Conference 7.286::digital

    
    what does "bright-flight" mean? (let me guess: the smartest, brightest,
    most valuable people leave???)

    
>    what does "bright-flight" mean? (let me guess: the smartest, brightest,
>    most valuable people leave???)

...most marketable...

  <<					 Does talking it out with
  <<    your fellow workers holding any promise of helping to deal with the
  <<    situation?

	Judging by this conference, I'd guess that talking to fellow
	workers only leads to grousing and complaining.  One person says
	he thinks the company will do pay cuts before layoffs and everyone
	starts complaining about how bad paycuts are. Talk about the
	stuff which starts rumors!

	Maybe an organized group with professional leadership to
	act as a facilitator might work????

    Good topic!
    
    Yes, there's a great deal of stress, and it's not all caused by
    greed.  There's the fact that one may actually believe he/she had
    a career going and "... I can feel it slippin' away.
                            Slowly, slowly, slippin' away. 
                            It'll be gone..."
    and to many, separation of career and life is difficult.  As noted
    in other topics, those most marketable *MAY* go away.  (I believe
    the ones to leave first will be those who look out for number 1.)
    But for those who are here for 'other' reasons - love of product,
    missionary zeal, fellow workers, etc. there is a lot of stress in:
           - personal financial problems which may (eventually?) arise
           - apparent lack of appreciation for effort
           - lack of traditional role/value association
                 (ie: "...Just like my daddy did,
                          Just like his daddy before him...")
           - lack of information (Where IS this ship going, anyway?)
           - loss of faith in the "Digital Philosophy"
    
    Talking it over does help, if for no other reason than 'misery loves
    company'.  More likely, though, it is more palatable if others we
    rect and feel are positive contributors feel equally unappreciated.
    It sort of helps one to rationalize the rejection.
    
    
    

.-1

How Can you work MORE when you KNOW inflation
is eating away at your blue paycheck?

- Mike

I went and listened to the 9000 announcement.  I feel better.

       
       
       	I went to the 9000 announcement too.. I don't feel so good.
       
       							mike

    The 9000 in it's current form will let us tap the pent-up demand in our
    own installed base, just like IBM did with the AS/400.  In the short
    term, we should do well selling it as replacements to other VAXes.  How
    well it can compete in the long run against the established mainframe
    vendors remains to be seen.  We already have two strikes against us,
    that being the reliance on VMS and the lack of high-end storage disk
    and tape systems.  IF we can get vendors and customers to port their
    software to VMS, and IF we can get some higher technology storage,
    THEN I think the 9000 has a chance to compete in the high-margin
    arena.  Otherwise, it will get treated as just another hot box, with
    much lower profit margins, and much lower return to the company.
    
    Geoff
    

    Discussion of the 9000 should probably go in NODEMO::MARKETING. If
    there is something about it that effects the DIGITAL way of working
    than please start a new note. Thanks.

    			Alfred

How do I deal with the stress?

Being a student of military  history  I  continually  draw  the  analogy
between  commercial  "incidents"  and those of the military, and, fairly
consistent references to George S.  Patton, Jr.

Consider one of his  'adages':   "Success  is  how  you  bounce  on  the
bottom".  Bare with me for a moment...

"The problem with success is that it leads to failure!  When you are  on
top there is no place to go but down" says General Patton.

Consider Benedict Arnold.  General Patton:  "Damn fine  commander,  that
Benedict Arnold.  He was too successful!  He won too many victories.  He
turned traitor because of the Continental Congress!"

Some elementary research will  show  that  Arnold  *did*  have  a  great
military  record.   He won many battles that he was not supposed to win!

Members of the Congress had "reserved" some of the battles for their own
native  sons.   The  way  to  punish a winning commander is to delay his
promotion and hold down on his pay.  Congress  skipped  over  Arnold  on
several  promotions.   As  a result, Arnold lost faith in the ideal that
the United States of America could become a great nation.   He  reasoned
that no country could become great when congressmen were interested only
in local interests and not in the welfare of the entire country.

Again, General Patton:  "Don't  make  the  same  mistake  that  Benedict
Arnold  made.   Don't  give  up  serving  our Country no matter how many
promotions or pay hikes you miss.   Always  remember  we  do  not  serve
congressmen.   We  serve  a great Country.  REMEMBER THAT!  We will be a
great Country despite all that congress might  do!   Try  to  understand
that  a  congressman  does  not  lose any votes by attacking the Army in
peacetime.  If he had bounced off the bottom better, he would have  been
one  of  our  greatest  American  generals,  but,  he  lost faith in our
country.  His name is equivalent to that of TRAITOR, the most odious  of
words".

Now, obviously,  we  can't  draw  an  analogy  between  the  Continental
Congress  and  their  suppression of Benedict Arnold...but, with respect
for Arnold's actions, a definitive analogy.

