Conference 7.286::digital

    I've not seen any official word, nor do I expect any until after the Q1
    results have been reviewed by upper management.
    
    Marge

    "Upper Management" knows what the Q1 results are, except perhaps, for
    the final numbers for week 13.  The "review" of Q1 results started
    several weeks ago.

    Public disclosure of the Q1 results is several weeks away, but top
    management knows what's what.

    Of course Digital's profitability influences the continuation or
    termination of the salary freeze, but as for needing to wait until 8:30
    AM Maynard Standard Time October 1, for the first financial roll-up of
    Q1, that's an inaccurate image and can't be a plausible excuse for not
    taking action.

    As I recall, the original announcement of the freeze said that it
    would be reviewed by the executive committee on a quarterly basis.
    Part of the reason for this is that said committee only meets once
    a quarter. I don't recall for sure but I think that was around week
    2/3 of the first month of the quarter which would put some word
    out sometime around the 15th. IMHO I don't expect it to be lifted
    until at least January.
    

    They're probably figuring out what combination of smoke and mirrors
    they want to use this time.

    I don't know about corporate, but apparently the salary freeze in
    Canada had the effect one would expect, demotivated employees and
    a resultant ... in sales & revenues.  Now, as I have seen no evidence
    of a change in overhead (other than a few promotions), I would guess
    the profitability would also show a ...
    
    If the freeze is continued, then we'll begin to see serious attrition
    of those who are most employable.  At the end of it all, whatever
    that may be, "management" will be able to look at those left and
    say: "See, we told you you weren't worth more money!"
    
    Of course that'll really please the loyalists who stuck it out,
    but it's short term numbers we want, not loyalists.
    
    
    Don
    

>    "Upper Management" knows what the Q1 results are, except perhaps, for
>    the final numbers for week 13.  The "review" of Q1 results started
>    several weeks ago.

    If you are right, then this would help explaining our stock's
    performance. IBM's results alone can't explain this, IMHO. Should be
    waiting for  some very, very bad news then?

    Denis.

    NO! Get on with your job and do the best job you can! Far better than
    sitting there waiting for the sky to fall.
    
    - ���

When the freeze was announced, management was in the middle of the salary
planning cycle for FY90. At the announcement all planning stopped, as no
"spend number" had been decided upon. Now more than three months have
passed since whatever level of completed planning ceased, hence some of that
work will need to be redone in order to come up with a new plan when the
"thaw" happens, not to mention which the rest of the planning process is
yet to be carried out. Typically, the planning process for the entire
corporation takes over a month from the time they say "GO" (I.E. announce
a "spend number" and guidelines), until the Exec Comm blesses the plan.
Given all of this, the thaw would/will probably need to be announced
somewhere around the middle of a quarter in order for it to take effect
by the beginning of the next one. As an example, if it's not stated by
mid-November, don't plan on a January increase if you were due for one
in July.

-Jack

    re .8..you're right, except they could make it all retroactive, but
    I wouldn't count on it.
    
    I can sense increasing frustration just from the lack of information
    on where we stand.  The Operations Committee would be very well
    advised to level with us all.  They already have a pretty good
    sensing of what the whole year is going to look like.

    RE .8 AND .9 .....IMHO this is just one of many "passive tatics" Digital
    is using to incite employees to "find opportunities elsewhere". Look
    for the freeze to "thaw" when the temperatures in Maynard rise back
    into the 90's!
    
    r.k.
    

    reply .10
    
    
    	The more I think about your *passive tactics* statement the
    more I believe its true. I personally know of eleven people who
    are in the process or who have already left DEC in the past three
    months.
    
    
    brian

    
    	Please, what lack of communication is being complained about now?
    When the freeze was announced, it was *clearly* stated that the
    situation would be reviewed after the end of every quarter.  They are
    doing that.  The quarter just ended 4 days ago, lets give them a chance
    to talk/think about it.
    
    	I can see it now:  If only a little bit of information comes out, it
    will be decried as being insufficient and that they are hiding things.
    If the word came out today and it was bad, it would be decried as a knee-
    jerk reaction to incomplete quarterly results and they should have
    waited to have the complete picture or it would be argued that since the
    full quarterly information isn't yet available, they knew all along
    what it was going to be but didn't tell us.  If the news came out today
    and was good, it would be argued that due to the incomplete quarterly
    info, they knew all along that the freeze was going to be lifted but
    hid it from us so that some people would leave the company.  Sheeze,
    no matter what they would do or say, it would be "wrong" right now but
    yet the answer is still being cried out for.  (And, of course, this
    ignores that no matter *how* the news comes out, it will be the "wrong"
    way. :-)
    
    	The quarterly results will be out within two weeks or so.  Sit
    back, do your job and let the numbers tell the story when they are out.
    
    								-craig

Re: 11
>They knew they could get away with it because of the current industry climate. 

I would argue that Digital won't get away with it entirely.
Sure, the majority of the employees will grumble and bear it, however
the brightest and most motivated (and most employable) are already
bailing out.

If we skim off the cream and keep the rest, where does that leave Digital
in the long run?  

    Re: last reply
    
    If all the cream is skimmed off the top, then we are left with
    sour milk.  I sincerely hope all the employees that stick it out
    through the freeze don't turn sour in their attitudes.  It's 
    starting to get rough, knowing that our much needed raises (just
    too keep up with cost of living increases) are being postponed
    for an undetermined length of time.  Most replies to this note
    indicate that we should not expect any raises until January or
    later.  I, for one, would like to hear the real truth as to 
    when we can expect the salary freeze to lift, not more watered-
    down rhetoric from management.  Those who want to stay with the
    Company are strong enough to accept the truth.  Hopefully management
    will treat us like trusted and valued employees and give us the
    whole scoop soon after they've reviewed Q1 results.
    

RE: .11
                                -< wake up!!!! >-
     
>    They knew when the freeze went into effect that they wouldn't be
>    lifting it in October. They knew they could get away with it because 
>    of the current industry climate. 
    
This can't be the case (unless the senior management is completely in fantasy
land).  If a Digit wanted to find a job with another company in the NY area he
would find companies banging at his door.  Mad Mike's Miracle Kingdom is only a
small part of the universe. 

John

    Employees are not as simple as cream and sour milk.  If the freeze goes
    on long enough, those who are left will be loyal second-raters.  Maybe
    that kind of employee is preferred to the brightest people who don't
    feel much loyalty to their current company/department/group/assignment.
        John Sauter

>the brightest and most motivated (and most employable) are already
>bailing out.

	No I'm not. I've tossed out mail from headhunters as recently
	as this morning and have no intention of looking outside the
	company.

	Does this comment mean that you are bailing out or that you are
	not among the brightest and most motivated? :-)

	I personally think the freeze was a very bad idea. It's bad for
	morale and it will cause us to lose more good people than bad
	people. On the other hand it's not going to be as bad for DEC
	as is would be/is for other companies because there are still
	good non-money reasons to work here. In the long run I expect
	DEC to be a better place to work then most of the other companies
	in my area. If that changes I may leave but when I see all my
	high tech friends in other companies sweating over having jobs
	at all I think I'll stick here for a while.


				Alfred

    I remember another freeze when a bunch of folks leaped to Wang.
    I remember those folks scratching on DECdoors after Wang's grass
    yellowed (some even got back in).
    
    But then I guess I'm just a loyal second rater from two other bail
    outs.   Hmmmmm maybe all those 'best and brightest' were not bright
    enough to stick with a winner through the bad times.
    
    Are all of you who see this as a management conspiracy, the same
    ones who don't ascribe any brains to the same group of managers?
    I just don't see how they could be too stupid to lead us while at
    the same time being clever enough to deceive us geniuses.
    

	October 3rd, Mike Kalagher of US Order Admin, had a meeting
	with many of his folks, from Direct reports to Secretaries.
	I was one of the attendees.

	The first question he was asked to answer, pertained to the
	Salary freeze.  He stated that the freeze will continue thru
	Q2 and thought it was dumb/stupid that employees haven't been
	informed yet.  Apparently Q1 wasn't looking too great until
	week 13.  Week 13 will give us an O.K. quarter.


RE: Note 942.6   CASEE::LACROIX "Object oriented dog food? No, sorry"

>    IBM's results alone can't explain this, IMHO.  Should be waiting for
>    some very, very bad news then?

IBM is number 1.  Oops, did I say that? :-)  The market follows the leader.
When the leader of an industry of stocks sets poor expectations, it hits
the rest of the stocks in the group.  They are no longer waiting for bad
news, they have been warned and have already taken action.


RE: Note 942.13   BCSE::YANKES
>                     -< Please, give it a few more weeks. >-
>    	The quarterly results will be out within two weeks or so.  Sit
>    back, do your job and let the numbers tell the story when they are out.
    
I agree, stop being a bunch of worry-warts, and do the job.


>RE: Note 942.19   ISLNDS::BAHLIN
>                  -< Go ahead and leave, I want your pay %^$ >-
>    Are all of you who see this as a management conspiracy, the same
>    ones who don't ascribe any brains to the same group of managers?
>    I just don't see how they could be too stupid to lead us while at
>    the same time being clever enough to deceive us geniuses.
As I read the replies prior to yours, I was thinking, and wanted to enter
something similar to yours.  But, I think yours says it very well.


Dan

OK, you caught me.
I did over-simplify and over-dramatize in order to make a point.
Digital does indeed provide many benefits above and beyond a paycheck
that keep us here, such as the feeling of being respected, and valued.
I have no intention of leaving, and I consider myself fairly bright
and motivated.

Be that as it may:
The point I was trying to make was that I personally know of several people
who are/have left as a direct result of the freeze.  These are folks I'd
REALLY rather not see go, as they added alot to Digital.  Also, as we get
the "scoop" later and less completely, the feeling of being respected fades...
That is what bothers me more than the money, although I know folks who are
working 10-12 hour days consistensly and hurting for the raises they were
counting on.  You can't keep that up indefinately.

So, Digital will continue, There will continue to be bright and motivated
folks working here, but we will lose some good ones, and some of us will
be a little less motivated than before.  That doesn't seem like a long-term
gain to me, but I'm obviously missing something...

    Rules (of business?)
    1. Nothing is forever.
    2. Everyone CAN be replaced (over time).
    3. Thru competition, compensation attracts skill and retains skill
    (this includes job satisfaction).
    4. If you can't have competitive products, you can't be competitive.
    If you can't be competitive, you can't be successful. If you're
    not competitive, you  can't compensate.
    
    Sometimes, we promote our best technical people into management
    positons when in fact, we simply need/should compensate them for
    their contributions. A good technologist is not necessarily a good
    manager. Sometimes, we promote a salesperson based upon their ability
    to sell a product that is the result of engineering exellence.
    
    If we run out of creative/engineering excellence, should we penalize
    our engineering people or our sales people?
    
    Creativity typically comes from our youth. As long as policies such
    as freezes restrict compensation, I believe we will lose our competive
    advantage thru creativity.
    
      Al              
    

    
    	   I think it is pointless to generalize about who will quit,
    	who will stay, and who will try to come back.  That is based 
    	on a lot of factors that vary from case to case.
    
    	   Prior to being Digitized, I was a respected system manager
    	for a large oil company.  I was being primed for the Director's
    	position.  My time at Digital has done nothing but improve my
    	marketability.  I now have skills that I would never have 
    	gained had I satyed at that oil company.  Skills that come at
    	a premium in the job market.  Skills that guarantee I would
    	receive no less than $10K more than I am making now, if I but
    	search a while.
    
    	   Am I one of the best and brightest?  That's a matter of 
    	conjecture.  Some would say so, and others would laugh.
    	Whatever else I am, I know from Digital's point of view I
    	am expendable.  Digital is a very big company, and it 
    	employs many others who can do my current job.  One more or
    	less won't make much difference.
    
    	   Does the company demand loyalty of me?  It seems not.  Still,
    	I offer it as long as I'm here.  That's just my way.  When I 
    	feel it is time to move on, I will remain loyal to Digital, 
    	and disclose no secrets I may possess at the time.  I would
    	owe that much to the company that increased my marketability.
    	
    	   And if I do leave, I won't be coming back.  I never burn 
    	my bridges, neither do I ever cross the same one twice.  Life
    	moves forward.  Looking back is futile.
    
    	- Greg

    For those of you who feel that they are the "cream of the crop"
    and if DEC doesn't give them a pay raise soon they will leave; I
    got a message for you:  Don't let the door hit you in the @##.
    When things get tough, they have before and will again; history
    tells us that it weeds out those who only think of themselves and
    and to hell with everyone else, again for those of you who fit that
    category, put your hand in a pail of water; when you pull it out
    see just how much of a hole you left.  The good, experienced and
    dedicated people will stay, because they know DEC will rebound;
    the complainers will leave and leave a corresponding hole in the
    pail of water.
    
    Jay

    
    Ref: .24
    
    I agree.
    
    While being paid competitively is important, leaving soley because more
    money is not forthcoming is short-sighted and suggests one has only
    loyalty to money (not unlike professional career bureaucrats).
    

    Well, Jay, it was well put, but a little simplistic, consider 
    rewording your note a little:
    
    
    For those companies who feel that they are the "cream of the crop"
    and if employees  don't give hard effort, and give supiour products
    soon, they  will continue to freeze wages, I got a message for you:  
    Don't let the    stock price hit you in the @##.
    When things get tough, they have before and will again; history
    tells us that it weeds out those companies who only think of 
    the stock owners and   and to hell with the employees, again for those 
    companies who fit that category, put your stock in the hands of
    a takeover expert,    when he gets done, see just how much of a 
    company you have left.  The good, experienced and  dedicated company
    will stay, because they know their employees will be loyal,
    the profit takers will leave and leave raid another company.
    
    I think this message is rather simplistic also.
    ed
    
    Jay

       
       
       	Were you around in '82-'83 when we did this and the deadwood said
       "Sheesh, least *I* got a job, I'll hang out" and many talented
       people said "Hello? I have bills to pay.. Hello?  Forget this..
       Hello Mr. Customer, you want to pay me how much??"
       
       	I'm not disagreeing with the fact that we have to hold the line
       on salaries, but when the getting was good after '82-'83, it took
       many people who stuck it out a very long time to get back on track.
       
       	All I want is a commitment that when the getting is good, we share
       the wealth..  "Gee, thanks for sticking with us" doesn't pay the
       bill-chasers..
       
       						mike

    Re: .27
    
    I don't think most people EVER got "back on track".  When the '82
    salary freeze lifted, raises dropped to an average of 4%, below the
    increase of the cost of living.  Many folks started to find that their
    raise was more than offset by increased taxes and expenses.
    
    Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that those who "stick it
    out" will EVER find their loyalty repaid.  They'll just sink deeper
    and deeper into the hole until they can't AFFORD to stay working
    here.
    
    I sure wish I could tell my mortgage bank to freeze my mortgage rate.
    Ditto DCU who keeps jacking up my car loan rate while chopping the
    rate they pay in interest on savings.  And another ditto my child
    care provider.  And the city of Nashua.  And...
    
    I consider myself as loyal as they come.  But I admit that this
    latest cruelty has me really wondering if I can afford to stay,
    given no evidence that things will ever improve.
    
    					Steve

    ...and anyone who accuses Steve Lionel of being a money-grabber needs
    their head examined. He and Mike express a vaild point of view, which is
    that loyalty deserves recognition. Those not recognising THIS, don't
    let the door slam behind you.
    
    - Andy ��� Leslie

    The debate on
    
    	entitlement
    
    		vs.
    
    	free-market
    
    		continues....
    
    -Barry-
    

re Note 942.28 by QUARK::LIONEL:

>     I don't think most people EVER got "back on track".  When the '82
>     salary freeze lifted, raises dropped to an average of 4%, below the
>     increase of the cost of living.  Many folks started to find that their
>     raise was more than offset by increased taxes and expenses.
  
        Actually, the salaries did get "back on track" (on the
        average) after a few years had passed.  Because the company
        tries to peg salary ranges to the "industry" averages, once
        the last freeze was lifted the average increase was greater
        for a while, and then leveled out as "competitiveness" was
        once again reached.

        Of course, it's only the increases that were allowed to go
        above average, not the salary ranges.  You don't make up for
        the money you might have gotten but didn't, but your salary
        eventually (on the average!) gets back to where it would have
        been without the freeze.

        Bob

    The thing that bothers me the most is the DEC is still making a profit. 
    I would be more understanding of a salary freeze if DEC was in the red,
    but DEC is not, it is just not making the same profit as it did a year
    or two ago.  Does that mean that our salaries should remain at the
    level that they were at a year or two ago?  What if we never make that
    same amount of profit--we never get raises?  Ill explain that to the
    mortgage company when they come after me.  I also believe that if they
    do start giving raises in Jan, they will be a token 3-4%, nothing that
    will bring us back up to industry standard.  I consider myself a pretty 
    loyal employee, but when I feel as if the company is being more fair to
    those already rich persons on wall street, rather than to is own
    employees it makes it real difficult to have a high morale.  Even
    though morale and productivity are not always related, in this case I
    think many employees are starting to have a "I dont care, cause they
    dont care" attitude and productivity is going to start dropping off in some
    cases as time goes on.                    

re loyalty

Let us try and keep things in perspective, here.

When you agree to work  for  a  company,  you  agree  (although  not  always as
obviously as with an employment contract)  to  provide a service for some level
of  compensation.    You  owe the company  that  service,  they  owe  you  that
compensation.  Period.

I wonder how many of you who are espousing loyalty  to  the  company  have ever
worked in companies where layoffs are the norm in tough times.    It  does  not
take very long to discover that loyalty is a one way street.   I have been laid
off  twice and had to lay off employees on two other occasions.   I  have  seen
layoffs where the "cut" was determined by how close you were to retirement, how
high  your  salary  was,  who  you  knew,  etc.    I  have NEVER seen them when
performance and/or seniority were the criteria.

The loyalty that you owe to a company is the loyalty to live up to your initial
agreement and follow your own work ethic as a  professional.   That is what you
take with you if/when you leave.

The loyalty you owe your family is to bring home a paycheck.

The loyalty you owe to yourself, well only you can define that.

The above is not cynical,  just pragmatic.  It does not suggest that you should
work  less hard than before.  Simply that you keep  your  priorities  in  line.
From  my experiences in individual contributor as well as managerial positions,
you will be a better and more effective employee.

If you  believe  that  your  priorities/loyalties are best served by staying at
Digital in rough  times,  hang  in there.  Perhaps salary and career growth are
not the most important things to you at this time.  Personally,  that  is how I
feel.

If you believe that you  can  better  serve yourself and your family by leaving
Digital to take a better salaried  job or hop onto a faster growth track, leave
with blessings - anyone can be replaced.  The leaving does not make you less of
a professional.  Perhaps those who would grumble at your leaving and accuse you
of being less than professional are simply jealous of your ability to arrive at
a decision that is best for you.  Perhaps not.

For what it's worth....

Dave

    (I may have said this before, maybe even in this note, but the link to
    HUMAN or HUMAN itself is too slow to even try to see.)
    
    I don't ever remember DEC promising mea salary increase.   It certainly
    isn't in my employee agreement.   The only people who get guaranteed
    salary increases also have a union CONTRACT.  I'll trade my agreement
    for a union shop any day of the week.  If you want such a guarantee,
    then perhaps you're in the wrong company, 'cuz I hope DEC never gets
    unions.
    
    My precepts for financial planning:   Don't spend *anything* you don't
    have.   I never have and never will plan around a salary increase.  I
    won't buy a house or a car banking on an increase next period because
    things change.  The increase may not be as good as you expected, or it
    may not occur when you expected it, or both.
    
    When I get my increase, I may change my lifestyle.  I may up my SAVE
    contribution or buy more stock, or splurge and buy the new car (now
    that I know I can afford it and not sweat things next year).

    This whole salary delay thing really annoys me. I think the company
    is trying to fix a real problem with a bandaid and being really
    wimpish about it.
    
    The cause of the problem is out of control costs. You don't solve that
    by pissing off every US employee. You should solve that by real
    management. Ie careful examination of groups and functions. Decide
    where the excess cost is and slice it out, yes I mean take away
    groups budgets, yes I mean put those people into a pool to find
    a job elsewhere or even lay them off.
    
