[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::digital

Title:	The Digital way of working

Moderator:	QUARK::LIONELON

Created:	Fri Feb 14 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	5321
Total number of notes:	139771

931.0. "The Permanent Organizational Structure" by SDSVAX::SWEENEY (I was focused when focus wasnt cool) Mon Sep 25 1989 09:10

    What's really permanent in Digital?  We're told that change is
    constant, but is it really change?  New organizations are created and
    folded so fast that's it's impossible to track accountability.

    What doesn't change is this: if Dan works for Charlie, who works for
    Bill, who works for Alex, then it's most unlikely that Alex will ever
    work for Dan.  It's much more likely that a string of two or three of
    these managers will be moved in toto to a "new" organization.

    What's the big deal?  The big deal is we can't relate to long-term
    organizational strategy because, in effect, all organizations are
    "short-timers", the mobile managers are the real stability.

    The only long-term career strategy that appears to make sense is to
    never, ever risk offending a manager, because that manager may one day
    influence your career adversely.

    Take common conflicts in Digital (for the field, creating and following
    account plans; for headquarters, supporting UNIX): One day you might be
    arguing in front of Ed for "the right thing".  Ed consequently has a
    grudge.  One quarter later, Ed has a new job, and behold, he argues for
    the same things you did.

    Does Ed remember the support you gave his organizational goals?  No, a
    week ago it was Frank's Organization, and now it's Ed's Organization.
    What matter most of all to Ed is whether or not, you are "reliable".

    "Reliable" has popped up in Digital as a code word for sycophancy.

    Rather that think about real issues regarding the business, we're
    obsessed with knowing "Ed's" feelings are, so that ideas in opposition
    to them never reach his ears.

    Ideas from the bottom of the organizational pyramid rock the boat (nice
    visual, eh?), and ideas from the top receive attention and flattery
    whether they are good, bad, or neutral.

    So, all you Pollyannas out there, this is your wakeup call.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
931.1	Rewarding "reliability", but not "performance" ...	AUSTIN::UNLAND	Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum	`Tue Sep 26 1989 01:30`	23
	re: <<< Note 931.0 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY >>> > "Reliable" has popped up in Digital as a code word for sycophancy. You realize of course that your "reliability index" has now dropped because of this comment :^). I don't think there was ever a time when this wasn't so, but it does seem to have become the rule rather than the exception. Your whole premise relates closely to other notes in this file that discuss the decline of our management philosophies and practices. Under the current system, there are fewer and fewer rewards for risk-taking. If a manager is willing to take risks, he is often viewed as a "loose cannon". There are many and terrible punishments for taking a risk and failing, but there are NO punishments for failing to take risks. So if you work this simple equation out, you quickly come to the conclusion that, no matter how much DEC needs managers who are aggressive and willing to take business risks, the Company (read upper and middle management) continues to stamp out the very type of behaviour that it needs to succeed. Geoff
931.2	A comment	MERIDN::JENNINGS	Paranoia the Destroyer	`Tue Sep 26 1989 08:29`	7
	Ours is not to question WHY, ours is but to do or die. Into the valley of death rode the Digital 72,000, oops 71,000(due to attrition this number will vary) My apologies to the Charge of the Light Brigade author... Ed (Who is sitting on his horse as always...)
931.3	Two wrongs don't make a right	SKIVT::HEARN	Is Common Sense common anymore?	`Wed Sep 27 1989 09:12`	11
	Good topic. It does seem as though "we" (the figurative form) are being told - 'Do what I want'; whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant, as long as my "boss" (and his org.) look like "team" players. I feel we, as a corporation, DO suffer as a result... Just my two cents. :^) Rich
931.4	Why prepare plans?	SDSVAX::SWEENEY	I was focused when focus wasnt cool	`Wed Sep 27 1989 09:55`	10
	It makes the official planning process so phony. Someone gets the thankless task of creating a written plan for the sake of having a written plan to decorate the bookshelf and meetings happen to discuss the plan. The real direction comes from the intimate conversation with "the boss". Most of my peer-level meetings are spent comparing notes as to what was said to whom by their managers at the water cooler before we plunge into real work.
931.5	Happens out here too!	NCPROG::PEREZ	Just one of the 4 samurai!	`Fri Oct 06 1989 02:37`	11
	Interesting. If I'm understanding what you are saying clearly, I'm seeing a ton of this out here in never-never land... The program manager of the "effort" I'm on demand written plans for things we don't control, can't influence, and are in a position to implement so he can look like a hero to his people at area. The unit manager "backs us guys to the hilt" but says "well, the DM is my boss and thats the bottom line" and won't buck the system no matter what the cost to his people. And then, of course, there are those "non-team players" that make noise and take it right in the shorts at review time...