Stress?  Damned right!  Do I  want  my  name  synonymous  with  Benedict
Arnold?   Never!   Have  I  lost faith?  Never!  Are we a great company?
Yes!  Do I serve a great company?  Yes!  Am I going to be around when we
"bounce  off the bottom"?  DAMNED RIGHT!  Am a going to be a part of the
problem or a part of the solution?  You'll have to answer that  one  for
yourself...take a wild guess.

Jerry Beeler

    With all due respect to ABACUS::BEELER (.11) and General Patton,
    Benedict Arnold was not a traitor in my reading of history - he
    maintained his allegiance to the government, country and society
    into which he was born and had served.  Just because the rebels
    won that one...
    
    But seriously, there is a major point of difference between a country
    - and most particularly the ideals upon which it is based, and a
    company and the ethics it may or may not have.
    
    For one thing, countries last a LOT longer, and make it into history
    which includes in its rememberances the morality or lack of it.
    Few companies are historically significant.  
    
    One might think that an organization the size of McDonnell-Douglas
    would be significant, but who made the swords for the centurions?
    The *people* Winchester, Colt and Gatling made it into (albeit recent)
    history, but their companies???  The companies' ethics???
    
    Sorry.  I agree Digital has potential and is good and all, but it
    hardly ranks with a national dream.
    

>    With all due respect to ABACUS::BEELER (.11) and General Patton,
>    Benedict Arnold was not a traitor in my reading of history - he
>    maintained his allegiance to the government, country and society
>    into which he was born and had served.

Ummm, actually, he was in General Washington's Army, and had served the
cause of Independence well, fighting against the British.  So even by
your definition, he was a traitor, having fought against King and Country.

He was also a turncoat.  As aid from the French increased, he decided that
he was helping the cause of Catholic France and attempted to betray the
unit of which he was a part.  This is why Americans consider him a traitor.

His treachery was discovered in time.

/john

    Somewhere there's a statue commemorating Arnold's leg, which was blown
    off by the British.  The theory was that that one leg was patriotic.
    

    
    Re .11-.14
    
    I liked Jerry Beeler's note...the analogy to Benedict Arnold may
    not fit Digital exactly but what he's saying makes a lot of sense.
    
    Just in casually browsing some of the notes in this conference,
    there's a lot of "whine-ing" about how bad things are and outlining
    all of Digital's faults and weaknesses...and just as Benedict Arnold
    blamed it on the congress, many of the people who complain blame
    the situation on the company or the management etc. without seeing
    themselves as part of the solution.
    
    We've got to get positive about this...the time is right to start
    "bouncing off the bottom" and everyone in his own way has got to
    be part of the solution.
    
    I believe it was .12 that disagreed with comparing Digital to the
    "national dream" and that analogy also may not be an exact fit,
    but I believe that a big element of what makes a company succeed
    is the values and culture of the company and the spirit of the
    employees, that's been the "Digital dream" for as long as I've
    been here.  If you see Digital as just like any other computer
    company and just a place to go to work from day to day and you're
    not part of that dream, that may be difficult to see.
    
    We can't lose faith in that "dream"...it's just like an athletic
    team that has their spirits down after a losing season.  We've
    got to pick ourselves up and get back in the game.
    
    Chuck
    

    Re .14
    
    The leg is actually under the monument to the leg probably quite near
    to where he lost it, 10 miles from where I now sit here in Saratoga
    Springs, NY: at the Saratoga Battlefield National Park.  Visit it and
    us someday - and go to the Saratoga Raceway too. 
    
    Fred

       I know of at least three people out on short term disability because
    of stress.  Like every one else I too have felt inceased stress that I
    feel is due to the general slowdown in the company and the financial
    pinch caused by the wage freeze.
    
       So, now I am curious.  Is there really an increase in stress related
    problems within the company now?  I have been with DEC for ten years
    and have never seen so many people stressed out.
    
       Comments, please!
    
    Ray

    
    Ref: 955.17
    
    Perhaps employees are stressed out because they have no real control
    over affecting real changes in building a more effective and successful
    Digital?
    

    Let's be serious, things, situations, other people, and edicts do not 
    create stress.  It is the individual's perception of the situation. All
    that I see in Digital is positive and I am happy to be a contributor to
    our ultimate success. We always can be effective in building a better
    Digital.
       Daryl
    
    

    Lets be realistic, I don't believe that all stress seen on the job is
    caused by work. Being home with 3 kids and a wife can be very stressful
    sometimes. I believe there are ways also to relieve stress at work.
    IMHO I believe alot stress comes with us to work. Especially just
    driving to work is enough to drive me bonkers. Thats why I have taken
    the opportunity to work the graveyard shift. I don't know how day shift
    puts up with the morning/evening rush hours. It would take me a 1/2 hr
    to unwind after a drive (crawl) like that.
    
    And of the 5 people I know of on STD 3 are drying out due to alcohol
    abuse or Chemical dependancy. The other 2 are maternal. Most of the 
    STD employees that Ive encountered are not stressed out there just out
    of it period..
    