    I was ripshit when I read the report of Jack Smith's seminar in ZK.
    He said something along the lines of:
    
    	'The Executive committee recognized the out of control cost
    	 problem and told the line managers to go and make some cost
    	 savings. ALL the line managers came back and said 'we've looked
    	 hard and found that we can't
    	 cut anything'. So the Executive committee exercised its power
    	 over what it had direct control over. Ie it froze all US
    	 salaries and suspended the RSOP'.
    
    The company should MANAGE its way out of problems not apply simplistic
    sledgehammer, counter productive approaches.
    
    Dave
    

    re: .35
    
    I was at the ZKO seminar when he said that.  What surprised me was not
    so much what he said, but that he was forthcoming enough to say it.  If
    I had been in his position, I would have been tempted to give an empty
    answer to that question, in order to cover for my direct reports.
    
    I believe that what he said is exactly correct.  I sympathize with the
    executive committee, and blame "middle management" for our current
    problems.
        John Sauter

    re .33 and .34
    
    Well said.
    

    To those of you who huff about leaving because you're not getting your
    increases, may I humbly inquire:
    
    	Where are you going to go?
    
    Also, a few replies back someone expresses unhappiness because the
    company has frozen salaries despite showing a profit, and wondered
    aloud if salary freezes shouldn't be reserved for if the company
    actually loses money.  Well, a salary freeze freezes salaries, which
    are a major component of costs; it does not reduce salaries.  It is
    perfectly appropriate for situations in which is business's profits are
    falling.  (I'd prefer other measures, but this is the time to do it if
    you're going to do it.)  When a business is actually losing money, the
    time-honored response, and you can look around you if you don't believe
    me, is a layoff.

    RE. .35 & .36
    
    The problem with "BLAME" is that it's just like the "BUCK".
    
    "IT" gets past either to the top or the bottom but NEVER
    
    finds a home in the middle.......
    
    r.k.
    

RE: .28
       
       >>   " I don't think most people EVER got "back on track"."
       
       	I was trying to be nice.. :-)
       
       						mike

>                       <<< Note 942.32 by YODA::NEWMAN >>>
>                     -< ... but we still make a profit... >-

>    level that they were at a year or two ago?  What if we never make that
>    same amount of profit--we never get raises?  Ill explain that to the
>    mortgage company when they come after me.  I also believe that if they

If you think it's tough in the US, you should try living in the UK.

Here we have 15% interest rates and salaries about 2/3 the equivalent
positions in the US. There is no salary freeze in the UK, but I would
gladly swap my unfrozen UK salary for the frozen US equivalent ANYDAY.

I am considering selling my house because the interest rates have just
gone up again. The US has one of the highest standards of living in the
world. 6 months on a large (by the rest of the world standard) frozen
wage can't be that much of a hardship - salaries in the US would need
to be frozen for about 5 years before most of the rest of the world
could catch up. You don't realise how lucky you are having a good
salary and working for a company with a 'no layoffs' policy.

	Craig.

    Re: .41
    
         Hey, don't slip-up like that.  It's a no-layoff TRADITION.  There
    is no such policy.
    
                                      Greg

       RE: .41
       
       	You haven't lived in Nashua where the rents are sky-high and the
       car insurance is more than Mass!  We could sit here and bitch about
       who's in worse straights but lets suffice to say that it's not easy
       everywhere and anyone who thinks that moving to New England for the
       price breaks are nuts..
       
       	FWIW, I'm out of this part of the country in a few years.. I can't
       afford a house.
       
       						mike

    re .42
    
    "Pay for Performance" is in Section 3 (Compensation) of the 
    
    Personnel POLICY & Procedures Manual 8^))))) 
              ^^^^^^
    Mark
    

    
    Ref: Pay for Performance
    
    This is a good ethical philosophy.  The implementation is the problem
    since what "good performance" may be is very subjective in many jobs,
    and of course, subject to "office politics" and corporate Wall Street
    politics.
    
    Thinking what might be a way to change the rules to make it equitable
    and fair, here is my idea (and since we now have a corporate suggestion
    box EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT @CFO, where I'm going to send a copy of this
    to).
    
    SUGGESTED IDEA ON HOW TO MAKE "PAY FOR PERFORMANCE" MORE EQUITABLE AND FAIR
    WHILE AT THE SAME TIME GROWING DIGITAL MORE EFFECTIVELY.
    
    By David Carnell, DTN 385-2901, Oct 13, 1989.
    
    1.  Arrive at a standard fixed competitive salary for each job code. 
    Everyone within that job code gets the same salary.  If you are
    currently under, you get brought up.  If higher, you are frozen until
    the fixed point either catches up or you change to a different job.  No
    one gets a salary increase unless all within that job code get the same
    increase.
    
    2. Arrive at a standard fixed dollar amount (not a %) for a given job
    code that will be given to everyone annually within that given job code
    equally as profit sharing if Digital makes a certain profit.  Have
    higher amounts for higher profit levels attained for a given fiscal
    year.  Either everyone in Digital gets profit sharing or no one gets
    it for a given year.
    
    3. Now that everyone is concentrating on making money (profit) for
    Digital, enhance the creativity of every employee to come up with, and
    drive into reality, ideas for cutting expense, increasing productivity,
    or for growing more effectively products, services, markets, customers,
    revenues, margins and profits.  Have all ideas "copied" into the new
    EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT program where "small token" dollar awards are
    given for every idea submitted and where generous dollar awards are
    given for every idea implemented according to the impact on Digital of
    the idea or suggestion.
    
    Thus, with the implementation of changing the rules of pay within
    Digital, pay for performance is more fair and equitable.
    
    If you want more money, earn it by accepting more responsibility via
    earning a higher job code position; or be more productive so Digital
    makes profit so profit sharing is paid; or be more creative in coming
    up with ideas that save money or make money, for which you can earn
    monetary awards, and affect the first two -- i.e. getting promoted and
    getting profit sharing for thinking creatively and standing up and
    acting.
    

    RE: .45
    
    Sorry, Dave, but I can't agree with the "single-salaried jobs"
    business.  Say you have two SW Spec 4's: one is a "3" performer
    and one is a "1" performer.  The two will be paid the same -- that's
    not pay-for-performance.  You imply that the "1" should get a
    promotion.  But, around here, promotions to SW Cons 1 seem _very_
    scarce.  So, the "1" performer may have to wait _years_ before a
    business justification can be made for another Consultant in the
    Area/District, or until another Consultant slot opens up.
    
    Also, promotions generally seem to take 2-3 years or more in a
    particular position.  I do not see rewarding excellence every two
    or three years as a way to "pay for performance".  If anything,
    I am afraid that it will encourage mediocrity, since "we'll all
    get the same raise as everyone else gets".
    
    Rewards for excellence should be as _swift_ as possible, not as
    slow as possible.  Now, if we had "steps" within job codes (like
    my gov't customers), you could argue for promoting a person's "step"
    and increasing their pay based on their step.  But this might
    not be very different than what we have today.
    
    -- Russ

   Re: <<< Note 942.44 by SAURUS::AICHER >>>
  >                          -< Policy & Tradition >-
  >  
  >  "Pay for Performance" is in Section 3 (Compensation) of the 
  >  
  >  Personnel POLICY & Procedures Manual 8^))))) 
              ^^^^^^
    
     Are you implying that "Pay for Performance" equals "No Layoff Policy"
     or what?
    
                                        Greg

    Greg
    	I think he's a tad confused.
    
    - Andy ��� Leslie
    

    
    Ref: .46
    
    The current system has flaws, inequities, unfairness, and is subject to
    office politics, and is not perceived by many to have any REAL direct
    connection to genuine "pay for performance."
    
    Unless one's job can be truly and objectively measured, like in
    manufacturing where in some companies people are paid on piecework (but
    where one could argue only counts number produced and not quality where
    most of the pieces may be junk).  Without crystal clarity, who is a 1
    or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 performer is totally subjective by the employee and
    his manager.  Not a good method if the genuine idea is to stimulate
    performance, productivity and contribution to building Digital, with
    the carrot being more pay for better productivity and contribution.
    
    So, what's the answer if we are all oriented to individualistic
    success, with the end result of perceptions of one person saying I'm a
    2 and deserve more (with the system even encouraging this reaction to a
    great degree) over another who is perceived as a standard 3, true or
    not.
    
    I submit the system is flawed where individual success is promoted and
    nurtured over success of the total company.  So, you, person B. say you work
    harder than person A, and argue why you should do so when you both get
    the exact same salary, having the same job code and job.
    
    I submit we all live and thrive together, or we sink together.  Why
    should one employee benefit over the rest.  If all raises were tied to
    profit sharing (other than across the board for competitivess or cost
    of living) and creativity, the performance is the key behavior being
    fostered, as now philosophized by Digital's published "pay for
    performance."
    
    So, what do we do with person A who doesn't want to contribute either
    to better productivity and creativity?  First person on the line is the
    person's manager who should be in that job as a "calling" to lead and
    coach his or her people to higher levels of success.  If such a leader
    is in place, and still not improvement, then the leader, and the entire
    group, to which person A belongs, is responsible for counseling person
    A to change his or her behavior.  The group is responsible for every
    member contributing, and person A either conforms to the desired
    actions (do your fair share, look for ways to increase productivity,
    and think how we can improve the success of our group AND OUR
    ORGANIZAITON), OR...
    
    ...leaves the organization to live in the forest alone, to start his
    own organization, or to join another where individual competitiveness
    (at any price) is preferred over teamwork, defined as equal
    responsibility AND AUTHORITY TO AFFECT CHANGE.
    
    I submit that individuals putting personal agenda, ambition and
    self-aggrandizement over other people and the organization has created
    a great deal of the disharmony currently at work, which is preventing
    more successful growth for Digital.
    
    Person A plays against Person B, group X plays against group Y, manager
    1 plays against manager 2, product line g plays against product line h,
    and on and on.  Internal competitiveness within an organization is less
    effective than a system that promotes co-operation, rewarding with
    equity and fairness to all.
    
    
    
    
    people 

        In any case, this year's "1" performer could well be next year's
        "3" performer (and the year after that, and the year after that,
        and...).  You think there should be extra pay for being a good
        performer in the current time period in your current job (and I
        will not argue against that), then it should be in the form of a
        performance BONUS, not in the form of a performance salary
        increase, because a salary increase is almost forever.  Once
        you're being paid a given salary, it is tradition that you will
        never have your salary reduced in your current job, no matter HOW
        poorly you perform. 
        
        Tom

    The trouble is the "pay for performance" is becoming more like
    "performance for pay".
    
    As "pay" is frozen, expect "performance" to be frozen.
    
    Expect employees who place a high value on security to stay, expect
    employees who place a high value on personal career advancement to
    leave.
    
    On the other hand, expect managers or individual contributors with a
    lot of non-transferable skills to stay, for example, someone who knows
    more about Digital's internal administrative processes than how to
    creatively design an effective computer-based system.
    
    And believe me, the slogan of "increase gross margins" is the _not_ the
    sort of inspirational message that will turn ordinary employees into
    heros.
    
    In fact, my biggest morale problem personally, is the lack of vision
    the company has for the 1990's more than the salary freeze.
                                                         

re: .49

	WOW! Collectivism, suppression of the individual recognition/reward
	for the good of the whole! Sure works well in the U.S.S.R don't it?

	MAYBE a nice idealistic premise...but this does not seem to work in
	this real world.

	-Terry

    re: .50
    
    Interesting notion about bonuses.  Unfortunately, I don't believe
    that it will solve the problem that Dave talks about with regards
    to politics, etc.  It does reduce the damage of people being overpaid
    for political reasons to a one year time frame, but it doesn't solve
    the problem of people who are promoted for political reasons.  Instead
    of simply getting an extra x% pay raise for being politically "astute"
    enough to get a "1" or "2", the game will be to get an extra x%+big%
    pay raise for manuevering a promotion.
    
    I'm not certain that it would solve as many problems as it might
    just change the symptoms.
    
    However it is accomplished, compensation should be based on the
    measure of the employee's value to the company.  I don't believe
    that the value will ever be determined without significant amount
    of subjectivity on the part of management.  Nor do I equate total
    lack of subjectivity with absolute goodness.  I enjoy working for
    people -- and people are subjective.  Metrics can be informative,
    but they are woefully deficient for measuring the importance of
    a person.
    
    Do we have problems in compensating according to value? IMHO, yes.
    Are "absolute metrics" (i.e., "total objectivity") the answer? I
    think not.  What to do?  Hard to say -- but I wouldn't look for
    a simple solution for a difficult problem ("How do you determine
    the worth of people w.r.t. a corporation?").  Gotta keep trying,
    though...
    
    FWIW
    
    -- Russ

    re .52
    
    How well is the "system" working at Digital?  Sure works well doesn't it?
    That's why this note has so many replies.
    
    How well is the "system" working for the environment?
    
    How well is the "system" working for Native Americans & other minorities?
    
    What has happened to the quality of life in the last 10-20-30 years?
    Are you happier now about your day-to-eay existence?  Do you feel
    more or less secure about the future?
    
    .52 assumes that .49 was advocating collectivism.  Was that stated?
    
    The base note and most of the replies have to do with the greed,
    selfishness and aquisition of power/control of various individuals
    and groups (e.g., "management", "employees", "stockholders", etc).
    
    The fundamental issues aren't rooted in the economic system, but
    rather in the fascination/dogmatism about economic systems.  Both
    the "left" and the "right" focused on material goods.  And both
    lay waste to the environment as well as to non-economic human needs.
    
    The basic paradigms aren't working -- just look around & observe.
    
    It's time for things to change in the Eastern Block.  And they are.
    
    It's also time for some changes in the West.

    -dinesh.

    RE .51

>    Expect employees who place a high value on security to stay, expect
>    employees who place a high value on personal career advancement to
>    leave.

    Only if you equate "personal career advancement" with "more cash". I
    don't believe there is a moratorium on career advancement at Digital
    right now, salary non-action or no.

    A more accurate statement might be -

        Expect employees who place a high value on security to stay, expect
        employees who place a high value on salary advancement to leave.

RE:            <<< Note 942.38 by INTER::JONG "Steve Jong/NaC Pubs" >>>
>              -< The grass is browner in the other fellow's yard >-

>    	Where are you going to go?
    
I've got a somewhat humorous answer to that one.  Don't take all
this literally since all the blanks have not yet been filled in 
this situation but it does illustrate the point.

A couple of months ago a I got a call from the personnel dept. of one of
our customers who wanted me to come in for an interview for a
position.  I told them I was not really interested.  By a coincidence
A few weeks later I was taken over to this same customer because they wanted a
DEC resident. (By another coincidence, I found out from another DECie who
had interviewed with this group that it was the same one that had been
called me!  I was cleaning the house last week an I found the letter
the customer had sent me.) The customer loved me and would like me to
start a soon as I am free. In the mean time I am getting calls from
recruiters to work in the same customer in the same group for about a
40% pay increase. (This customer would just love to steal someone from
DEC. are very upset that we hire on of their people.  I know that DEC
people have already started interviewing with this exact group.) 

Since I live in NJ and this job is in NY transfering there in DEC could
mean that I would have to pay several $1000's a year in commuting
expenses, would have to pay about 5% more in taxes, and extend my
commuting time from about 40 min a day to about three hours and all with
a pay freeze.  I could do the exact same job and put up with less s*&t
and take a 40% pay increase if I go to the customer but I would have to
accept the job before the residency starts because of the Ts&Cs. 

...on second thought...I'd better get back to the recruiter quickly..... 

John

Having been in similar circumstances before, I read between the lines that many
noters  are  suffering extreme discomfort over  what  appears  to  be  a  major
obstacle in their career paths.  The  following  is  NOT  meant to be in-depth,
only  to  cause  further  creative thinking which may,  perhaps,  relieve  some
tension.

RE .51 and others

>    Expect employees who place a high value on security to stay, expect
>    employees who place a high value on personal career advancement to
>    leave.


Too  simplistic.    Actually,  a  salary freeze within a STILL GROWING  company
presents more opportunities for career advancement than meet the eye.  

A common implication associated with those employees who prize security is that
they are less_than_stellar performers - 3.25ers (4 ratings  missing).   In some
cases that is true, yet they are still valued.   When your group is filled with
1 and 2 raters, you run the risk of overall  lower  performance.   As a plumber
once pointed out, the job's not over until the paperwork is  done  -  1 & 2 ers
tend to hate the paperwork.

Digital,  however,  is  one  of  the  very few companies  where  an  agressive,
intelligent person has the OPPORTUNITY to grow a career across  disciplines  as
well  as  across  that  boundary  of Individual Contributor/Manager.  There are
advantages to  staying  in  one  company for long periods.  Vacation builds up,
retirement (as much  as  it  is)  builds up, personal associations are nurtured
stronger, you get good  at  working the bureaucracy, etc.  

There are advantages associated with staying with a company that does not throw
away employees ONLY because they fail a task or two.    You have an opportunity
to  take  RISKS.    Nothing  builds  a  career  better  than taking  risks  and
succeeding.    Failures can be turned around to a positive learning experience,
but NOT  if you are afraid of getting fired.  If you want to fly, you've got to
jump off the branch.  No risk, no gain worth talking about. 

When  a  salary  freeze  hits (usually accompanied by  a  hiring  freeze),  the
opportunities start to pop up.  Some folks jump  ship,  normal  attrition takes
its toll and the work in a STILL GROWING comany  starts  to  pile up.  Managers
start  looking harder for those folks who are more efficient/productive;   more
work, less people, harder to meet goals at review time.  As  has been discussed
in this note, jobs go for begging in some areas.

If you are willing to relocate and/or take  a  job  in  a different discipline,
opportunities  abound  for moving up in the labor grades  -  assuming  you  are
qualified (or a good talker).  SALARIES are frozen, not  promotions.   When the
freeze comes off, start negotiating - your performance in the new job will go a
long  ways  in  determining  how  well you will do !!!  One  common  managerial
problem  is  that tendency to look at outsiders as more qualified than insiders
(promotion);    you  know  the  sins  of the employee, but not the sins of  the
candidate.  It is  poor management, but common throughout this organization (as
well as other companies).  Now, there is little outside competition.

The point of all my rambling is this, take a look at where you want to be in 1,
5 and 10 years.  Make a realistic assessment (as best you can) of where Digital
will be in 1, 5 and 10 years.  Add, subtract, multiply, and divide by the phase
of the moon and make a decision.   If  that  decision  is to leave, then do the
right thing.

For what it is worth,

Dave

    942.54 convinced me to quote the following three paragraphs from "The
    Cynical Americans, Living and Working in an Age of Discontent and
    Disillusion", by Donald L. Kanter and Philip H. Mirvis, Jossey-Bass,
    Inc. (1989), pg. 249. 

    "Complaint 4: Time is at a Premium" 

    "In many company cultures, so-called productive time is an obsession.
    People are not supposed to have time to talk or socialize with one
    another or to join in lunchtime or after-work bull sessions.  For those
    living for the moment, digital watches add precision to the management
    of time, as do day-to-day planning guides, minute-to-minute appointment
    schedules, and the like.  Taking time for people simply takes time away
    from everone's busy schedule -- and having a "busy schedule" is a mark
    of success." 

    "In our view, much of this preoccupation with time is a reflection of
    people's heightened sense of self-interest and self-importance.  Many
    executives use time today, much as they use money, for instrumental
    purposes.  It buys them more analysis and meetings, more contacts and
    information, more persuading and selling.  Even people's leisure time
    is compressed into more exciting vacations and more action-packed
    recreation.  All this fixation on time limitations has its costs, of
    course, including personal stress, not to mention feelings of being in
    a rat race and simply being overwhelmed by the lack of time to get
    anything done properly." 

    "Can Americans adopt a less obsessive orientation to time?  Plainly,
    our culture discounts the inevitability of aging and slowing down,
    devalues patience, and, to a lesser degree, undervalues persistence.
    We see no evidence, then, that Americans will embrace a longer-term
    outlook without feeling guilty.  The live-for-the-moment mentality is
    here to stay.  Even so, within the confines of present time there are
    ways that companies can put time into the service of corporate ideals." 

