    
    We seem to be carrying a lot of overhead positions which causes
    hiring freezes, which prevents hiring new/needed people.
    
    Is a reorg the answer, or just postponing the inevitible?
    
    Digital is the best company I've ever worked for (now 6 years),
    and I like the security of no layoffs, but I also can see how we
    may be turning into a corporate welfare state because of it -
    supporting the excess people (whatever you want to call them) at
    the expense of the company's future.  Look what happened to "Great"
    Britain!!!
    
    Maybe we need a fire, a flush, a layoff, or just some common sense!
    
    Larry

Re.22:

Uninformed snipes at the political system in Great Britain add nothing to 
this topic.

Dave.

    re: .18
    
    sometimes created by the management is the situation you described...
    
    I have experience writing device drivers for VMS yet when the group\
    I'm in needed someone on a new project they went outside , one of
    the reasons given was that some of the people in the group had been
    around too long and was deadwood.....funny when we we're producing
    products that helped sustain the company we we're not deadwood...
    of course some of us have cahnged and do fit the term "deadwood"
    but what about the majority that still accept the challenge of a
    new project and actually complete it and make it work....a lot of
    the new people they are hiring seem to think that "WORK" is for
    someone else and their job is to produce "paper, studies, etc."
    and go to training and meeting all the time....myself I'd describe
    these people as deadwood because they are really nothing more than
    overhead....
    
    my 2 cents worth...

    
    I think that we can all accept that deadwood will exist in any large
    organization as a result of percentages.  What separates well-run
    from poorly-run companies is management's ability to recognise that
    an individual is not suited to the position he/she is in and to
    act positively to this situation.  A manager must take the fear
    of change away from an employee by dealing with the situation in
    a positive, forthright manner.  This is not accomplished by ignoring
    the problem, ineffective counseling, or placing the person in a
    position of least influence.  
    Define the organization's mission.  Define success criteria.  Break
    the mission into the parts covered off by individual job descriptions.
    Make each employee aware of their role as part of the success. Managers
    need to be better trained than they are now to do this.  By taking
    a better look at the organization and everyone around you, we wouldn't
    see the proliferation of overhead types who seem to be doing each
    other's jobs with no real impact.  Managers wouldn't spend so much
    time looking the other way at obvious inability, but would deal
    with it in a manner that made them and the employee benefit.
    
    Guy Warwick
    Sales Rep

One problem we all face is that it is extremely difficult to assess the
productivity of an individual in a company like Digital. Sure, in a
manufacturing plant one worker might make 20% more widgets in a day than another
worker... now if the "less productive" worker suggests a new procedure that
makes *everyone in the plant* 5% more efficient, what's the equation now?

In Digital as a whole, that's the typical situation. Many of us are working
to make others more effective! Have you ever been amused by one of these
exercises where Marketing say "Digital makes $2 billion/year from CASE"...
"Digital makes $4 billion/year from TP"... and the total turns out to be
scores of billions? It's because our efforts all overlap, and of course it
makes it almost impossible to decide just which investments resulted in
which revenue. Does our software sell our hardware? Or vice versa? Or do
they each help to sell the other?

Because of this, and because we're in a high-tech, knowledge-intensive
industry, ideas can be very important indeed. As someone asked in a previous
topic, how productive was Gordon Bell when he got the VAX project underway?
Taking the idea a step further, how productive is a Marketing person who
does nothing but learn all (s)he can about, say, Cullinet or Sun or Oracle,
and "serves" that knowledge to the rest of the company? If you're not
interested in or knowledgeable in that field, it might be easy to see them
as "deadwood". But if a crucial sale hinges on some of that knowledge, the
picture might be quite different.

Another thing that worries me is that the Digital culture has always left it
up to the individual to determine their career direction, and this is based
on some combination of inclination and reward. This worked reasonably well
in a small company, but now we are getting all sorts of barriers to mobility,
so that as people get into "dead ends" they find it hard to redeploy themselves.

Lastly, there are undeniably quite a lot of "passengers". Whether the proportion
is increasing, I can hardly say. But when I joined Digital in 1974 I can't
remember noticing anyone of whom I thought "that person is a waste of space".
If you're inclined to be a passenger, there are quite a lot of places nowadays
where you can do very little work without suffering any serious consequences.
This leads to the issue of measurements, which I believe is one of our most
serious problems today. On the one hand, we are trying to "justify" everything
in financial terms, therefore we put numerical measurements in place. But you
can only measure quite simple things numerically! So often a person can
perform well against their measurements while actually delivering relatively
little value.

Robert Townsend put it very well in "Further Up the Organisation", under
"Job Descriptions - Straitjackets":

"Insane for jobs that pay $500 a week or more. Judgment jobs are constantly
changing in nature and the good people should be allowed to use their jobs
and see how good they are. 

At best, a job description freezes the job as the
writer understood it at a particular instant in the past. At worst, they're
prepared by personnel people who can't write and don't understand the jobs.
Then they're not only expensive to prepare and regularly revise, but they're
important morale-sappers...

If it were my company, I'd be training the millwrights to be electricians and
the electricians to be millwrights; and then all of them to be welders.
Paying them more for the additional skills would be equitable and worth it to
the company, but I believe it would be of secondary importance to the
maintenance people themselves. They really enjoy learning how to do more."

Inflexible measurements have much in common with inflexible job descriptions.
When we follow Townsend's suggestions and empower our people to do whatever
it takes to supply quality solutions to our customers, we won't have to
worry about deadwood. It'll either live or leave.

--Tom