    I think the above has some relevance to this note,
    Fred 
    

    Wht limit this observation to americans?
    
    - Andy ��� Leslie
    

    
Re   942.47        
    
>    Are you implying that "Pay for Performance" equals "No Layoff Policy"
>    or what?
    
     So much for trying to make a joke....I was merely saying that
     something that is even considered "policy" can go out the 
     window under the proper circumstances.
    
     And no, I'm not confused.
    
     Mark
    
    

    Maybe no news is good news!  With all this negitive thinking,it
    only makes it easier for them to stick it to us, after all, we're
    all expecting it, so why not.
    
    Why not walk around with a big smile on our faces.  It'll make it
    harder for them to break any negitive news to us!
    
    ;-)
    
    #ed
    

    
    In normal times, if the corporate average increase is 5%, people can
    expect to get 4% to 6%, depending on their individual ratings.
    (Actually, it's more like 4.8% to 5.2%, but that's another problem.)
    
    In hard times, when the corporate average increase is 0%, the
    performance spread should still be maintained -- -1% to 1%. The below
    average performers should lose some of their salaries, which would be
    used to fund small increases for the above average performers. This
    would put the impetus to leave for salary reasons where it would be
    much more effective -- on the dead wood.

    re: .56
    
    If the situation is actually as simple as you describe, you'd be
    foolish not to take the job!  
    
    re: .63
    
    I think that unless what you are describing happens (salary decreases
    for low performers) the Executive Committee will feel obliged to take
    another Draconian action.  I know everyone expects that action to be
    indiscriminate layoffs, but I think they will do something else before
    resorting to layoffs: salary reductions.
    
    Imagine this: everyone's salary gets reduced---5% for the lowest-paid
    employees, up to 10% for the highest-paid.  Nobody gets reduced below
    the statuatory minimum, of course.  Would that be preferable to laying
    off one person in 20, in each cost center?  I think it would.
        John Sauter

re: < Note 942.63 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >

    
.63> In normal times, if the corporate average increase is 5%, people can
.63> expect to get 4% to 6%, depending on their individual ratings.
.63> (Actually, it's more like 4.8% to 5.2%, but that's another problem.)

    Assuming the 'normal times' range is 4% to 6%, many employees
    are de-motivated by somthing like this... at least I am. If an
    'average' performance will garner you 4%-5% and working like MAD
    (i.e. twice as hard) will get you 6% raise (someday, when the
    freeze is over) then why give that super effort?

    Yes, I've read over and over in this conference that people work
    at/stay at/love Digital for reasons other than money, but I
    think most will admit they have grown accustomed to getting a
    paycheck to buy a few frills like groceries and a roof over
    their head. I respect those that desire to give their all for
    DEC in return for a difference of a 1% or 2% delayed raise, but
    not everyone feels this way.... [get out your calculator and
    figure out what a 1% pay raise will net you]
    
    There are many semi or totally burned out folkes that feel it's
    not worth 'burning out' for the mere 1% or 2%... and the shame
    of it is that Digital *needs* that 'extra effort' kind of
    commitment *RIGHT NOW* to help get out of our current slump.
    
    'Pay for performance' used to be a meaningful phrase... it
    usually represented a significant increase come raise time. Now,
    (for me, anyway) the phrase only invokes memories of a distant
    past when things were done right.
    
    Most people have a desire to succeed and Digital used to be a
    great vehicle to satisfy that desire- you had the feeling that
    you super efforts were appreciated and that your contributions
    were what made Digital great. Maybe that still is the norm in
    many places, and if it's like that where you are then I
    congratulate you... and I can understand your attitude of "DEC
    is great and if you don't think so then don't let the door hit
    you in the butt on the way out".... but here in my spot in the
    field it doesn't seem that way any more... "the thrill is gone"
    as B.B. King says..
    
    Digital needs to be a foodsource to those that desire to achieve
    and succeed. By not doing they risk losing some of their best
    and brigtest people to other companies... or people may quit
    altogether to go into business for themselves.
        

    From my viewpoint it appears that leaders and motivators have
    been supressed and discarded in favor of managers, empire
    builders and number chasers. When numbers become the main
    measurement then employees also tend to be number oriented- as
    in the percentage of their raise.
    
    In this era of number mania DEC had better figure out a way to
    improve the 'spread' between average performer raises and
    'super' performer raises. This will have to do since we don't
    have many leaders and motivators anymore.
    
    Lee

    What's happened to stock options?  Are these still being distributed?
    If so, it would seem alot more honest for Digital to cut these as
    long as there is a salary freeze.
    
    How about saving salary costs where it does the least harm
    and where there is the greatest ability to solve the problems?

    Why not cut executive salaries, with the biggest cuts starting at
    the top?  And then give them bonuses commensurate with an increase
    in Corporate profitability.

	Stock options are on hold as has been reported several times.

	RE: Pay cuts. Seems to me we'd be better off fixing the companies
	underlying problems so we can make (and pay) more money than in
	trying to find ways to cut paychecks. I'd rather see everyone get
	a big raise then have one person take a cut or get layed off.

	Focusing on cutting losses is defeatist. What we should do is
	focus on selling more, cutting support costs by increasing the
	quality of our products, and reducing costs of production by
	increased quality, easier to built hardware, and better utilization
	of the people we have.

			Alfred

    re:  pay cuts
    
    Alfred is right, pay cuts just serve to drag out the problem, with
    no positive reinforcment or direction.  Just look at the airline
    industry;  many of their employees have gone through pay cuts which
    did little to get them out of the red, but the impact on morale and
    productivity has been devastating.
    
    Pay cuts would also be directly contrary to the concept of "pay for
    performance".   Even though we all know that the practice hasn't lived
    up to its name recently ...
    
    Finally, a lot of people have mentioned in this file that they don't
    understand why there's all this talk of jumping ship, after all, what
    computer companies are doing any better than DEC?  Where would you go?
    I have to believe that the people asking this question must never get
    out to the Field.  We have been selling highly complex computer systems
    by the thousands for the last ten years, and at the same time we have
    created a huge demand for experienced personnel at customer sites.  At
    the same time, our presence in the university has been declining, so
    there are probably fewer college grads walking out the door with DEC
    experience than there were three or four years ago.
    
    We can't afford to ignore our own installed base when it comes to
    determining competitive compensation.  We have hired away from our
    customers for years with impunity, but the tables might turn ...
    
    Geoff
    

Stock holder satisfaction (read company profit) is gained through 
customer satisfaction (read like and want our products/services)
which is provided by satisfied employees (read fairly compensated 
for their work.)

I would prefer to see 1 in 20 people layed off in each cost center
than to see everyone take a cut in pay or continue the freeze.

There are good people in this company who ARE leaving.

Too many "old time DECies" are too busy lamenting how we used to be,
rather than helping move forward. 

Few good employees leave just for more money.  

This is not a welfare state.   I don't want to pay for slack performers.
Get on the stick, or get dumped...the marketplace is way too competative
for "no layoff policies."   If you're IBM, you can do it...  If your DEC,
you can't.   Lets not lose sight of how far behind #1 we really are!

Digital needs to pick up speed, and to do it NOW!  We have the product
and the vision.   Now all we need is the leadership and motivation, which
can't be achieved with dead-wood and salary freezes.  Just ask An Wang...

Bob

    I agree that we should fix the underlying problem - I just think that
    the underlying problem is that there are a lot of people just along for
    the ride, and they suck energy out of the others who could make this
    company a stellar performer.
    
    A raise spread of 2% (4% to 6% lately, or even 13% to 15% in bygone
    days) encourages people to go along for the ride. The right thing to do
    is is to establish the corporate average raise as the middle of a bell
    curve, with limits at average-10% and average+10%. You could then award
    raises across a broad spectrum, to truly reinstate pay for performance.
    The appropriate region of the curve could be selected by an individual's
    1-5 rating (which is why I'm in favor of reinstating the 4), and then
    fine-tuned by the specifics of the review.
    
    This spread should also be maintained in lean times, instead of an
    across-the-board-freeze, so that while the coroprate average increase
    is still 0%, the 1's could get as much as 10% and the 5's as little as
    -10%. In fact, it could also be applied in the event of a general pay
    reduction, let's say a -2% corporate average, so that the superstars
    could still get as much as an 8% increase. That would be far more
    equitable than an escalating pay cut keyed to current salary, which
    would presumable penalize the star performers more than the free
    riders.
    
    A layoff is *not* acceptable! It tends to be indiscriminate, getting
    rid of as many good people as bad. It is also devestating to morale.
    No matter how dim the outlook is, I have faith that this company will
    do everything in it's power to protect my job. A layoff will totally
    destroy that faith. My wife just got layed off. Even though she was by
    all accounts the best person in the department, she was the first
    layoff target because of her part-time status. I'm sure that a tactical
    pay decrease of a few percent, on the other hand, would have encouraged
    the dead wood in her department to look elsewhere.

    REF:   <<< Note 942.69 by SYOMV::DEEP "Blame the man, not the weapon." >>>
      -< Dump the dead-wood and move forward with leadership and vision! >-

     <<I would prefer to see 1 in 20 people layed off in each cost center
       than to see everyone take a cut in pay or continue the freeze.
    
    Perhaps a word you are looking for is decimate.  This is a latin
    derived word where the Roman leadership in motivating their workforce
    of soldiers lined everyone up, picked a man at random, and started
    counting off by 10s where every tenth soldier was immediately executed
    by the management.  As we can see from the fact that even the Roman
    language is now extinct, the leadership style of empowering their
    troops was less than stellar.
    
    I argue that ALL the troops in Digital want to contribute to a more
    successful Digital, that they know EXACTLY where a half billion in
    expense waste and duplication could be cut IF THOSE IN LEADERHSIP ONLY
    ASKED THEM and IMPLEMENTED THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND IDEAS!  Further, I
    would argue they, and our six million customer contact users know
    EXACTLY the changes Digital should incur to be more successful IF THOSE
    IN LEADERSHIP ONLY ASKED THEM and IMPLEMENTED THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND
    IDEAS!
    
    Is killing off 10%, or 5% (1 in 20) of our troops as you suggest the
    best answer?  I think not.
    
    How about this as an alternative.  Make all employees truly empowered
    within 90 days.  Total responsibility with total authority to build a
    more successful Digital.  All direct reports in every given group have
    an equal say who their leader/manager will be and can take a vote of
    confidence to become self-managed with no manager, or keep their
    current manager for another year, or find a new person within Digital
    that sees managing as a "calling" who will LEAD and COACH his team to
    higher levels of success, putting aside all personal agenda, ambition
    and self-aggrandizement, taking his or her success as a reflection of
    the success of leading his people to higher levels of success.
    
    The stockholders pick their representative -- Ken Olsen as our
    president.  He creates the vision, overall goals and mission of our
    company for the stockholders.
    
    I submit the current system nurtures more individual competitiveness
    for personal gain over a more successful approach of nurturing
    cooperation where it's all the employees of Digital competing against
    the competitors of the world.
     
    To steal a quote from science, an organism (or organization) at war
    within itself cannot survive.
    
    I say it's time to merge "management" and "employees" into a single
    cohesive cooperative team with all members sharing equal
    responsibility with equal authority to where no employee can say, "It's
    management, not me." or "It's the deadwood, not me."
    
    This is my belief, which keeps with the philosophy of doing what's
    "ethically" right.
    

re:    <<< Note 942.71 by DIXIE2::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF" >>>
                  -< To "decimate" is NOT doing what's right >-


>    I argue that ALL the troops in Digital want to contribute to a more
>    successful Digital, that they know EXACTLY where a half billion in
>    expense waste and duplication could be cut IF THOSE IN LEADERHSIP ONLY
>    ASKED THEM and IMPLEMENTED THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND IDEAS!  

I'll refer you to the "You Make A Difference"  program where, in fact, 
management *IS* asking you!

>    Is killing off 10%, or 5% (1 in 20) of our troops as you suggest the
>    best answer?  I think not.
    
No one is talking about killing off anyone.  Your Roman analogy is not 
applicable.  If each cost center were required to reduce headcount by    
5%, based on performance, we would be weeding out those who are contributing
the least to the local organization.  Not a perfect solution, but one
that can be achieved, and with excellent results.  Our stock price would
climb instantly, and coupled with salary action for those who "made the
cut,"  would restore moral, which is at an all time low.

I'm not in favor of layoffs every time a company starts into a slump, but
if you have a 20 lb sack, and 30 lbs of flour, something has to give.

If it comes down to survival of the fittest... thats the real world.
If you're good, you have nothing to worry about.

Bob

        With the permission of KAOFS::D_BIGELOW, the editor:
        

                        --------------------------------
                       |                                |
                       |  ** The CANADIAN CHRONICLE **  |
                       |                                |
                        --------------------------------

Date  : Tuesday October 17th, 1989			Circulation: 564
Dist  : Weekly	- 16th Edition				Editor: Darrell Bigelow

                    Digital Canada Announces Wage Freeze Lift

	  The President of Digital Equipment of Canada, Ken Copeland, on
	behalf of the Canadian Management Committee and the company, was
	pleased to announce last week that the wage freeze for all Canadian
	employees has been lifted, even though we are still experiencing some
	financial difficulties.

	  The freeze was in effect from July 1st to October 1st.

	  Employees' annual salary reviews and promotional salary reviews
	are/have been delayed by three months.  For example, if your salary
	review was due on August 5th, it is now delayed until November 5th.

	  The salary freezes have been lifted for all Canadian employees
	except for members of the Canadian Management Committee (which is
	made up of mostly senior executives of the company).

re: .several on Pay cuts vs. Layoffs

   One way of looking at this is that if across the board pay cuts were
instituted, layoffs would probably not even be considered as an alternative
since you would be virtually guaranteed of a higher attrition rate than you
would see from a salary freeze.

   I like the security at DEC, having worked in a small company from which
I was once layed off. I consider myself to be perhaps not a stellar performer
at all times, but certainly not deadwood. I can live with a salary freeze,
even an extended one, for some indefinite, although not unending, period
of time. I cannot, however, live with a pay cut. I don't simply mean that
a pay cut "would make life more difficult", or "I'd have to sacrifice some
things". I mean I simply cannot afford to continue in my present lifestyle
on any less than I currently make, and the only expenses I have are the
support of a family and a mortgage - no new cars, no vacation home (no
vacations, muchless), no expensive hobbies or habits. I'm sad to say that
were a pay cut instituted, I would have to leave DEC, and I'm sure I'm not
alone in that opinion. This is not to say that I would find a layoff to be a
preferable alternative.

   I wasn't with DEC in 1971 when Nixon suggested a nationwide paycut - I
was doing contract work at the time. Can anyone who was with DEC back then
tell us how DEC reacted to the goverment's plan, and/or how the workforce
at DEC reacted to it?

-Jack

     I was with the company during the Nixon salary freeze.  Dec had
    instituted its own 3 month delay that was to expire the day that
    Nixon's 3 month delay took place.  There was a difference.  This
    time prices are leaping around me, back then prices were 'frozen'.
    It didn't hurt as much as now.  And, DEC made our raise retroactive.
    history.
    #ed
    

                    -< Is there hope ? >-    
    
    Re:.73
    
    Now that the freeze is lifted in Canada, will this be true for the
    US too?
    
    Could there be any reasons why it will be favorable to lift it in
    Canada and not in US?
    
    

    I'd like to discuss a particular situation I have, and invite reader's
    comments or suggestions on course of action, hope, or whatever.
    
    After years of management/engineering work in other companies, I hired
    on with DEC two years ago in a technician's job (WC 2).  I had
    relocated here, needed to get on board, and the hiring freeze was going
    to be reinstituted (10/87), so I took it.   Part of the reason I took
    it was the knowledge of extensive overtime in the job, due to its
    nature.  The overtime was the only way I  could make ends meet
    (family, sole-breadwinner, living in Mass, etc. etc. etc).
    
    I've had the opportunity to interview for some WC 4 jobs (level 37 and
    38).  One of them is a great match for me, and the manager would like to
    hire me (seven interviews with him, his staff, and his manager).  But,
    I keep my old WC 2 base salary, and get no OT.   And when the freeze 
    is over, I get the minimum in the new salary level, and only the hope 
    of an early review, and perhaps an 8% raise.
    
    Immediate result--a 20% pay cut until the time (whenever) that the
    freeze is lifted.
    
    Longterm result--it takes me three to four years to get back to where I
    am now.
    
    Outcome--I can't afford to take a promotion, and utilize my skills in a
    way that will help both DIgital as well as me.
    
    The hiring manager (MEM) has tried--it's not his fault--it's the
    policies that are in place.
    
    1.	Anybody have any ideas how to solve this problem?
    	Hint:  Can't get hired as a WC3, no other job descriptions apply.
    
    2. 	Does Digital have anything in place to recognize situations of this
    	kind and to rememdy them?  If so, what are they and how does one
    	initiate action?

       RE: .77
       
       	I understand your problem all too well. About 3 years ago I was
       a 3rd shifter with tons of OT. Then, in a move to better my
       career, I took a job with no OT and on 1st shift. I immeadiately
       lost $400-600 a month and ended up in debt up to my eyeballs. 2
       months before making the move I was on easy street with a new
       truck, a recent 1 month vacation and a motorcycle.. Boy, did
       making the move hurt bunches.. I've only recently recovered
       financially. If I was you, in these troubled times and with
       a family, I wouldn't make the move.. Hold off for a while until
       you can find a group that has the money to bring you up to a 
       decent money level.. It's not impossible in better times. For me,
       it took working my ass off and finally getting a raise that brought
       me up to speed. FWIW, I'm making as much now as I did 3 years ago.
       It wasn't easy.. (and my credit rating took the brunt of it.. :-( )
       
       							mike

    Re why Canada has lifted its freeze.  I would think that Canadian
    Manglement was probably under significant pressure.  Canadians have
    traditionally had more militant and demanding unions, and I think
    part of that rubs off on the general population.
    
    I also think they are less tolerant of management screw-ups, and
    probably also see Olsen as less of a cult hero.  Let's face it people
    senior management in the US, including the highest personages, has
    screwed up royally in the past few years.  If I was doing the Exec
    Commitee's reviews, I would give them a four, no raise, and probably
    a verbal warning.

>    I also think they are less tolerant of management screw-ups, and
>    probably also see Olsen as less of a cult hero. 

	If what Ken Olsen has accomplished in his lifetime does not
	qualify him for "hero" status, I don't know who would qualify.
	100000+ people around the world owe their livelihood to Mr. 
	Olsen.   He created Digital from nothing, zip, nada into the
	second largest computer company.    Sure, he's no Ollie North :-(

	To give senior management a "4" after a year in which Digital
	had $1B profit is ludicrous.  How are we doing compared to the
	industry as a whole?  

    
 Here is the official word...
    
    
                                  LIVE WIRE
    
    Salary increases in the U.S. will be reinstated effective in
    January 1990.  This means the delay will continue through Q2,
    and salary planning by managers will begin in November.
    Everyone's salary-increase date will be affected by the six-month
    delay.
    
    We've made this decision in order to ensure that we reward those
    employees who are contributing to Digital's success.  However, we
    need to aggressively manage toward a reduced cost structure.
    This includes continuing our efforts to eliminate unnecessary
    spending and limit external hiring to critical positions.  In
    addition, we encourage everyone to participate in employee
    involvement programs that have been initiated to help us identify
    and implement innovative ways to reduce costs and improve
    quality.
    
    When salary planning begins next month in the U.S., it will be
    designed to further encourage managers to reward for performance.
    More information on the planning process will be available
    through the Personnel organization shortly.
                                                       

Well! Bitching and Moaning does work......  (-:

- george

    Regarding the note about Canadians taking less crap.
    
    I'm a Canadian.
    
    I think you're right, that our Unions are strong and powerful, and
    in many ways more militant in demanding what they want, but I do not
    believe they are always good.
    
    Take for example, our postal union.  Geeezz, they go on strike about an
    average of every 2 years.  Most of these guys get paid $16 to $24 per
    hour for sorting mail, or walking door to door dropping off mail, that
    as far as I'm concerned, doesn't make them any more than a glorified
    paper boy !  They work for the government, and every time they go on 
    strike and get huge increases, guess who pays for it ?  Yes, me, and
    you the taxpayers.  The proposed federal government's "Goods and Services 
    Tax" is expected to be in effect on January 1, 1991, and the postal
    union is demanding a 13% increase for all employees, 4% for an annual
    increase, and 9% to cover the new tax, or they say, they'll go on
    strike.  Well let them.  I don't care if my bills get to my house a
    month late, I can live with that !  Do you think Digital would give us
    an additional 9% raise to cover the new tax ?  You can bet your sweet
    booty they won't, and neither will any of the other high-tech companies
    around here.  And I don't think that the people of Canada should
    tolerate the demands of unions anymore.  Unions are totally bad, but
    they certainly are getting out of hand.  (Please note:  I would
    probably have a much different viewpoint if I were a mailman!)
    
    Perhaps we do take less crap, but we pay for it in other ways.  The
    digital wage freeze certainly hurt, but I believe that since employees
    are the companie's most valuable resources, Digital would not have
    instated a wage freeze unless they felt it was absolutely necessary.
    
    As for Ken Olsen....he *is* my hero.
    
    Darrell
     

    In my last response, I said "Unions are totally bad"; that should have
    read, "Unions are not totally bad".
    
    Darrell
    

    RE: .45
    
    You referred to a program called 'EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT @CFO'.  Could
    you tell me some details of the program and who the contact person is?
    
    If you don't want to put it here, you can send me mail: OUSTAD @MPO.
    
    Regards,
    M

    My supervisor just informed us that salary planning will be done at
    15 month intervals on average.  This means that the six-month freeze
    is actually a nine-month freeze.  He wasn't sure if this 15 month
    thing is a one shot deal or not.

    A freeze is bad, a six-month freeze is worse, but calling a nine-
    month freeze a six-month freeze is downright sleazy.

>    My supervisor just informed us that salary planning will be done at
>    15 month intervals on average.  This means that the six-month freeze
>    is actually a nine-month freeze.  He wasn't sure if this 15 month
>    thing is a one shot deal or not.
    
    I don't understand this.  If salary planning in normally annual, then
    with a 6-month freeze it should get stretched to 18 months.  So if
    you're getting it at 15 months on average, aren't you doing OK?

    
    Ref: .87
    
    See topic 892.54 through 892.65
    

>    I don't understand this.  If salary planning in normally annual, then
>    with a 6-month freeze it should get stretched to 18 months.  So if
>    you're getting it at 15 months on average, aren't you doing OK?

    It's 15 months *after* the freeze.  That means your next raise will
    be 21 months after your last raise.  Sounds like a nine-month freeze
    to me.

	Before the freeze not all raise cycles were 12 months. Lots were
	being streeched out. I had assumed that raises would come X + Y
	months after the last raise were X is the length of the freeze and
	Y was the previously schedualed number of months. Perhaps you are
	being told that Y will be 15 months for your raise after next? That
	would be logical. Not fun perhaps, but logical. The company has been
	trying to move out raise timing for the last two years.

				Alfred

    
    
    Re 6 month salary delay.
    
    It means you'll get a raise 6 months later than you would have done had
    their not been a salary delay. There was nothing that said that you got
    12 month raises before.
    
    100% of people don't get planned for a salary raise every year. In
    our organization it is a percentage less than 100%. I don't think I'll
    mention the percentage because I'm not sure whether it is information
    that is meant to be available to all employees. For anybody who wants
    to know what the percentage is for their organization then I suggest
    they go ask their personnel representative.
    
    Lets say the figure is 60% (it is not) that means only 60% of employees
    get a raise in a salary planning year. In other words the average
    time betweeen salary raises is (100*12)/60 months.
    
    Also from what I read the company is trying to put some meaning back
    into the phrase 'PAY FOR PERFORMANCE' this salary year.
    
    Dave
    

    Well, since Gerald spilled the beans, I'll contribute a bit more.
    
    As I was told, there are two effects which get combined.  The first
    is the so-called six-month freeze.  The next is a retroactive
    replanning to a fifteen-month interval.  The net effect is that, on
    the average, your next raise will be 21 months after the previous
    one.  And it also means that any raises that were delayed by the
    freeze are in fact delayed nine months, though some adjustment may
    be made for "exceptional performers".
    
    No word yet on what the "percentages" will be, though that will vary
    by organization.
    
    The fifteen-month interval will continue for future planning.
    
    This is all the same kind of dime-store magic that the Congress uses to
    move expenses out of the current year so that they can magically claim
    that they "saved" some money.  Of course next year they have to repeat
    the trick.  I have no doubt DEC will do the same.
    
    It's all very depressing.
    
    					Steve

    Less depressing than no job, however.
    
    Marge

    RE: .88
    
    When I was hired two years ago, I was informed that salary increases
    are not annual at Digital.  They range somewhere between 12 and 15
    months depending upon a lot of factors (performance, overall company
    performance, etc).  My first increase was at 11 months, and
    subsequently I didn't expect another one for about 15 months after
    that.  So now with the delay of six months, my next increase will be
    about 21 months after my last one.  And considering how the company is
    doing, I expect that to be about average.  So no, the delay is not 9
    months, simply Digitals increase interval is about 15 months right now.

    For many years I received performance appraisals and associated salary
    adjustments every 12 months like clockwork. I didn't realize how
    important this predictability was to me until two years ago, when my
    raise was delayed for a month.
    
    For an entire month I sat on the edge of my chair, waiting to see how
    I'd done for the previous year, fearing more as each day passed that I
    had performed below expectations. I know that because of increasing
    self-doubt my performance degraded during that month. When the raise
    finally came, everything was fine, but I wasn't told why it had been
    delayed. I heard almost a year later that 13 months was the average period
    at that time. From all this I concluded the following:
    
    It is stupid, counter-productive, stupid, demoralizing, stupid,
    unnerving, and just plain STUPID to have a variable salary adjustment
    period. There is nothing to be gained by adjusting the period that
    could not be as easily accomplished by adjusting the amount. A 5% raise
    over 15 months is an underhanded way of doling out a 4% annual raise,
    and over the long haul it's even worse. I have no trouble with the
    company saying "We can only afford a 4% corporate average raise this
    year," or "You screwed up and we're only giving you 3% this year," but
    the very LEAST they could do is come right out and SAY it, rather than
    hiding behind a variable period. And to add insult to injury, they don't
    even say what the period is. This leaves you in the awkward position of
    asking your boss why you raise is delayed, or sitting and stewing for an
    interminable length of time until something happens.
    
    With a predictable period, I can judge whether my salary profile is
    commensurate with my contributions to the company. With variable and
    unpredictable periods, I cannot, and this is unfair. My management
    expects no suprises  --  I expect no less.
    

re >< Note 942.98 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >

After completing his group's  annual  "Salary Planning", your supervisor SHOULD
have informed you as to  when  your  next  SALARY  increase  is scheduled.  You
SHOULD have received an annual PERFORMANCE  review;   the policy is at LEAST an
ANNUAL, written performance review, not a 13  month  review.    Your supervisor
should have informed you, at least then, why  you  were  not  getting  a Salary
increase and when you should expect it.

Sounds like your supervisor should get a "4" on  his review, if we were allowed
to  give  one.    Your  case  is  not an exception.    The  norm  seems  to  be
less_than_professional management.  Probably belongs in a different rat-hole.

Dave

>the policy is at LEAST an ANNUAL, written performance review, not a 13 month 
>review.
>
>Sounds like your supervisor should get a "4" on  his review, if we were allowed
>to  give  one.    Your  case  is  not an exception.    The  norm  seems  to  be
>less_than_professional management.

The norm is definitely not up to policy.

Although I have received raises regularly enough, my written reviews are dated:

Review		Joined group		Comments

25-Sep-89
13-Sep-88				Current group does well
---------	May 88
 8-Apr-87
---------	Oct 85
 6-Sep-84
11-Aug-82
 3-Mar-81				This group had a policy of a review
26-Aug-80				every six months, but it didn't last.
12-Mar-80
24-Sep-79
16-Mar-79				I never received a copy of this.
---------	Jan 79
dates not
available
---------	Jul 75

    I haven't seen a single _correct_ perception of the salary planning
    process in any of the "post-freeze" replies here (.89 - .99).
    
    It's really quite simple.  I'm *extremely* surprised at how little
    the average employee seems to know about the process which allows
    them to continue to "bring home the bacon".
    
    Every year, there are two main variables in the salary planning
    process:  1. Percentage amount of salary increases, and 2. Interval
    between increases.  _Separately_ from salary planning, Digital's
    policy is that performance will be reviewed in written form at least
    every twelve months.  SALARY INCREASES AND PERFORMANCE REVIEWS ARE
    SEPARATE ACTIONS.  (Whether or not this is good is very controversial
    as far as motivational theory goes.)
    
    When salary planning was done in May, 1988,  managers and supervisors
    planned all salary actions for the year before the next salary planning
    (originally scheduled for May, 1989).  Those managers and supervisors
    (in the USA) were given a corporate average of approximately 5%
    for the increases, and a corporate average of 14 months for the
    intervals.   In other words, you planned your average employee for
    a 5% raise, 14 months after his or her last raise.   The two variables
    are supposed to be varied in order to "pay for performance".  You
    could reward your above-average employees in one or both of two
    ways:  higher percentage increase and/or shorter interval.   A star
    performer might get a 7.5% increase at 12 months, for instance.
    
    We don't yet have our numbers (at least not in my organization)
    for this year's planning, but we have been told the process.  Salary
    planning is to begin in November.  Corporate averages are rumored
    to be about 4% for raises, and about 15 months for intervals.  In
    other words, my average employee will receive a 4% increase, 15
    months after his last increase -- plus 6 months for the freeze --
    making it a 21-month interval.   However, salary increases had already
    been planned for the 5/88 to 5/89 period, so those will remain as
    planned, plus 6 months for the freeze.   An employee planned for
    a July increase will receive the planned increase in January.  An
    employee planned for a December increase will receive the planned
    increase in June.   I believe, however, that we will have the ability
    to "replan" all increases which would be falling between January
    and probably May or June (when the NEXT salary package should be
    approved) -- but I'm not sure about this point.
    
    In 1988, average performers should have received approximately 5%
    increases, 14 months after their last raise.  Excellent performers
    could be rewarded with higher percentages and/or shorter intervals.
    Poorer performers would receive lower percentages (including ZILCH)
    at longer intervals (including INFINITE -- unless their next
    performance review indicated improvement).  Unfortunately, one of
    the major flaws of this process is that you need to take from Peter
    to pay Paula -- that is, if you have a star performer to whom you
    wish to extend a 15% raise, for instance, you must take the dollar
    difference between the average raise (5%) and the high raise (15%)
    from other employees within your planning group.   The flaw here
    is that if you have a group of 10 people -- all 1 performers and
    stars and truly exceptional -- you can't reward them with anything
    better than the average (say 5%) without taking it away from someone
    else, but since they're ALL stars, where are you going to get the
    extra few percent?   In that group of 10 people, if you want to
    give one person a 10% raise, you must apportion the extra 5% across
    the other 9 people -- thereby giving them a less-than-average raise
    even though their performance was outstanding.  It's far easier
    to do fair salary planning if you have a group with both stars and
    slouches.   It's pretty lousy, but it's the hand we've been dealt,
    and it still beats alternative compensation systems (such as pay
    for seniority).
    
    By the way, a manager should NOT tell an employee when the next
    salary increase has been scheduled.  I believe that's in the P&P,
    but I'm not positive -- At least that's what my Personnel consultant
    has told me.

    I hope this clears things up a bit.   One other thing I should mention
    is that the corporate average (% and interval) isn't necessarily
    the average for any particular function.  It is possible that one
    group will have 6% and 13 months as their averages, while another
    may get 4% and 16 months.   I guess it depends on the overall
    performance of each function.   I've never understood how this part
    works, and I've always wondered just WHO makes those decisions and
    doles out the bucks.
    
    As always,  for anyone to know exactly how it works for any specific
    site or group, please ask your personnel reps.  Unfortunately, even
    something as important as salary planning is interpreted and
    implemented differently from site to site.
    Since my summation is not necessarily true for YOUR specific site
    or group, it would not be appropriate to base your arguments on
    this note.  I believe the above to be true, to the best of my knowledge
    (and it had better be, since I start salary planning in the next
    few weeks!),  but I refuse to be quoted as a source in any controversy.
    Therefore:
    -- Do not print or forward this reply.  Permission is NOT granted
    to MAIL, FORWARD, or PRINT --

    ACE

>    I refuse to be quoted as a source in any controversy.
>    Therefore:
>    -- Do not print or forward this reply.  Permission is NOT granted
>    to MAIL, FORWARD, or PRINT --

I suppose we can comply with your wishes as a courtesy, but it's not clear you
have the right to add this to a document posted in a conference.

PP&P 6.54 (The Revision) only requires permission before posting in VAX Notes
conferences (and only requires permission if the items originated as mail or
Notes on Digital's internal network), not for any other use of your writings,
which are company property once posted, not yours.

/john

    If you send MAIL, you are "protected" under section 6.54 from seeing it
    appear in a conference (even without an explicit "do not post"
    message). The converse is not true.
    
    If you send MAIL and are a suspicious sort, you can add
    
    "UNDER SECTION 6.54 OF THE DIGITAL PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
    FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSTING THIS
    MAIL MESSAGE IN A NOTESFILE/CONFERENCE WITHOUT MY EXPLICIT PERMISSION,
    AND I AIN'T GIVING IT."

    Re .99
>
> Sounds like your supervisor should get a "4" on  his review, if we were allowed
> to  give  one.    Your  case  is  not an exception.    The  norm  seems  to  be
>
    
    "4"'s are coming back January 1.
    
    L.
    

    re.101
    And I haven't seen a single _correct_perception of Paying for
    performance from a manager. Whether you are one or not I don't know.
    
    But this thaw IMO is BS. If DEC put some effort into gettin' rid
    of the "driftwood" years ago maybe alot of things would be different
    and then again maybe not. But alot of "average employees" would
    feel alot better about how things are done/not done around here.
    
    Mike
    

    re .105:     Yes Mike -- I agree.    As I mentioned in my .101,
    the method of planning salary increases centered around a specific
    percentage makes it extremely difficult to truly "pay for performance".
    I've seen a few managers do a good job of actually paying for
    performance.  My current management (my manager and his manager)
    do an excellent job of it, in my opinion.   Others do not.  

|        re.101
|    And I haven't seen a single _correct_perception of Paying for
|    performance from a manager. Whether you are one or not I don't know.
|
    	
    	I am,  and I believe that I do have the correct perception of
    pay-for-performance.  I also have my hands tied, so to speak, by
    a method of salary planning which does not grant me the freedom
    to truly reward my best performers in a manner consistent with the
    spirit of pay-for-performance.
    
    re:  John Covert:    John, I'm well aware that there is no explicit
    policy regarding "Permission is not granted, blah blah blah".  So,
    as you pointed out, yes, consider it a courtesy.   I admit that
    I did have an ulterior motive of testing out something that wasn't
    in the policy amendment to see the reaction.  Still, I don't want
    anybody waving a 5th-generation photocopy of MY unofficial opinions
    at some personnel rep, who ends up disagreeing and coming after
    ME.  I've seen too many notes printed, copied, forwarded, and taken
    out of context that cause grief,  so I tried to make it very clear
    that I don't want my note ending up on the desk of someone who takes
    it out of context, or just plain doesn't understand the use of Notes
    as a communications medium.
    
    

    Look at real, post-tax income for the bad news.

    It's worth pointing out (again) that in an economy where inflation
    is N percent, and taxes on salaries are T percent, that an annual
    raise of less than
    
    		     100 
                  --------- * N
    		  (100 - T) 
    
    is a pay cut.  For our current economy, that's about nine percent!
    
    Now, a nominal raise may be a real cut, but it's not as bad as a
    pay cut without a nominal raise.  But it's still a cut.
    
    Disguising this by streching out the raise intervals is an additional
    insult.  Like a previous author, I'd rather have the interval stay
    the same and vary the increase than have the increase stay the same
    and vary the interval.

        			-John Bishop

        Re: .107

>    It's worth pointing out (again) that in an economy where inflation
>    is N percent, and taxes on salaries are T percent, that an annual
>    raise of less than
>    
>    		      100 
>                  --------- * N
>    		   (100 - T) 
>    
>    is a pay cut.  For our current economy, that's about nine percent!

        That's bogus, the tax rate is irrelevant as long as it remains
        constant.  A pay raise equal to inflation is sufficient for an
        employee to break even.

        Consider someone who makes $40,000 with a tax rate of 25%, so
        they have $30,000/year to spend and save.  If inflation is 10%
        then they need $33,000 after taxes the next year.  A pay raise
        of 10% would give them a $44,000 income or $33,000 after taxes.

        The formula you gave would result in a (100/75)*10 = 13.33%
        raise, which results in a salary of $45,333 and after tax income
        of $34,000---which is a 13.33% increase in after tax income.

        					B.J.

    You're right--I forgot to account for the taxation on the base.
    
    			-John Bishop

    For what it's worth, the Nashua Telegraph yesterday reported on DEC's
    lifting of the freeze and said that employees could receive up to 7%
    raises.  Where they got this information is unknown.
    
    Dave
    

    I believe there was an official press release about it. There was also
    an article in Friday's WSJ.
    

Pay-for-performance, as implemented, if not as spec'd, includes the concept
of group performance.  That's why well-performing groups get more money to
distribute as raises.  If somebody is a superstar-1 in a group of mediocre
performance (that is, financial performance for the Company), that person
has a number of choices:
  1) use his talents to raise the productivity of the rest of the group
  2) leave, become a big fish in a bigger (or at least different) pond
  3) stay a big fish in a small pond
and probably many more.

If somebody (a manager) has a preponderance of 1-performers in his or her
group, and the GROUP is not performing well enough for the Company to 
recognize the contribution, there are two possible problems that come
to mind:
  1) the aims of the group aren't targeted in the same direction as its
     parent organization
  2) the group is stuck in a larger group that is not meeting Corporate-wide
     goals - this is analogous to the individual case above

Lastly, there are other means of compensation that a truly superior
performer can be granted.  Stock options are one, though these come under
controls and allocation too.  Another is non-monetary compensation,
such as more freedom in choice of job assignments, opportunity to travel,
extra comp time, equipment allocation.  I don't expect this to solve
the problem, but if an employee is only motivated by raw dollars on the 
pay check, that may portend other problems when the employee tops out
in his range.

- tom powers]

    
    The current salary and raise system is just nurturing discontent,
    personal competitiveness at the expense of other employees and the
    company, and perpetuating office politics and bureaucracy that impedes
    total employee involvement and passion to build a more successful
    Digital where we all share in the ADDITIONAL success equally or not at
    all.
    
    Salary levels should increase primarily based on being promoted to
    higher job levels based on demonstrated LEADERSHIP and CREATIVITY
    overall.
    
    I submit a SIGNIFICANT profit sharing bonus, equally shared by all for
    achieving MUTUAL SUCCESS through optimizing working TOGETHER more
    effectively and efficiently to make money for the company, primarily
    more NEW money from generating more NEW profitable business revenue
    from customers and the marketplace, is a better system for encouraing
    "pay for performance."  Everyone's job and actions, literally every
    action, impacts one way or another, ultimately the ability and
    effectiveness by which Digital makes money.
    
    The compensation system should be modified to ensure behavior that
    leads to a more successful Digital via cooperation and not politics nor
    personal competitiveness and aggressiveness.  The current system does
    nothing that enhances virtually all employees creating tens of
    thousands of new ideas, and making them reality in changing how Digital
    makes money more effectively, with all interdependent on achieving a
    common monetary award -- a profit sharing bonus.
    
    Does anyone's current success on getting his or her "entitled" raise
    have anything to do with creating a more successful Digital than exists
    now, on creating and getting implemented thousands of changes to
    enhance the effectiveness of Digital in making money, getting and
    keeping customers and generating more revenue with profit?  Be honest,
    isn't one's current success at getting a "decent" raise (let alone pay
    for performance) based on how well one as an individual "sells" his or
    her manager on how great he or she has done, why he or she is a 1 or 2,
    worthy of more coins?
    
    A system of total cooperation among all employees with all tied to
    constructive interdepency for a common reward is superior to a system
    that encourages personal competitiveness at the expense of our fellow
    teammates.
    
    Salary increases should be given as raises for inflation, for
    inequities that exist (both internally and from market conditions), and
    for being promoted to more responsibility, noted as a higher job code
    level.  Further compensation, I intuitively believe, should come from a
    common profit sharing bonus bucket for ALL OF US TOGETHER more
    effectively making the company more operating income as a percentage of
    revenue above and beyond a certain point (needed for re-investment).
    

    Interesting ideas, David!  I wouldn't mind profit sharing.  It does
    directly tie pay to company performance.
    
    I disagree with a couple of points.  I think you suggested raises
    (above cost-of-living adjustments) should only be given with
    promotions.  Well, I've averaged a promotion every two years during my
    professional career, but I think I'm above average.  There aren't
    enough job titles above my present level to keep it up, even if I
    succeed Ken some day 8^).  Everyone is in the same situation.  Even
    with COLAs, I don't think a raise every two years, or three years, or
    more, is acceptable.  Either a lot of new job titles have to be
    created, or else your idea won't generate enough raises to satisfy
    people (well, me, anyway).
    
    You also suggested that people's reviews are a function of how well
    they sell themselves to their supervisors.  I agree that is sometimes
    true.  In general, though, I'd like to think that people are appraised
    on the basis of their work, not their words.  We certainly agree
    that's the way it should be.

There is another view of the current salary situation.

The people who are doing their jobs adequately but are being hurt the most are
"3" performers.  By becoming "1" or "2" performers, their raises get _much_
better (at least in the organization I am currently in).

This provides _significant_ pressure to become a "1" or "2" performer.  There
are ways to do that.  A "3" should have a written review outlining steps that
can be taken in the current job to become a "2".  If those steps are not
something the "3" performer believes can be attained, then the incentive is
strong to transfer to a job that is better suited to the employee.

This company continues to be very liberal about transfers.

The 1990 salary program forces people to perform better -- either by doing a
better job or by doing a new job.  Those who perform better get a bigger piece
of the pie.  As more people perform better, DEC does better and we all benefit.

Since coming to work for DEC, I've never made a career decision based on
salary.  Fortunately, before the 1990 salary plan was revealed to me, I had
applied for a new job (because it was more suited to my interests than my
current job).  I've accepted that job offer, and can continue to say that
I never made a career decision based on salary.

If that position had not come through, I would have begun an active search
for a new job (rather than just waiting for one to come along and slap me
in the face like this one did).

People who search for new jobs in order to be in a position where they will
perform better help the company get more work out of them by making them
happier _both_ in terms of what they are doing and in terms of the salary
increases they receive by being a better performers.

/john

RE: .-1

My experience in DEC (FIELD) has been that the difference in 
pay increase between a 3 (Busting your balls) vs. a 2 
(working so hard as to cause physical injury to oneself)
is .1-.2%.

John

>My experience in DEC (FIELD) has been that the difference in 
>pay increase between a 3 (Busting your balls) vs. a 2 
>(working so hard as to cause physical injury to oneself)
>is .1-.2%.

And my experience in the FIELD >7 years is just the opposite.  1's and 2's 
get significantly higher % raises than 3's ie 4%-20%.

I for one don't like profit sharing or any of those other ideas.  I am paid 
according to my worth to the company.  How the company decides that is 
based upon how much my job is worth to it and how people in my area are 
paid for similar duties.  The Free Market System at work.

Jilly

    I support the idea of rewarding a 1 performer more than a 2 performer. 
    The current salary plan suggests the reward is going to be appreciably
    more than 0.1-0.2 per cent.  Good luck!

Experience doesn't count here.  What counts are the real numbers in the
1990 salary plan.

/john

I've been asked to explain my earlier reply about performance making a big
difference in salary action.

The following chart can be used to describe any theoretically possible salary
plan:

		Q1			Q2			Q3	      Q4

P1		tmin[1,1]-tmax[1,1]	tmin[1,2]-tmax[1,2]	...	     ...
		pmin[1,1]-pmax[1,1]	pmin[1,2]-pmax[1,2]	...	     ...

P2		tmin[2,1]-tmax[2,1]	tmin[2,2]-tmax[2,2]	...	     ...
		pmin[2,1]-pmax[2,1]	pmin[2,2]-pmax[2,2]	...	     ...

P3		...			...			...	     ...
		...			...			...	     ...

You figure out the quartile in which your current salary falls with respect to
your position's salary range, and using your performance take the values with
the index [p,q].

If the Consulting DSA Doorknob Sanitizer range is $10-$50 per fortnight and you
earn $35, then you're in Q3.  If you're a 2 performer, then your salary action
will go into effect at the earliest tmin[2,3] months and at the latest tmax[2,3]
months after your last action.  You are eligible for a raise if pmin[p,q] isn't
zero; that raise will be between pmin and pmax.

Obviously, under current DEC salary planning guidelines, if you're a P1/Q1 (a
top performer at the low end of the salary range) both tmin and tmax are 18,
the minimum allowed (this includes the freeze) without a justified exception.
Likewise the values for pmin and pmax are the highest in the chart in order to
improve the position of the employee the most.

Whenever you move down or right the numbers become less favorable.  For any
employee's quartile, improving to the next better performance position produces
more favorable numbers in most cases and _much_ more favorable numbers in all
cases of improvement from current performance to a strong P2 or P1.

This assumes a strong improvement in performance brought about by harder work
or a better job match.  The chart has ranges, and there may be overlap between
pmin[i,q] and pmax[i+1,q] in some cases, allowing a small improvement in
performance (say from a high 3 to a low 2) to not make a really big improvement
in salary.

/john

    re: .117
    
    "1 and 2 performers get much better raises ... 4-20%"
    
    and the title of the note "What field are you from?"
    
    Feel fortunate that your management is obviously mature enough to
    develop what appears to be a sound strategy for implementing a salary
    plan in which good performers REALLY feel rewarded. However, you need
    to realize that it is your direct management chain which is treating
    you in this manner. Move to another District/Unit and you may not
    see the same salary metrics applied.
    
    I know of many other situations where a manager does not want to be
    "controversial" so he/she just takes the pot and divides it equally (or
    so close to equally that it's a joke). Great incentive to overextend
    yourself ... eh?
    
    So I really believe the note previous to yours which indicated that the
    difference between busting your @$$ for a "3" and doing yourself
    physical harm from overworking to get a "2" wasn't worth the paltry .1
    to .2% difference in pay. It DOES happen, and it happens in the field.
    
    Another thing which I have seen be very detrimental to this whole
    process is when you are a part of a small group. In a 50-person
    organization, you have a lot of money to play with, a lot of people to
    look at in terms of performers vs. non-performers, and have a much
    greater chance to really reward top performers at the expense of those
    who spend their day reading Time Magazine at their desk.
    
    In a small group of let's say 4-6 people, it's a totally different
    thing. What if NONE of the 4-6 people is a loser? What if they all bust
    their buns and achieve great things? They all end up getting the
    "Average Increase", because there's nobody to take anything away from
    to give it to those who deserve it most. What's worse, you might have 1
    or two people in that population that are grossly underpaid in
    comarison to their counterparts (who all do the same job). So how to
    you effectively raise them up to where they DESERVE to be without
    penalizing the other people who did just as good a job as they did?
    
    You don't.
    
    If you are rewarded well for working your buns off and achieving great
    things, consider yourself lucky. It's not the same everyplace.
    
    /se
    
    

    Re .-1
    
    And it is worse than that. Good performers tend to end up together and
    complement each other. Bad performers also tend to put themselves in
    groups with other poor performers so that no one of them looks bad.
    If you happen to manage a group that is motivated and good performance
    rubs off on them all it could be mighty difficult giving everyone
    a good raise, that's if your own manager doesn't cooperate. Meanwhile
    a group of poor performers manager is quite happy to equally split
    the pot equally between his mediocre bunch.
    
    I have never bought the argument that at the lowest project/group level
    you get bell shaped performance across the group. If there is synergy
    between the people they tend towards one performance level (nobody
    wants to look bad in comparison to his workmates).
    
    I agree when you are managing MULTIPLE groups the performance
    distribution of the whole will tend towards the bell shape.
    
    I could say much more but the above is all I want to say because
    I am part of the salary planning process and obviously I only want to
    talk in generalities.
    
    Dave

    ditto .122 on performance clustering (new term here).  I can't speak
    much for Digital having been here only 2 yrs and not having experience
    with groups outside of DBS and SDT engineering, but when I was in the
    Air Force there tended to either be super groups of 8-10 people (with
    slightly varying abilities and energies, but everyone an above-average
    performer), and others (unfortunately, more than the former, at least
    while I was there) groups of 8-10 major league screwups; no skills and
    abilities, nor any desire to do other than the minimal effort to avoid
    being court-martialed for deriliction of duty.  In the Air Force (and
    military as a whole),  however, everyone got the same annual pay raise 
    - from 4-star generals down to no-stripe airmen - and many promotions
    and accompanying pay raises were fairly automatic, especially at the
    lower ranks of both officers and enlisted people.  I attribute the
    general lack of initiative and performance to this fact; it would take
    an act of treason in today's military to be "fired", and the people
    there know it.  Bell curves re: performance were mostly absent there.  
    
    It would be a shame if Digital's culture were to continue its evolution
    towards the aforementioned environment.                              

	... but it didn't take an act of treason for a RESERVE commisioned of-
ficer to get fired!  It took 2 misses at promotion to the next grade, and that
included Captain in 1976.  True, Regular AF members (enlisted, warrants, and
some officers, mostly light colonels and above) can't be "fired" except by court
martial and act of Congress (RIF). The act of Congress may not be far off, IMHO!

    It's nice to think that raises follow performance, but too many times
    it's just not so.  I've only been with DEC for 3� years, so this means
    that I came along just about the time that raise percentages dropped
    drastically.  I started at a decent (about college-hire average) salary
    doing software engineering.  I've been getting 1's and 2's on my
    performance reviews since starting with DEC, and have gotten two
    promotions so far.  Still, when weighed against the cost of living
    increase for that period, my raises leave me still hovering around my
    starting salary.  
    
    I keep hearing that I'm 'underpaid for my output' and that management
    is 'trying to get a salary adjustment', but at adjustment time I hear
    'nobody's getting big raises this year' and 'your raise is bigger than
    the average'.  It's quite unfortunate, but from what I've been able to 
    learn, I'll have to leave the company to get any kind of a sizable salary 
    increase.  
    
    Why must I leave DEC to get a decent raise?  I like the company, but
    we've been 'tightening our belt' since I started.  I never seen any
    two-digit percentage raises.  If this raise percentage is all I've got
    to look forward to as an excellent performer, then a career at Digital
    doesn't look too attractive.  
    
    
    					John

Again it must be pointed out that our salary ranges are compared to the 
industry average for the same comparable job function.  The Cost of Living 
has no effect on the ranges unless CoL has an effect on the industry averages.
It certainly seems reasonable that a person could find more money for the same
job function, especially a 1 or 2 rated person, from a smaller company.  In 
all the explanations I have heard about how we set salary ranges it has 
been expressed that DEC will never strive to be the highest paying 
employer.  We set salary ranges and salary increases according to the 
industry climate.  The salary ranges are more effected by the large companies 
and/or the companies that participate in salary surveys that we use to set 
the ranges.  IBM never used to paticipate in these surveys because they 
felt that they set the market.  They have recently stated paticipating 
because they realize they no longer can dominate the market.  Pay for
Performance is based upon industry averages, company performance, individual 
performance and position in your salary range.  A performance rating must not 
have any connection to a % salary increase for those reasons.  Also a job is 
only worth so much to the company.  If we had set % and no ceiling for salary 
ranges we could have folks making $150,000 for a job that is only worth $30,000.
We can be utopian and say that if the company does X% better we should get 
X% raises.  As one manager put it plainly, 'If you want to profit from the 
company making more profits buy stock.'  Raises and salary ranges are tied 
to market climate.

Jilly

    RE: .125
    
    While I sympathize with your situation (shared by many others) I also
    feel that comparing salaries to your cost of living fluctuations will
    lead you astray.  I too feel that my salary has not kept up with the
    cost of living, but that is a factor affecting almost all of the people
    in our industry.  Unless I'm willing to take up another profession or
    I happen to find a good fit in another industry (rare), then I have to
    accept the fact that my salary is not necessarily going to keep pace
    with inflation or even with salaries for comparable jobs in other
    industries.  It's happened to just about every industrial sector at one
    time or another, and the hi-tech industry has been luckier than most.
    
    That said, now I have to jump on a statement in .126:
    
>Again it must be pointed out that our salary ranges are compared to the 
>industry average for the same comparable job function.
    
    If we pay average salaries, we will attract and retain average people.
    Is this really what we want??  Can we survive in this industry using
    this philosophy?  I don't think so.  I think that this policy was able
    to succeed when Digital offered lots of intangible benefits to its
    employees to offset the average pay.  IBM did the same, but lots of the
    intangible benefits faded around the 1980-1984 timeframe, and now they
    are mired in a massive effort to restructure their personnel.  They too
    have problems with non-productive, non-motivated people, and it's going
    to cost them almost as much as our whole company is worth to fix those
    problems.  Can we afford to follow their example?
    
    Either we pay for performance, or we don't, that is the bottom line. 
    If we pay what the "industry average" is for a job, then we better
    be ready to accept "average" performance.  If we are willing to follow
    industry averages, then we should be spending a lot less on R&D, and a
    lot more on "golden parachutes" for management, because that's where
    the "industry average" dollars are being spent.  And we certainly
    should not expect to be the second-largest company in our industry
    when the "average" is quite a few rungs below us on the ladder.
    
    Geoff
    

    
    Salary should also depend on the state of the industry in the local
    area. Data General, Wang and Prime are laying off, but that does not
    imply that silicon valley companies are not giving good raises.
    Apple, Tandem, Sun, Intel, MIPS and (even) HP are giving better raises 
    to their employees. DEC stands to lose good people here. Hiring for
    open reqs is close to impossible. Too bad, our corporate numbers are 
    based on east coast!
    
    Anil.

    
    This is just my opinion, so if you're not interested, don't bother to
    read on...
    
    
    
    
      I don't have any easy answers to the salary situation. The only thing
    that really ticks me off is the way management (here in this plant) is
    handling the situation.
      I have a job to do here, and I try to put in 100% effort. If I screw
    up, I am responsible and held accountable for it. This is as it should
    be. Why then can't we get any straight answers from out "leaders"?
      I think I have the right to expect the same accountability from the
    folks in charge. I don't plan to leave DEC soon. I like the company and
    I think it could really be a great place to work, but if one more
    "boss" tries to blow sunshine up my ass at a quarterly meeting I may
    toss my cookies.
      All I ask it the same thing that's expected of me. Some
    accountability for thier actions, and some honesty in the answers they
    give. I don't feel that's too much to ask for.
    
    
    
    mIkEy Z.

    Ratlet hole re .129. Without commenting on the main subject,
    what a lovely turn of phrase .. Blow sunshine ...
    I shall treasure that carefully, and use it on selected occasions.
    Many thanks .
    
    Mike Day
    

    RE: .130
    
         First time I saw that quote was in the movie 'Top Gun'.
    
    RE: .128
    
         Salaries based upon local economic situations are already
    existant.  Non-exempt pay in Colorado is not quite comparable to
    non-exempt pay on either coast.  If, however, exempt and non-exempt
    raises were pegged to the local situation, folks would go nuts.  It
    would have an effect on morale similar to a pay freeze that is isolated
    to a single state.
    
                                       Greg 

    On today's DQR DVN, Dave Grainger and Jack Smith both stated that we
    are on 12 month cycles, nothing has changed other than there was a 6
    month suspension.  Ken added that there are no guarantees of raises,
    only base salary, that no one should EVER count on raises.  Sounds to
    me like there is a BIG discrepancy between what these two VPs are
    saying and what some folks further down are saying and/or being told
    about 15/18/21 month cycles.

re: .132
(disclaimer:  I didn't see the DVN)

Our salary planning year is indeed 12 months long.  However, this salary 
planning year, only 80% of our employees will get a raise(mandated metric).

If all future years are like this year, then to keep things equitable, an 
average employee would be on a 15-month cycle.

So, "the corporation is on a 12-month cycle" is a true statement.  One year 
from now, the corporation will again look at this issue, and perhaps change 
it.  Did they also claim that every employee of the corporation is on a
12-month cycle? (Bet they didn't...)

Ray

    Simple arithmetic.
    	80% Salary Action + 12 month cycle + 6 month freeze = 21 months
    					  average time to salary action
    
    i.e. ( 8 x ( 12 + 6 ) + 2 x ( 24 + 6 ) ) / 10 = 20.4 months
    and  ( 8 x 12 + 2 x 24 ) / 10 = 14.4 months
    
    This is only simple but also irrelevant. Most of us get a raise
    after 18 months and the rest get a raise after 30 months. Actually,
    some miserable folk will wait 42 months for a raise. There is nothing
    to suggest that anyone will get a raise at 21 months but it sounds
    better than saying that one in five of us have to wait two and half
    years before, maybe, getting a raise that is almost guaranteed not
    to make up for two years worth of inflation.
    
    Having lived in Switzerland, where the government requires that
    pay be pegged to inflation, I am not impressed with this state of
    affairs. My rationale is that when an offer is made, the job is
    seen to be worth $x. After a years worth of inflation $x is now
    worth less. Does that mean that the job is seen to be worth less?
    If profits fail to exceed inflation, there may be a reason to devalue
    a job.
    
    The suggestion that an employee who wants to share in the companies
    profits should buy stock also feels like an unreasonable suggestion.
    The only way I can take a profit on DEC stock is to sell it. Once
    I have sold it, I cannot benfit from it. If the stock paid a dividend,
    I could both take a profit from it in each profitable year and
    gradually accumulate more stock throughout long years of service.
    

>    affairs. My rationale is that when an offer is made, the job is
>    seen to be worth $x. After a years worth of inflation $x is now
>    worth less. Does that mean that the job is seen to be worth less?
    
    The fact that inflation runs at (say) 5% does not mean that _YOUR_
    purchasing power has dropped by 5%.  If you own a home, for example,
    then the ever-increasing "housing" component of inflation incorrectly
    devalues your earnings.  
    
    Similarly the price of many consumer goods such as CD players, VCRs and
    even TVs has been constant to negative over the past few years.  Your
    paycheck today can buy twice as many VCRs as it could eight years ago,
    (and better quality, too) in spite of inflation.
    
    Personally I prefer to see management empowered to pay for performance,
    rather than inflation.  This can be difficult to do fairly, but I
    prefer such an approach to the alternatives which are even more unfair.
    
      John

re Note 942.134 by UNXA::HASLOCK:

>     Having lived in Switzerland, where the government requires that
>     pay be pegged to inflation, I am not impressed with this state of
>     affairs. My rationale is that when an offer is made, the job is
>     seen to be worth $x. After a years worth of inflation $x is now
>     worth less. Does that mean that the job is seen to be worth less?
>     If profits fail to exceed inflation, there may be a reason to devalue
>     a job.

        I sympathize with this position, but in reality a law such as
        Switzerland's would cause some problems.  Managers don't like
        to reduce the pay of poor performers.  A modest inflation
        rate gives the company a chance to give what is in effect a
        pay cut simply by doing nothing!

        Bob

    Re: [.135] (HALLYB):
    
    >> The fact that inflation runs at (say) 5% does not mean that _YOUR_
    >> purchasing power has dropped by 5%.  If you own a home, for example,
    >> then the ever-increasing "housing" component of inflation incorrectly
    >> devalues your earnings.  
    >>
    >> Similarly the price of many consumer goods such as CD players, VCRs and
    >> even TVs has been constant to negative over the past few years.  Your
    >> paycheck today can buy twice as many VCRs as it could eight years ago,
    >> (and better quality, too) in spite of inflation.
    
    You can't eat a VCR.
    
    You can (if you act real fast) cash in on the housing boom, but you
    have to move out, or move to a smaller house, or farther away.  It's a
    largely illusiury asset unless you're a speculator.

    
    	Re: .137
    
    	Let me restate what John was saying in .135.  No, you don't have to
    sell your house to get the effect he was talking about.  Let say, for
    example, that you have a 30 year fixed rate mortgage and pay, to pick
    nice round numbers, $1000 a month out of your total $3000 a month cost
    of living.  ($1000 mortgage, $2000 everything else.)  Lets say the
    inflation rate is 5% and look out 5 years from now.  Since the $1000
    mortgage (P&I) is fixed, it still costs you $1000/month after 5 years.
    The rest of your budget, which was $2000/mo, now costs you $2552/mo.
    So, your total cost of living is now $3552/mo.  To get that, all you
    need to have gotten for raises is an average *3.7%* per year.
    
    	Having a fixed rate mortgage means that a (usually :-(  big chunk of
    your budget will not be effected by inflation.  Therefore, you can get
    raises less than the rate of inflation and still cover all the
    increased costs in the rest of your budget.
    
    								-c

    RE: .138
    
     You must not be from New Hampshire, my *FIXED* mortgage goes up
    every year...love those property taxes.

    
    	re: .139
    
    	I most certainly am in New Hampshire.  Your fixed mortgage *does*,
    however, stay the same -- its just that an extra item that your mortgage
    holder has decided to escrow for you, the property taxes, is effected by
    inflation.  They are two separate payments that the bank has decided to
    merge for you.  To do your calculations following the mechanism in
    .138, you have to add the property tax costs (and insurance, if they
    escrow that also) to the "non-mortgage" part of the budget that is
    effected by inflation.
    
    							-craig

	Let's move past the mortgage rathole. Yes the "mortgage" stays the
	same but the cost of housing does not. Property tax is a real cost
	of housing.

			Alfred

    It seems that there is some confusion here (or at least I may be
    confused) regarding the 80% participation rule and the 21 month
    review period average.
    
    My understanding is that these are tow INDEPENDENT parameters.
    Another words, the manager defines the 80% group that receives
    a review.  This 80% group then must average to a 21 month review
    period (or 15 mo. plus 6 mo. freeze); consequently those employees
    NOT INCLUDED in the plan (i.e. the 20% non-participants) DO NOT
    figure into the 21 month average. This effectively yields an REAL
    group average GREATER than 21 months.
    
    Am I missing something in the translation here?

    No;   the "real group average" (including unplanned employees) must
    average to 21 months.
    
    Example:
    
    10 people in the Bizibit Group:
    
    Plan 8 of them for 1990 Salary action.
    Do not plan the remaining 2 (although you should plan them for a
    1991 specific date, but no $$$ plan yet).    
    
    Your spend % number is x.y %.    Your 8 planned employees are planned
    so that the total of their increases equals the number:
    (.0xy)(total salary of the entire 10 people)
    Their planned dates must be such that when ALL 10 planned dates
    are averaged, the interval is 21 months.

    That's how it works here anyway.   ...but when has policy ever been
    implemented consistently across organizations?   ;-)

>    10 people in the Bizibit Group:
>    
>    Plan 8 of them for 1990 Salary action.
    
    I manage the Bizibit Group.  9 of the 10 members are doing fine;
    ratings are 1,2 or 3.  The tenth member, Otto B. Laidoff, is a
    distinct non-performer.  The "idle bit" in the group.
    
    I schedule everybody else for a raise ASAP, and compute the average
    (supposed to be 21) to be 16 months.  With a straight face I then "plan" 
    Otto B. Laidoff for a raise in late 1994.  A little arithmetic and >POOF< 
    the average is 21 months when ALL 10 planned dates are averaged.
    
    Long before 1994 either Otto will leave the group (and/or DEC) or *I*
    will leave the group (say, a promotion for managing the pay crisis :-)
    
    Can I get away with this?
    
      John

    >Can I get away with this?
    
    No.  You still haven't met your 80% metric.  One of your 1, 2, or 3
    performers is going to have to be pushed out into the following year. 
    Chances are, it will be the poor sucker who was expecting a raise in
    December.  I'd be interested to see the distribution of raises next
    year by month.  I think December will be a slow month.
    
    As for the 1994 plan, there's nothing in the online system that would
    prevent this; however Personnel and/or your management (of the Bizibit
    and NotsoBizibit Group) may demur in which case everyone will take a
    hit.  
    
    Grins

    re: .143
    
    Since the current salary plan does not provide for inputting
    of deferred dates for "NON-PARTICIPANTS" ......they cannot
    be included in the averaging formula.  At least this is the
    interpretation/direction given by our PA; plannned salary actions 
    (80% participant group) must average to the 21 months.
    
    Example 1 (Non-Particpants NOT Included)
    
    10 Employees
     8 Participate
       
       2 @ 18 mo.  =   36 (# 1 performers)
       4 @ 21 mo.  =   84 (# 2 performers)
       2 @ 24 mo.  =   48 (# 3 perfromers)
    		      ----
                      168/8 = 21 mo. ave    

    Here is my situation.Just got the word from my manager no raise
    planned in FY 90. Although Myself and several others are in the 90+
    range he said he put us in to max us out. It got squashed from above.
    But thats between him and I and the fence post.We are all 2 or better
    performers. 
    
    Then he says the District had extra money and they spread it around.
    
    Now what kinda SHi? is that ? The slogan "Pay for Performance" should be
    stricken from the DEC vocabulary as management obviously does not know
    what the words mean. I would assume that some of you wonder why I'm
    complaining if Im at 90+ in my range. Well if you have a max salary for
    a job you should be able to achieve it. I may sound greedy but lets be
    realistic. My past raises the last 4 years haven't kept up with
    inflation.
    
    If I was maxed out then I would not even complain.
    But Im not and it pisses me off. 
    
    Luckily Im transferring and can get shafted again, probably somewhere
    else. 
    
    
    	Mike Turro
    

    Re .148
    
    What's your problem? If you are at 90% plus in your range I'd expect
    one of two things to happen:
    
    	1, You'd pushed out of the FY90 salary plan (which appears to have
    	   happened).
    
    	or
    
    	2, You should get a promotion.
    
    Obviously your management doesn't think that you deserve a promotion.
    You should be arguing that with them not the pay raise. What they are
    saying to you is that "I don't believe you are ready for promotion
    yet". Period full stop. I'll say one thing for certain, if I had
    someone at the 90th percentile I'd either be promoting them or pushing
    them out of the FY90 salary plan.
    
    If you don't like it then you should vote with your feet. Either you
    over estimate yourself or your manager has screwed up, it's as simple
    as that.
    
    Re who's included in the 21 month calculation. In my organization all
    employees, both planned and unplanned are includedin the 21 month
    average calculation. Of course since it is the employees who have�� a
    range percentile ���above�� their performance level that get pu��shed
    out of the plan you'll find that��(w thos��w in the FY90 plan have an
    average frequen��cy less than �/o��21 months and those out of the plan
    have a frequency greate���k�� than 21 months. THe average of all
    together averages 21 months across a large organization.
    
    I have done salary planning this year and I genuinely believe th���at
    our organization h��as b���k��een able to implement the plan fairly. I
    also believe that the ��co�nstraints this year h���:�ave �really
    encourga�N�����ed pay for performance. Rathe��r than the old, let's
    give everybody x.y% and be done with salary planning.
    
    Dave
    
    PS Apologies for the line noise, scholar modems and NYNEX suck.
    

 Re: -.2,-.3

	A minor nit but worth mentioning. The salary planning year is CY90
not FY90. In our organization ALL employees are planned. Some are not planned
in CY90 but some are planned in CY91. The salary management system does allow
inputting of salary plans beyond CY90. The dollars are just not included in
the CY90 pool. Also, in our organization, 21 months is the average of all
employees, whether they are planned in CY90 or CY91.

    Re promotions vs. 'topping out':

    A sad fact of life at DEC is that there are certain "dead-end" job
    categories which are extremely difficult to ever climb out of.  

    Take, for instance, Principal Engineer (hardware or software).   The
    next 'logical' (technical) step is to Consulting Engineer.  This step
    is extremely difficult to take and is as much based on politics as it
    is on performance.  
    
    Given time, just about all engineers will eventually reach Principal. 
    From there, some will choose the management route.  A statistically
    very small minority will get to join the somewhat exclusive club of
    Consulting Engineers. 

    For the rest the only pragmatic aspiration becomes reaching the salary
    red-line.

    L.

>    Take, for instance, Principal Engineer (hardware or software).   The
>    next 'logical' (technical) step is to Consulting Engineer.  This step
>    is extremely difficult to take and is as much based on politics as it
>    is on performance.  
    
    And I might add, your present manager has virtually no say in you're
    being considered for promotion to Consulting Engineer.  The best you
    might expect from your manager is giving you the time off from your
    present duties to spend the two years or so of politics and external
    exposure that getting this promotion requires.  It takes recommendations
    from about four other Consulting or Senior Consulting Engineers just
    to be considered.  And if you have *no* Consulting Engineers on your site,
    or even your state, well you get the idea what dead end really means...

    In most cases, you end up in a adversary position with your manager, who
    regards your Consultant Campaign as a dilution of your work duties from
    his/her priorities.  

    We had a Senior Consultant visit our site recently to explain the
    rules of this exclusive club.  Turns out he never went through the
    process at DEC... he was hired in at that level to match his salary
    requirements from his other company.

    Sitting on the red line,       /Jud

>Sitting on the red line

The red line for Principal Software Engineer is a pretty respectable salary;
were I receiving it; my wife could quit work.

/john

    > 
    >                                Turns out he never went through the
    > process at DEC... he was hired in at that level to match his salary
    > requirements from his other company.
    >

    FWIW, this is no longer (directly) possible.  Instead, worthy external
    folks are hired into a 'no-mans-land' title of "Member, Technical
    Staff".  In theory, if the transition cannot be made to Consulting
    Engineer within two years of hire date (a virtual impossibility), then
    the individual must be reclassified as 'Principal'.

    In practice, however, this "down-grading" often doesn't happen - rather
    the individual simply stays in this category.  The interesting thing is
    that this category has no associated salary range.

    L.-who-has-three-of-em-in-his-group

>>>             <<< Note 942.153 by FLATNR::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Sitting on the red line

>>>The red line for Principal Software Engineer is a pretty respectable salary;
>>>were I receiving it; my wife could quit work.

>>>/john
    
    Not here in San Francisco Bay area. One could barely afford a condo
    if it was a single income family. 
    
    Anil

>        Not here in San Francisco Bay area. One could barely afford a condo
>    if it was a single income family. 

    Can't make condo payments with an income in the low 70K's?! That
    does not compute!
    
    Gail

	RE: .155 My friends in the Bay area will be shocked to find out
	they they have to give up their condos because the 40-50k a year
	they make isn't enough.

			Alfred

I think that what Anil was trying to say was that to qualify for the loan to
purchase in the Bay Area, you have to be making in the high $60Ks. 
Some of us here who have owned for years have enough equity built up
that that is not a problem.

Larry 

				    U.S. News                         LIVE WIRE

                      Response to salary planning question 
                    from 'Digital Quarterly Report Telecast

    During the recent "Digital Quarterly Report" DVN telecast, an 
    employee asked if the company has abandoned its traditional 
    annual review cycles and is "pushing them out" to an average of 
    15-21 months.  

    This is what LIVE WIRE learned from Corporate Compensation and 
    Benefits:

    Intervals for salary increases will average 18 months during this
    salary planning period. But that can be misleading since general
    explanations may not apply to all employees. 
 
    Current salary planning is being affected by two major changes. 
    One, which should be clear to everyone, is the six-month salary 
    delay. In effect, the delay, which ends in January, extends 
    employees who normally would have been on a 12-month review cycle 
    to an 18-month cycle. 

    The other change is not directly related to the salary delay, but it
    is equally significant. Managers are placing increased emphasis on
    employees' performance and position in salary range in determining both 
    the frequency and the amount of a salary increase. Therefore, some
    employees who have received annual increases in the past will continue
    to do so in the future. However, fewer employees will receive 12-month 
    salary increases.

An edited version of the LIVE WIRE article...straight from the source.
    
    John Wing
    LIVE WIRE coordinator
    * * * * *
    

               Response to salary planning question
              from 'Digital Quarterly Report' Telecast

  During the recent "Digital Quarterly Report" DVN telecast, an 
  employee asked if the company has abandoned its traditional 
  annual review cycles and is "pushing them out" to an average of 
  15-21 months.  

  This is what LIVE WIRE learned from Corporate Compensation and 
  Benefits:

  Intervals for employees receiving salary increases in 1990 will average 
  slightly greater than 18 months during this salary planning period. But 
  that can be misleading since general explanations may not apply to all 
  employees. 
 
  Current salary planning is being affected by two major changes. 
  One, which should be clear to everyone, is the six-month salary 
  delay. In effect, the delay, which ends in January, extends 
  employees who normally would have been on a 12-month review cycle 
  to an 18-month cycle. 
 
  The other change is not directly related to the salary delay, but it
  is equally significant. Managers are placing increased emphasis on
  employees' performance and position in salary range in determining both 
  the frequency and the amount of a salary increase. This will result in 
  longer than 18-month frequencies for some employees.

  (ed. note: this article was edited after it was originally posted.)

    Two or three days ago I swear I remember seeing another article in
    LIVEWIRE regarding "clarification" of the salary freeze issue.  Now, I
    cannot seem to locate the article.
    
    Does anyone else remember seeing it?  Does anyone have any idea why it
    is no longer there?

    RE: .161 There was one entered in error (by me). It was not a correct
    draft and I removed it to prevent confusion.

    		Alfred

    A three bedroom townhouse in the silicon valley costs $200K and up. A
    basic no-frills three bedroom house in the valley is high 200K. The
    salaries in the bay area are high, but that puts an above average engineer
    hired from a competing company in the upper 80/90 percentile of his/her
    range. This freezes their future raises. So we can no longer afford to
    hire good people from the competition and keep them.
    
    Anil.

    REF:  << Note 942.163>>
    
    >><< The salaries in the bay area are high, but that puts an above
    average engineer hired from a competing company in the upper 80/90
    percentile of his/her range. This freezes their future raises. So we
    can no longer afford to hire good people from the competition and keep
    them.>>
    
    We could hire good people from the competition if we could offer a
    similar salary PLUS a BIG profit sharing program (interdependent and
    equal for all, of course).
    
    
    

    Whew,  I haven't checked in for a couple of months, and it's taken me a
    while to catch up on this topic...

    An interesting thread runs through this note.  I'm struggling with the
    implications on a very personal level.  Somebody pointed out that if
    you own a house with a fixed mortgage, low salary increases don't hurt
    as much.  A major portion of your cost of living has been frozen.  Now
    flip this around.  If you don't own a house, your rent increases match
    the cost of living increases, which are outpacing your salary. 

    I've been watching engineers who don't own houses, and who are starting
    their families ( myself included ).  Some have moved away from MA. Some
    have moved away from the computer industry.  Some have stayed, and of
    them, I know some with negative cash flows.  My wife and I are stingy
    (frugal?), and while we may never own a house here, at least we aren't
    facing immediate debt or negative cash flow. ( My commute does steadily
    increases as we track the low-rent belt out from 495 ). 

    I'm not complaining ( well, only a little bit :-).  The reason we have
    trouble with the cost of living is because we have chosen a particular
    lifestyle.  No, we aren't spending it on VCRs and vacations; my wife
    and I both want to remain a single income family.  But our personal
    choices may just have placed us at the leading edge of a trend which
    others will be swept into over time.

    If this is a trend, not an anomoly, how will it affect the computer
    industry, and Digital in particular?
    
    Picture this.  Engineers who have been with the company since before
    the housing boom can comfortably weather salary freezes and low wage
    increases.  Engineers whose parents and freinds can't help them get
    into a house can make a go of it a while, then in 5-7 years they leave
    in frustration.  They may leave the state, leave Digital, or switch to
    management or marketing (this seems to provide a one-time salary jump,
    which can make the difference). 

    I think such a trend would be pretty nasty, people-wise.  We would be
    "using" new hires, without offering any possibility of a long-range
    technical track.  Maybe this is good; maybe people should only be
    engineers for 5-7 years, and then make room for new innovators.  But if
    it does become an obvious trend, we'll start to notice that young
    career-oriented people aren't going to pursue engineering degrees.
    They'll go straight for the MBAs.  Or at least they won't come to MA.

    Do you think I'm way off?  I just got back from a year on the GEEP,
    pursuing a Masters at Cornell University.  The guidance counselors
    there were telling CS undergrads to avoid accepting offers from
    computer companies in MA.  Being young, the undergrads weren't all
    listening.  Only the ones who were predisposed to long-range thinking
    were.  Hmm... could this be contributing to our "short range mentality?"

    Well, enough rambling.

    Peter, who still works in Marlboro, while he has moved moved
	   from Hudson, to Berlin, to Clinton, to Fitchburg...
    <<< Note 942.164 by ODIXIE::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF" >>>
                     -< equal profit sharing makes sense? >-

    REF:  << Note 942.163>>
    
    >><< The salaries in the bay area are high, but that puts an above
    average engineer hired from a competing company in the upper 80/90
    percentile of his/her range. This freezes their future raises. So we
    can no longer afford to hire good people from the competition and keep
    them.>>
    
    We could hire good people from the competition if we could offer a
    similar salary PLUS a BIG profit sharing program (interdependent and
    equal for all, of course).
    
    
    

    You sound like a manager. Why have a top scale when you can't attain
    it. Is there some problem with paying for performance at the top level.
    The only way to go from where I am is to management or support. And
    management is totally out of the question when they LIE right to your
    face and justify it with a bunch of DOUBLE TALK. If I was at the very 
    top I wouldn't complain but Im not and Ill continue to complain. Until
    managers do something about that I shall not rest.
    
    Mike
    

    The thing that gets my goat is salary compression.  I've been at DEC
    almost 6 years with a similar plight of less than cost of living index
    salary increases and an adj. mortgage (ouch).  I understand that things
    are tight and salary increases are trim.  But at the same time DEC
    must stay competitive in the college hire dept which means an annual
    increases of just about what the reviews are handing out.  So my 6
    years of hardwork gets me ever so slightly more than the typical
    Software I college hire.  What this means to me is that DEC wants me to
    leave in order take advantage of my 6 years experience.  That hurts.

    -ken

    

re                <<< Note 942.168 by STAR::STUMPF "Ken 381-1048" >>>

The effects  of salary compression are a way of life in this industry (probably
others as well)  and has been for the 20 or so years that I have working in it.

About  the  only  way  you  can  keep  ahead of the game is  to  keep  changing
jobs&companies  about  every 2 or 3 years or to keep advancing to higher  labor
grades within your own company.  

If you like the job you do and do not want to move into another position and if
you like the company for which you work, you are stuck with salary compression.
The logic behind compression is  that  the  hiring  managers  must offer higher
wages to attract new employees, but  can  keep  older ones who don't want to go
through the hassle of changing companies.

Dave

    
    Below is the "official" response I received regarding an Employee 
    Involvement @CFO suggestion I sent (as was also posted in the  DIGITAL
    conference note 942.45).  I've also sent two  additional
    related ones, one where I suggested equal profit  sharing for all
    employees, both of which would seem to be  answered...to the extent
    indicated.

    The hardcopy response I received is dated Jan 5, 1990 from Sara  Cope,
    Corporate Compensation, copying Rick Carwile and Bob Mulkey  (all
    @CFO).

    "Alan, what follows is the response of Corporate Compensation to  the
    Employee Involvement Suggestion from David Carnell.  This  response has
    been reviewed with both Rick and Bob.  Please call  if you have
    additional questions or comments.

    "Digital believes that the basis of company success lies in  individual
    excellence -- each employee striving to achieve their  highest
    performance level according to requirements of his or her  job. 
    Accordingly compensation programs have been designed to  reward each
    employee based on his or her achievement of job  requirements and
    goals.  This is the basis of our "Pay for  Performance" compensation
    philosophy.  Digital has no plans to  abandon this philosophy, since we
    believe that individual  performance can be motivated by the potential
    for individual  reward.

    "However, Digital also recognizes that rewards based solely on 
    individual accomplishment may not achieve some of the integration 
    outcomes the company is seeking.  As a result, some compensation 
    programs are tailored to accomplish different ends, namely the 
    recognition of outstanding performance of teams, groups, and the 
    entire company.

    "Currently, the company is also investigating a number of other  types
    of variable compensation programs that will allow for  rewards on
    company performance.  We are also looking at  alternative rewards which
    will allow more rewards for group or  team performance as well.

    "The most successful compensation programs rely on a mix of  rewards
    that take into consideration a wide variety of individual  motivating
    factors and a full awareness of the outcomes the  company is trying to
    achieve.  We will pursue this diversity of  programs in the future to
    maximize both individual and collective  performance."
    

    Well, I don't know about everybody else, but I certainly found that
    moving.
    
    No mention of any particular commitment to deliver the results of this
    ongoing investigation, huh?  No commitment at all.
    
    If this is the type of response that can be expected, frankly I'm
    disappointed.
    
    David, I applaud your initiative.  Too bad there wasn't more substance
    to the results.
    

    RE .70 and .71
    
    Yeah ... nice effort Dave, and the result is as I would expect from our
    marvelously progressive corporation. 
    
    I don't know how many people might remember a TV personality named: Al
    "Double-Talk" Kelly, but I'm certain he must have retired from show
    business and now works at DEC as a consultant to senior memo and speech
    writers. Al did his own stand up act, and was used in the 60's by
    "Candid Camera" to stage a few stunts. His claim to fame is that he can
    give a speech of any length you want and say absolutely nothing. 
    
    On second thought, maybe poor Al is on Skid Row now, having recognized
    that any one of 784 DEC managers could replace him in a second.
    
    sigh
    
    :^/
    
    
    

     
    Whew. I thought I was the only one who understood not a single sentence
    there.
    
    Semantically null response, if ever I saw one.
    
    You have to wonder why they wasted the phosphor.
    
    - Andy

re .170

Was  this  really  written  by    the    ghost   of  the  late  Hubert  Horatio
Humphries (aopolgies for spelling errors, if  any)?   Be darned if I can figure
out what was said, but then I never understood Hubie, either.  I connot believe
an employee of Digital would write that.  Must be a hoax.

This  appears  to be another example of  the  reasons  why  people  under  that
umbrella  title  of  "Personnel"  (which  includes,  in  most    organizations,
Compensation & Benefits) suffer the indignity of being looked  down upon by the
rest of the corporation.  That indignity is unfairly born  by  the  majority of
employees in "Personnel" who are hard working, intelligent people.  The "Comp &
Benes beenies" now have another unwarranted load.

The  author  and  the  reviewers  should consider a refresher course in English
Writing 101  to improve (or, rather, create) writing style skills.  Then again,
perhaps there was nothing to say, after all.

Sigh....

re: .171-.174...

The message in .170 is clear, albeit a bit wordy.  Subsequent replies
would seem to have more of an objection with the message than its
alleged lack of content.
Let me take a stab at translating....

>    "Digital believes that the basis of company success lies in  individual
>    excellence -- each employee striving to achieve their  highest
>    performance level according to requirements of his or her  job. 
>    Accordingly compensation programs have been designed to  reward each
>    employee based on his or her achievement of job  requirements and
>    goals.  This is the basis of our "Pay for  Performance" compensation
>    philosophy.  Digital has no plans to  abandon this philosophy, since we
>    believe that individual  performance can be motivated by the potential
>    for individual  reward.

Each of us gets paid for what each of us does according to metrics
assigned to our jobs.  Recall these requirements and goals are (or ought
to be) negotiable between manager and employee.  You do what has been agreed,
you get paid.  You do it better, you get paid more (in theory, but 
many disagree that this is actual practice).  The good of the whole is 
presumed to be built from the good of each of us.

>    "However, Digital also recognizes that rewards based solely on 
>    individual accomplishment may not achieve some of the integration 
>    outcomes the company is seeking.  As a result, some compensation 
>    programs are tailored to accomplish different ends, namely the 
>    recognition of outstanding performance of teams, groups, and the 
>    entire company.

This seems to address exactly what David requested, recognition that
the good of the whole can be better served by departing from some
individual metrics.  The system in place now that reflects this is that
if your group does better than other groups, your group gets more money
to distribute as raises to the members of the group.  Thus an ostensibly
mediocre performer in a well-performing group can do better (financially)
than some good performers in less-well-performing groups.

>    "Currently, the company is also investigating a number of other  types
>    of variable compensation programs that will allow for  rewards on
>    company performance.  We are also looking at  alternative rewards which
>    will allow more rewards for group or  team performance as well.

This looks EXACTLY like what David suggested - bonuses based on team or group
performance beyond expected goals.

>    "The most successful compensation programs rely on a mix of  rewards
>    that take into consideration a wide variety of individual  motivating
>    factors and a full awareness of the outcomes the  company is trying to
>    achieve.  We will pursue this diversity of  programs in the future to
>    maximize both individual and collective  performance."
    
"We aren't locked into any particular approach.  We may consider your
suggestion, but we have other things in mind too."

Keep in mind that there is a continuum of ways to compensate based on
individual to corporate performance.  Why not reward groups
or other corporate segments based on their own performance?
Why should everyone get a share of corporate profits if they, or their group,
or their business line didn't contribute proportionately to it?
If you're mainly concerned that invisble, altruistic contributors will 
be overlooked, then recognize that the tradeoff is between not rewarding
deserving people and over-rewarding non-deserving people (again, at the
expense of real contributors).

- tom powers]

    Just as an aside, I've heard nothing about the Stock Option
    program suspension being lifted. Anybody know anything about
    that?
    
    thanks - Dave

	I don't know, there's something about the implied direction towards
    group or "collective" compensation and away from individual compensation
    in the memo posted in reply #.170 that bothers me, but I can't quite put
    my finger on it.

	Perhaps one reason for my apprehension is that any sort of group
    compensation is ultimately controlled and apportioned by the management
    of the particular group, as opposed to any sort of corporate-wide body.
    In a recent "state of the group" address, our site manager announced
    the bad news (that Digital must cut costs, and that reviews would be
    pushed much farther out than usual, etc.,), followed by the good news
    (that our organization was among the few organizations which actually
    made money as opposed to losing money last year).

	When asked if any of this "money" could be transferred to raises
    for the employees of our group, the answer was an around about "no".
    When asked what the "money" would be applied to, the answer was unclear:
    on the one hand, the money could go to training and new equipment needs,
    but on the other hand, we had just been read the usual riot act about not
    spending money on training, equipment, and other such things, so it wasn't
    real clear what (if anything) the money would be used for.  Regardless of
    what is done with the money, it is clear that the employees of the group
    will have little or no say in the decision making process.

	At this point, one begins to wonder why anyone should bother killing
    themselves working hard to better the collective "group", when such success
    is never realized by the individual members of the group, but instead is
    only truly realized by the managers of the group who control the money.
    Doesn't this sound strangely familiar?  Isn't this how corruption in a
    communist society works where the fruits of the "collective" are hoarded
    by the respective elites?

	Anyway, regardless of whether the successful collective group managers
    are altruistic in the way they disperse the resulting compensation and/or
    benefits to the employees or not, the fact remains that by operating in
    this fashion, the overall corporation continues to encourage precisely
    the sort of "empire building" phenomenon which has caused so many problems
    when it comes to building virtual teams across the corporation (see note
    #915 for more details).  It also continues to ignore the efforts of those
    individuals who choose to buck the trends and wear the corporate hat when
    the situation warrants it.

				   -davo

 This is a rewording of .170 as I see it, so that readers who do not speak
 English as their first language can understand what's going on. Note the
 difference in length between this rewording and the original. Please forward
 this note onto the author of .170 if you like.

 "Digital believes it is in the company's and the individual's interests
  to reward high achievers. This is known as 'Pay for performance'
  
  Digital intends to supplement this with other schemes which will hopefully
  reward groups who do well too.

  We think doing this is a good idea."


	Craig (who isn't in the campaign for Clear English yet, but who's
		thinking about it after reading 942.170)

    Re: Rewarding groups
    Success has too many parents, defeat is usually an orphan.
    I have been involved with staging some very visible and successful demos
    in the past few years. At the demo, all kinds of DIGITAL managers show
    up and pat on their backs for the success of the demo - the very
    managers who made ABSOLUTELY no contribution to the demo, the product or
    the idea in terms of resources, time or money, and in certain cases they 
    politically campaigned against the product and the idea during its
    conception and development.
    
    How would group rewards succeed under such circumstances?
    
    Anil.

re: -1,

	Good point.  That reminds me of the spring of '88 State of the
    Company demo up in Merrimack, NH, in which I and several others in the
    (now defunct probably) MR02 Benchmark And Demo center (BAD) put together
    an OLTP "TPS-Monitor" (among other things) to demonstrate the latest DEC
    OLTP offerings.

	Here we were at a highly visible gathering of all of DEC's top
    executives including Ken Olsen, and we had to be there because we wrote
    the software, configured the distributed demo systems among other things,
    and were needed to make sure the software didn't break.  As soon as the
    demos looked to be working, however, we were very rudely ushered out of
    the auditorium and back down into the dungeon below by the head of our
    demo group (who up to that time had been a fairly nice guy).

	Meanwhile, as we all twiddled our thumbs in the basement (wearing our
    best suits even - what a waste), our evil group leader (who played little
    or no part in the design or programming of the actual demo project),
    stayed above to answer questions and brag to all of the managers about
    the software.  Before the State of the Company Address was even over, our
    group leader had landed an even better job within another unsuspecting
    group within Digital (we did celebrate that event since at least we were
    rid of him).

				    -davo

    What's an "integration outcome"?
    
    -- Mike

    RE:  .180 and it's relation to .175
    
    YES .180!! (.175 pay attention here). You were a RISK TAKER!. You
    worked your little butsky off to produce a result. If it failed, the
    chances were that your head (well, career anyways) could have gone the
    same way. Your credit-taking manager stuck his/her head in front of the
    powers that be (while you were in the dungeon), took the credit, and is
    now a "Super_Manager_In_Charge_Of_More_Than_They_Used_To_Be". (And
    probably at a higher salary). You, on the other hand, are still a
    worker bee at the same pay level with a pay increase which does not (in
    your mind anyway) compensate you for the effort you exerted.
    
    As another example: In the Northeast part of the country, we asked for
    "volunteers" of our "best sales people" to "take a chance" and join a
    sales organization (Digital Workstation Team [DWT]) to make us
    successful in selling workstations. (This was a brain child of an
    Area Sales Manager who has since left the company. His commitment to 
    it was genuine, and I think he was right on the mark in terms of
    understanding what we needed to do to move workstations.) 
    
    These people (who volunteered):
    
    	o  left a "known organization"
    	o  left a somewhat "known future" (do x, y, and z, and 
    	   you'll be OK)
    	o  Joined a group that had never existed before and thus
    	   had no track record or well defined success criteria
    	o  Joined a group responsibile for selling a new product
    	   which also had no track record
    	o  Joined a group to sell a product whose future would be
    	   VERY dependent on our ability to port software to it
    	   (lots of promises with no guarantee it would happen)
    	o  Other risks
    
    In MY opinion these people have not been compensated for taking the
    risks they took (which I view to be quite high) I know some of these
    people personally and know what they've gone through to make their
    numbers. 
    
    People who did NOT take this risk (and chose to stay in the
    "known environment") are being rewarded "AS WELL" or "BETTER" than
    people who left that group to take a risk for Digital. In all fairness,
    the DWT's didn't all make their number, but when you consider what they
    DID do (and the adversity they faced) I have to consider them as being
    'highly aggressive' and real 'entrepreneurs'.
    
    Don't talk to me about "Pay for Performance". To me, paying someone for
    performance takes into consideration the size of the hill someone has
    to climb, the obstacles in the way, and the progress they make toward
    achieving the goal. 
    
    In my experience, people who climb huge, steep, hills don't get paid
    any better, or get any better raises, than people who are walking
    around on flat ground and who are in no particular hurry to get
    anyplace.
    
    
    /se
    
    
    
    
    

    
    Ref: 942.170
    
    Sara Cope @CFO says in her official reponse to me that there IS pay for
    performance.  She also invites comments.  So, boys and girls, if you
    have comments on pay for performance not really being "real", let's
    take Sara up on her offer to accept input -- send her an electronic
    memo (or forward your note from this topic).  Speak up, get involved,
    make a difference!
    

    Clarification: In my previous note #180, where I complained that all
    kinds of managers take credit for the success of the demo, let me
    clarify something. My manager and her manager and the manager's manager
    committed all resources for this demo. EVERYONE including the line
    managers worked VERY VERY long hours. They deserve the credit. My
    problem is with all other kinds of managers from all other kinds of
    organizations who show up at the demo, claim credit for it and are seen 
    around the booth for the entiriety of the tradeshow. They even drown
    the line managers (i.e 1st, 2nd and 3rd level), who actually made the
    show happen by having enough faith in us by commiting scarce resources.
    
    Anil.  
                                    

re Note 942.175 by REGENT::POWERS:

> Each of us gets paid for what each of us does according to metrics
> assigned to our jobs.  Recall these requirements and goals are (or ought
> to be) negotiable between manager and employee.  You do what has been agreed,
> you get paid.  

        There is a big difference between "are" and "ought to be".

        Raises are not simply a function of how well the individual
        measures against the goals agreed upon by the individual and
        the manager.  In many cases, that may have very little to do
        with it. In the groups with which I am familiar, the relative
        salary increase of individuals is determined mainly by a
        group-wide laddering exercise conducted by the managers. 
        Thus you are really rated relative to the performance of
        others and your perceived general value to the group, and not
        against the written statement of objectives in your review.

        How much and how well you worked certainly plays a part in
        this, but perhaps it's only a minor part.

        Bob

re: .185,

        In the group I am currently in, performance is based more upon
    time spent with the group than anything else.  It is another one of
    those lovely management formulas which is reasoned along the line that
    the newer members of the group cannot possibly know what they are doing
    in their job yet, so they almost always get a 3 or below.  Members who
    have been with the group longer most likely know more about their jobs
    and they get the 2's.  Finally, those who have been there the longest
    are most likely to know their jobs and they generally get the 1's.

	Neat huh?  Why even bother with a performance review, just write
    a simple DCL procedure to calculate a person's review:

$ INQUIRE years_in_group "How many years have you worked in this group"
$ performance =  5 - 'years_in_group'
$ IF (review .GT. 0) THEN GOTO review_done
$ performance = 1
$review_done:
$ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT "You have been rated a performance level of ''performance'"
$ EXIT

				   -davo

There seems to be an idea that Digital's compensation is based on pay for
performance. So far so good. Who disagrees that we should pay the best
performers more, that the worst (through stupidity, ignorance, laziness,
or malice) should be penalised, and that the outstanding contributors should
be recognised by substantial rewards?

All this is motherhood/apple pie. It's "architecture" - what we aim to
deliver. Now comes the interesting, challenging part: how do we IMPLEMENT
this concept?

The right way, I feel, has to involve admitting that performance in different
jobs must be assessed differently. Another important principle is that there
must ALWAYS be a substantial element of subjective opinion, of judgment. A
manager can NEVER say "I will put the agreed numbers into this algorithm, and
accept the resulting assessment without adjustment". That is because the
manager is responsible for the assessment and the remuneration, which in
turn arises from the manager's responsibility for delivering his team's goals.

What we actually see is that the "business school, metrics-limited" attitude,
which Ken Olsen criticizes, holds sway. 

re Note 942.175 by REGENT::POWERS:

> Each of us gets paid for what each of us does according to metrics
> assigned to our jobs.  Recall these requirements and goals are (or ought
> to be) negotiable between manager and employee.  You do what has been agreed,
> you get paid.  

So the scenario is:

	1. Manager and employee meet to agree/negotiate goals and metrics.

	2. Employee goes off and works smart and hard, keeping an eye on
	   his/her goals and metrics.

	3. Manager and employee meet again in 6 months, check off the
	   goals achieved and measurements, and agree on the degree of
	   success.

	4. Manager feeds in some unilateral input related to the employee's
	   style, perception by others (especially other managers), attitude,
	   etc.

	5. Manager (alone) takes these ingredients and writes a report. May
	   or may not include a recommendation for increased reward (at
	   discretion).

	6. A bunch of managers meet and discuss reviews for a whole lot of
	   employees. Perhaps there is a fixed pot. The merits of, say, someone
	   who needs to catch up are balanced against those of someone who
	   is doing superbly, and someone who has made the group look good.

	7. Some numbers are agreed and they all go off home.

	8. Manager briefs employee on the decision, and the rise (if any).
	   Finds excellent justification for everything that was done.

This reminds me of the way science is done in practice. If you read books
about it, you see that scientists gather facts, build hypotheses, test these
against experiments, and arrive at the truth. What really happens is that
scientists look around them a lot, get fired up about something, get a bright
idea, and do their damnedest to prove that it's true. If they can make it
stand up pretty well, they write it up in the approved way. (Hence the term
"science fiction"). 8-)

What's wrong with the above scenario? Well, essentially that the manager is
afraid to take responsibility for saying "I know that X is a good performer
and Y isn't doing his share, and Z is adequate but could do a lot better
with a bit more effort". Metrics are used as a crutch, an excuse for ducking
that responsibility. We all realise that with a few exceptions, it's
really hard to encapsulate someone's work in a few one-dimensional numbers.
Salesmen have their budget ("quota"), but that has to be negotiated up and
down quite frequently if it is to be realistic. If budget gets raised
and lowered depending on external conditions, the measurement process
rapidly converges on pure subjective judgment anyway. If it doesn't, a lot
of salesmen are going to miss their budget, get disgruntled, and move on.

How about support people? Well, when I worked in the UK Telephone Support Centre
I saw how metrics worked. When I joined, we were averaging about 3-4 calls per
day per specialist (if that doesn't seem much, remember we were supporting
VMS and about 50 layered products with virtually no training). Each call was
different, mostly new; we researched each call, learned about DCL or MACRO32
or BASIC or system services... and solved the customer's problem. We also
imparted a heck of a lot of information along the way, recommended new products,
gave advice, and chatted. Yes, just chatted! If the first fix wasn't good, no
sweat! The customer called back, got the same specialist, and we tried again
until it was fixed.

Happy customer, tired but happy specialist. Extremely
angry management in Geneva, telling our manager that "Colorado people close
10-15 calls per day: you people's productivity is 30% what it should be".
Solution: close the call whenever you hang up the phone. No advice, no chat,
just sling the fix and pick up another call. Productivity soared! Within
three months we were doing 10-12 calls per day too. The manager was promoted -
he had fixed the problem.

The customers HATED it! First they rang up, and had to go through the third
degree, giving all sorts of admin details to people carefully picked for their
total ignorance of computers and software. After a while a specialist rang them
back and gave them a fix. The call was closed. Then they discovered the fix
didn't work. Call back - only to go through the admin nausea again, and then
have a DIFFERENT specialist call back... and suggest the original fix! Would
you like this?

That's just a single example of what a one-dimensional metric can do. It's
not just us: AT&T measure operators' average time dealing with each customer;
if it exceeds a certain limit, they get FIRED! Essentially for being too helpful.
If you wondered why operators are brisk and impersonal, that helps to explain
it. 

/Tom

re .187

Thank you, Tom!

> What we actually see is that the "business school, metrics-limited" attitude,
> which Ken Olsen criticizes, holds sway. 

You know, I've never worked anywhere that had longer goal sheets (more items,
more details). There are two ways to manage an organization. One is to qualify,
quantify, track, and measure. For better or worse, this is how we now manage at
Digital. Damn the laundry list. Whatever happenned to achievement through
motivation? Whatever happenned to leadership? Whatever happenned to management
tracking performance not just by numbers, but by being INVOLVED?

"Goals" and "metrics" have become a substitute --- no, a REPLACEMENT -- for
effective communications between management and staff. Here, at Digital, metrics
have relieved management of the need to understand the dynamics of their own
organizations.

When I listen to what Ken has to say, I think, "God, what a great company to
work for. What a wonderful opportunity to contribute. Here's someone who's a
millionaire many times over, runs a company of 125,000+ people, and still has
the directness, candor, motivation, and clarity of purpose he possessed when he
first started Digital."

Then I see how we run our company. I see what we do to our people.

And it breaks my heart.

/Peters

>Note 942.187             Have salaries been thawed yet?               187 of 188
>COUNT0::WELSH "Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant" 111 lines   9-FEB-1990 06:56
>              -< Metrics are often used to avoid responsibility >-
>
>Another important principle is that there
>must ALWAYS be a substantial element of subjective opinion, of judgment.
 
Absolutely. This is the problem of hiding behind new performance grading
systems (i.e., JEC); they assume and/or pretend that different people in
different functions can be objectively evaluted.  This assuming that managers
are of course objective in the first place.  Haven't met a totally objective
human yet, not even at Digital.


>re Note 942.175 by REGENT::POWERS:
>
>So the scenario is:
>
>	1. Manager and employee meet to agree/negotiate goals and metrics.
>	2. Employee goes off and works smart and hard, keeping an eye on
>	   his/her goals and metrics.

Let's see: did that. Goals changed, metrics changed, managers changed, jobs
changed.  Goals not updated or reviewed. Result: waste of time.

>	3. Manager and employee meet again in 6 months, check off the
>	   goals achieved and measurements, and agree on the degree of
>	   success.

See above. Once a year, ask for performance review. Manager asks for my written
input as to goals accomplished (did they forget?) then adds a paragraph of
generalities and assigns a "score".  Result: no real feedback, no plan to 
progress.

>	4. Manager feeds in some unilateral input related to the employee's
>	   style, perception by others (especially other managers), attitude,
>	   etc.

Wrong. Manager feeds in unilateral input: manager's perceptions.

>	6. A bunch of managers meet and discuss reviews for a whole lot of
>	   employees. Perhaps there is a fixed pot. The merits of, say, someone
>	   who needs to catch up are balanced against those of someone who
>	   is doing superbly, and someone who has made the group look good.

And someone who makes the boss feel good.

>	8. Manager briefs employee on the decision, and the rise (if any).
>	   Finds excellent justification for everything that was done.

Oh really?  After waiting 24 months, I found a 5% bump in my paycheck. After
one month, still no word from manager.  It is hard to understand how a manager
could have so little respect, decency, manners, etiquette, or guts as to not
let an employee know the reasons let alone the result of salary planning.


>Note 942.188             Have salaries been thawed yet?               188 of 188
>SVBEV::VECRUMBA "Infinitely deep bag of tricks"      30 lines   9-FEB-1990 12:08
>
>When I listen to what Ken has to say, I think, "God, what a great company to
>work for. What a wonderful opportunity to contribute. 
>
>Then I see how we run our company. I see what we do to our people.
>
>And it breaks my heart.

Amen, brother.

-paul
     

    There are two kinds of managers:
    
    - The ones who have a vision, depend on people for implementing it and
      trust, motivate and drive their people to be their best to reach that
      vision. They are the leaders and they do well in startup groups.
    
    - The ones who depend on the process to reach the goals. They create
      more processes, when things are not going good. They are the
      bureaucrats and they do very well in a mature group.
    
    Each group needs a different type of a manager at different 
    points in the organization life cycle. Some individuals do well
    under the leaders, others hate living dangerously and like bureacratic
    managers. If you hate DIGITAL, it may not be the management - you may
    be in a group which is not in your favorite organization lifecycle.
    
    Anil.

    re: -1	You mean after 24 months you actually got a pay raise.
    After 24 months, 18 yrs in the company, job re-evaluation by JEC and a
    upper management directive that only 80% of those employees in our
    organization are allowed to receive pay raises no matter what their
    performance is I was told I have to wait another 12 months (3 years
    total) to see if I qualify for a pay raise. At that time my priority
    will put me in the 80% group according to my manager.  My thoughts
    about this process will not be put in this notes file other that let it
    be known that my feelings about this topic are highly negative. On a
    scale of 1-10 (10 being highly positive) they are about a -1000. Life
    is becoming so rewarding for an individuals efforts I could screem.
    
    Have a NICE day.
    
    AL ROOT
    

    Re .-1
    
    I don't understand your point of view. Obviously your management
    believes that you at the correct, or more likely, above the correct
    position in your salary range. If you disagree then document to them
    why you disagree. You won't get anywhere simply by whining that you
    haven't had a pay rise for x years.
    
    The salary increase process is based upon putting people at a place
    in the salary range that matches their performance to the job. In
    addition there are metrics around percentage participation and spend
    numbers. It strikes me that if you are not getting a pay raise after 2
    years and you'll be considered at 3 years then it is nothing to do with
    the metrics. It's because your manager believes that you are overpaid
    and is waiting for the salary ranges to catch up with your pay.
    
    If you disagree you can document why, if your manager doesn't agree
    with you you either have to accept that or go find a job where the
    employer agrees with you as to how much you should be paid.
    
    Dave
        

    re .190

>   There are two kinds of managers:
>   
>   - The ones who have a vision, depend on people for implementing it and
>     trust, motivate and drive their people to be their best to reach that
>     vision. They are the leaders and they do well in startup groups.
>   
>   - The ones who depend on the process to reach the goals. They create
>     more processes, when things are not going good. They are the
>     bureaucrats and they do very well in a mature group.
>   
>   Each group needs a different type of a manager at different 
>   points in the organization life cycle.

    I agree on the types, but not the conclusion. As an organization grows
    and gets more mature, it does need more administrative wherewithall at
    its helm. And "processes" are necessary to maintiain order.

    But there's no reason that the person with vision can't have a financial
    right-hand-person to keep them "honest." And even "great administrators"
    have been known to posess vision.

    The manager who does not have vision, who depends on process to "pass",
    not "fail" -- as opposed to "excel" -- will eventually fail, along with
    their organization.

    A manager without vision

     -	can't see where they're going
     -  shouldn't be leading

    /Peters

> < Note 942.193 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA "Infinitely deep bag of tricks" >

>    But there's no reason that the person with vision can't have a financial
>    right-hand-person to keep them "honest." And even "great administrators"
>    have been known to posess vision.
>
>    The manager who does not have vision, who depends on process to "pass",
>    not "fail" -- as opposed to "excel" -- will eventually fail, along with
>    their organization.
>
>    A manager without vision
>     -	can't see where they're going
>     -  shouldn't be leading

....and there's no reason that the "manager" has to be the person with 
the vision.  Why can't a strong technical person have, as his or her "right 
hand person," a capable administrator to manage the processes required
to achieve the vision?  [and here I mean "technical" in the broader sense
of "knowledge of technique," be it finance, marketing, sales, manufacturing,
engineering, whatever]

- tom powers]

RE: .194

> ....and there's no reason that the "manager" has to be the person with 
> the vision.  Why can't a strong technical person have, as his or her "right 
> hand person," a capable administrator to manage the processes required
> to achieve the vision?  

I enjoyed such a relationship in another life, and I sorely miss it!
(Although actually, the manager and I shared the vision).  Among other
things, such a relationship allows a talented technical person to really
contribute fully to a project without being forced into a management role
(for which, often, the technical person has neither the aptitude nor the
inclination).  Sadly, such positions are rare out here in the field.

re .194,.195

I agree that the key here is management and staff sharing a vision. I do
think the manager must always have the vision.

re .195

When you bemoaned the lack of "sharing of vision" positions in the field, you
were slightly off the mark. It's a lack of managers with whom you can share a
vision -- or who have a vision worth sharing.

/Peters

	I hope you're not a DCL programmer, Davo.  :^)

-mike z

	I have heard, from a relatively reliable source, that the wage
    freeze will be reinstated at the beginning of March.

-mike z

    re .198
    
    For those of us who are already looking at a ludicrous 30 months, ANY
    further delay is not acceptable.  I wonder if this is Digital's way of
    encouraging attrition while still being able to claim "no layoffs"...
    
    Jon

    re .196
    
     What does THAT mean? An unacceptable 18-24 month freeze is now
    extended for 24-30?
    
     As someone once told me
     "The beatings WILL continue until MORALE improves."
    
    I hear the cash cow and it is me.
    -Mike Z. (the other)

re: .197,

>                                  -< re .186 >-
>	I hope you're not a DCL programmer, Davo.  :^)

	Oops!  I changed a variable name from "review" to "performance" but
    neglected to change it globally.  Try this one instead (if this works,
    we can send it out to USMC):

				    -davo

$ INQUIRE years_in_group "How many years have you worked in this group"
$ performance =  5 - 'years_in_group'
$ IF (performance .GT. 0) THEN GOTO review_done
$ performance = 1
$review_done:
$ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT "You have been rated a performance level of ''performance'"
$ EXIT

.199>    For those of us who are already looking at a ludicrous 30 months, ANY
.199>    further delay is not acceptable.  I wonder if this is Digital's way of

 	Please, remember that this in *unconfirmed*.

	In a few weeks, we'll all know for sure if it's true.

-mike z

    Re .198
    
    I fail to understand how the wage freeze could be reinstated at the
    beginning of March. Employees have been planned throughout 1990. Some
    employees got pay raises in January and February. People scheduled
    for pay raises in 1990 are already at 18 months plus. I could see
    a minor uproar if the Jan/Feb people got raises and the March-December
    people didn't.
    
    I've extracted your note and sent it our local personnel department
    asking if there could be possibly be any truth to this rumour.
    
    Dave

Me thinks that it would have been better to not have posted the rumor than 
to start alot of people off complaining, etc, etc.
Lets not feed the rumor mill....

- George

	Re: .204

	Well, hopefully either Dave's inquiry with Personnel or my inquiry
also with Personnel (or any of the several hundred others that have probably
been sent in already :-) will come back with a definitive "no".

							-craig

>	Well, hopefully either Dave's inquiry with Personnel or my inquiry
> also with Personnel (or any of the several hundred others that have probably
> been sent in already :-) will come back with a definitive "no".
    
    Of course, "no" may only mean "Craig, we've been told to answer `no'
    when asked this question".

Is the lack of replies for the last 12 days a suggestion that personnel is
NOT denying this rumor?

At DEC, no news is usually bad news, especially when it comes to informing 
the employees.

    It's more likely that they can't be bothered to deny yet another
    rumour.
    
    	- Andy

	As one expecting a raise *this* month (already had my review),
    the lack of a reply also has me wondering.

-mike z

    I don't know about the rumor but my increase made it through last
    week, 16 months since my last one.

    Gail

    re .-1
    
    >XCUSEME::KOSKI
    
    I'm curious, how did you manage to swing a raise at less than 18 months
    since your last one?
    
    Dave

	Re: .207

	My apologies, I was remiss in posting the reply.  After I sent the
question to personnel and put my "I've sent off a question" reply in here,
I thought about it more and realized there was no way that personnel could
say "yes, that rumor is correct".  If the rumor wasn't correct, they would,
of course, deny it.  If the rumor was correct but the policy hadn't yet been
announced, they'd have to deny it to keep from pre-announcing it accidently.
If the rumor was correct but the "locals" didn't know about it yet, then they'd
deny it believing that the rumor was incorrect.  So, it didn't suprise me that
their reply was "no, we don't know anything about that."

	I'm not trying to put down Personnel with this, since I understand
their situation.  What was wrong was *my* expectation that they could give
a yes/no answer to this that would be definitive and believable to the rest
of us.

								-craig

    re .211  I don't know why it was 16 months...it just showed up in
    my check (I was shocked) 
    
    Gail

Re: .211, .213

Top performers can get raises more frequently than every 12 months, which
means the raise can in in fewer than 18 months after allowing for the freeze.

				-- Bob

Well, Gail, as the first person to have received a pay raise since the
freeze, you do realize that you're morally obligated to take all
contributers to DIGITAL.NOTE to dinner, right?

Martin.

    RE .214 Top Performers? I think they should get inreases...but I'm just
    a mortal average working peon. 
    
    re .215 sharing my raise...I'll break out the bottled water (all I can
    afford)
    
    Gail 

RE: .216

	Make mine Poland Springs please Gail.. Lemon flavour.. :-)

							mike

Let me see I will have 12 years with DEC in July 1990.

I was rated a 2 at my last P.A. (bye the way that was 15 months ago)

I have been at this job title for 6 years.

The last 8 years I have averaged a 2.2 on my P.A.'s

I am sitting at less than 36% of my pay range.

Yesterday I was told that Because of the 6 months freeze my next pay raise
will not be until Jan. 1991. (my last one was Jan. 1989) That adds up to
TWO years between pay raises.

My first 6 years with DEC I averaged 19% per year in raises.

The last 6 years I have averaged 3.2% per year.

Inflation for the last 5 years has averaged 4.45% (this is from a article in
                                                        the Detroit Free Press)
Taking inflation into account I have basically taken a pay cut every year for
the last 4 years.

Time to look for a Job?

	RE: -.1 OK, now, does anyone still believe that Digital pays
	for performance? Why? Does anyone really believe that if they
	work hard and do a good job that the companies appreciation
	will show up in their pay check? If so I've got a bridge back
	in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about.


			Alfred

	PS: Obviously money isn't the main reason I work here. :-) Still
	I could use a few dollars more each week.

    
    	RE:-2
    	Well, it's good to know I'm not the only one waiting two years
    	for a raise which will probably be ~3-4%, etc.
    	But hey, I've been here for only 10 years...  ;-|

    
    	Speaking as a mgr/supv who has the 'power' to determine the
    	timing and amount of raises, (based on guidelines of course),
    	I can assure you that pay for performance is STILL the issue.
    	I work fairly within the system to pay top performers the
    	top of the range.  I work also within the system to pay the
    	rest of the staff such that, based on performance over time,
    	they are appropriately paid.  The guidelines are fairly rigid
    	but there is some room for latitude on the part of the manager.
    	All plans are reviewed at least one level higher than the
    	planner however and this takes some of the personal touch out
    	of the system for good/bad reasons.  If you think that you are
    	being treated unfairly, (range 36 after 4-5 years in the same
    	job code with 2.2 average performance sounds like unfair to
    	me..), you do have recourse through the system.  Sometimes it
    	takes courage/tenacity/obnoxiousness/etc.. to get results but
    	if it is your paycheck you are dealing with I believe you have
    	the proper motivation to do something about it.  Learn what the
    	channels are for change and work them....
    
    	Bryan

	RE: .221 Is the best performer in your group the highest paid?
	Can you state for a fact that that is always the case?  Do you
	have people in your group doing better work for less money than
	people in other groups? If no to the first question or yes to the
	second than "pay for performance" is an ideal not a reality.Sure I 
	believe that many if not most managers try to pay relative to 
	performance. BUT in absolute terms I don't believe we have too many 
	people being what they are worth in the marketplace.

	I do not believe that paying good salaries in a corporate goal.
	I've been hearing "competitive salaries" as being the goal though.
	This generally means competitive with people like Prime, DG, and
	Wang. It doesn't mean competitive with what our customers are
	paying for people. It means "better than getting layed off".

	I wonder if there isn't some sort of contradictory message in
	saying we want top of the line, best in the industry product
	but we want to pay more or less average salaries to get it.

			Alfred

    The current "pay for performance" system depends on too many factors
    working out *exactly right* for a person to be adequately compensated.
    If you work in a group that does not meet the distribution criteria
    used by the compensation folks, and if your manager is not willing to
    spend the time and fight for every single pay raise, then you *will*
    fall victim to the system.  Your pay increase will not keep you ahead
    of inflation, or keep up with the external job market.
    
    If you work in the field, then you have options.  Customers are buying
    are computers right and left (even if we don't make as much money on
    each one anymore) and there is a terrible lack of skilled technical
    people within many of these customers.  It's fairly easy to negotiate
    a salary that would cover the last few years of DEC shortfall and pay
    a little more even on top of that.  If money is your main criteria,
    then this is the way to go.
    
    I don't know how much luck anyone would have these days trying to jump
    ship to a competitor in the computer industry.  Most of these are in
    worse shape than Digital, and you would have to bring some powerful
    skills to the table for you to be attractive to them.  There are a few
    companies out there (I won't name names) who have hired Digital people
    merely for their competitive information, and then forced them out
    shortly afterwards (always with a plausible excuse, of course).  This
    is the trap to watch out for.
    
    Finally, there are a number of people who have flexible skill sets who
    are making it as contractors, both in agencies and as independents.
    It can be very lucrative, but it is also a line of work that requires
    some business savvy, since you are in essence running your own company.
    It is not for everyone.  One of the reasons artists pay big bucks to
    agents is that creative people are often poor businesspeople; the same
    may hold true for computer types.
    
    As long as people are only willing to consider internal remedies to
    their pay problems, the company has pretty much a free hand in setting
    the pay scales, and they know it.  Given the situation where Digital
    needs to actually reduce headcount (get rid of employees), we can
    probably expect the current pay situation to continue.
    
    Geoff
    

    	To those who gripe and then ask "Is it time to look for another
    	job?", I say YES, it is time for you to look for another job!
    	Save DEC the trouble and expense of buying you out.  Help 
    	reduce our headcount.
    
    	There is a system here.  If you cannot get the system to work
    	for you, or if you cannot work within the system, perhaps you
    	are working within the wrong system.
    
    	When faced with the real implications of the question
    	"Time to look for another job?", things quickly come into 
    	perspective, and the question is unmasked as the rhetoric
    	it actually is.
    
    	There is more to a job than money.  I know of too many people
    	who have left "because they are a top performer and can get more
    	money".  They went to work for companies that paid and promised,
    	but eventually went under.  Now they are walking the pavements
    	while the deadwood still sit here at DEC.
    
    	I like what I hear about using performance ratings to force people 
    	to take the buyout if there are not enough volunteers.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    .125, .127, and .224:
    
    Several years ago (while working in a different part of the company),
    we were discussing pay scales and such, and one fellow who'd been
    around for some time commented that some managers don't want "stellar
    performers", because people who are good, and know it, often do things
    like question their managers' decisions (if the "stellar performer"
    sees something questionable) and rock boats when they have some reason.
    (I think he suggested that they could be labeled "management
    problems".)  He went on to say that some managers would prefer to have
    "comfortable mediocrity":  someone who isn't as 'the best there is',
    but also lacks the quirks of personality and attitude that adds a
    little work to the manager's load.
    
    Dick

    Re: .225
    
    First class managers hire people better than themselves.
    
    Second class managers hire people the same as themselves.
    
    Third class managers hire people worse then themselves so they
    can stay on top as managers and nobody will rock the boat.

    re .225 and .226
    
    Your replies imply that the best performers are the most difficult to
    manage because of their 'quirks of personality and attitude', or
    whatever.
    
    I don't see that neccesarily being the case. Aren't there 'stellar
    performers' who don't have personality and attitude problems, who do a
    good job without 'rocking the boat' and causing their management 
    grief ?

    To a certain extent, 'stellar performers' will always cause 'trouble' for
    their management, because they'll stretch their managers and make far
    more work than plodders.
    
    Some have been thanked by Managers for stretching them, to my knowlege.
    
    
    						- andy

    I once interviewed with someone who said he wouldn't hire me because
    I'd make him work too hard!  He said I intimidated him.  All I can say,
    if HIS SECRETARY would intimidate him, can you imagine how well he'd
    hold up to his BOSS come salary planning time!  Needless-to-say, I
    wouldn't have accepted an offer had he given it.  Makes me grateful for
    the good managers I've had who appreciate and support performance in
    their organizations.  I agree with the noter a few back who categorized
    good managers as ones who wanted superior employees.
    
    

    
    re: .227
    
    Of course.