    

    The last two, are, in my considered opinion, horse puckey.
    
    Stress is many factors and OF COURSE is at least in part pressure felt
    by an individual.
    
    The working environment can add or detract to stress. Currently there
    is a lot of pressure in the syustem, which increases stress upon
    employees, especially those who are having to change their complete way
    of life.
    
    Get real, people.

Sorry to disagree with your "horse pucky"... (Is that British for BS?)

Life is a perception.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

Bob

Daryl (.19),

    Shouldn't you have signed your note "Pangloss"?

--David

    RE: Last several
    
    More people out on STD/Stress-related/alc-chem depend etc?
    
    Yes, it seems that way to me as well.
    
    One suspects that a few successful lawsuits  w/ damages awarded for
    failure to let people take stress leave have resulted in (panicky)
    corporate willingness to grant stress leave. I'm guessing here.   
    
    Is there more stress @ DEC now than whenever? Yes, in 7 years it
    has only gotten more intense, never less. It is also (personally)
    a cumulative effect of watching my actual purchasing power erode
    (despite some 2 ratings). And some decline of  my self-image in
    working for people (all the way up the inverted tree) who, by their 
    words and actions, seem to care so little about me as a person. And 
    who seem to care so little for DEC as a corporate entity. But that 
    is a strictly personal psychological problem. It's all perception, 
    right?
    
    RE: Life is beautiful, people are terrific, and I can change DEC by
    wishing hard enough? Get a life. This is a JOB. I have made it my
    religion and suffered thereby, as I am decidedly NOT working for
    an infallible, omniscient, loving Deity. DEC is a political afilliation
    of servers-of-thier-own-self-interest, not the mutual joy and love
    society it once was (or seemed to be). Chevy's are no longer world 
    cars and the US army no longer wins every time (or ever) too. 
    
    It could be much worse elsewhere. Perhaps foolishly, I still love
    DEC passionately, although DEC has no obligation to love me in return.
    SO I take the money, and try to sneak onto the bridge of the ship
    once in a while and nudge that wheel just a bit in another direction.
    
    
    

    
    I don't think there's any doubt that there's a lot of stress in
    the system right now.  One of the biggest causes of stress is a
    feeling that things are happening to you that you can't control
    and its compounded when there is a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity
    and when people have idle time to do nothing but worry about it.
    
    I'm just about finished reading a book on this subject that is
    very enlightening called "How to Stop Worrying and Start Living"
    by Dale Carnegie.  I thought it had a lot of stuff in it that
    was very relevant to this topic.  Its good reading for anyone
    experiencing this kind of stress to better understand your reactions
    and if you can understand your own reactions better, you can cope
    with it much more effectively.
    
    I'll summarize some of the key points from the book here when I
    get some time.
    
    Chuck
    

    re: .24
    
    Well, almost right on. You have many good points. I for one see where
    a lot of changes have been made, however a lot more need to be done.
    The income per employee needs to take a BIG increase. Yet, I only see
    overhead people being hired. Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't we cut
    back on employees? If any hiring needs to be done, shouldn't we hire
    direct rev producing employees? 
    
    I see great new products being put out. The New disks, CPU's,
    everything sounds great, yet our stock keeps going down. I do feel
    rather helpless, yet do love DEC and want to see it do well. Maybe
    that's where a lot of stress comes from.
    
    just my .02 worth.
    	Greg

    re: last few
    It isn't horse puckey or a Pollyana approach, but a sincere belief.  
    If I can't make a difference, then I should not play.  Players on the
    bench are just as important as those on the field.  Your perceptions
    need some review.  Tomorrow why not give "thanks" for dirty dishes, it
    is evidence that we eat well, while many in the world do not.  If you
    can't see that you control your stress, then I am very powerful, since
    I can have a detrimental effect on your behaviour.

    No, you are very insensitive for believing that all men� are islands,
    unaffected by their colleagues.
    
    Andy
    
    �and women, of course

    From what I can see, most people are affected to varying degrees
    by the attitudes of their colleagues. I've seen "grousers" drag
    down the attitudes (and performance) of groups of people, and I've
    seen other people have the opposite effect, lifting performance.
    
    So, getting back to the original topic, "can discussion groups have
    an effect", I would say definitely yes. But I don't think it has
    to be anything organized. Every conversation we have with the people
    we work with concerning the state of the company has either a positive
    or a negative effect to some degree. For example, reading this notes
    file tends to have a positive effect on me. 
    
    Hopefully, I'll pass that positive effect along to the people I work
    with, relieve some stress, and keep somebody off STD. Of course, this
    effect is more noticeable in groups like mine where people interact
    with each other and depend on each other a lot, and less noticeable in
    other environments where tasks are a bit more partitioned. But I
    believe it's still there. 
     
    
    Greg

    re:.28
    No, I'm not insensitive, but it is obvious that I'm not being an
    effective communicator.  You are correct that men are affected by their
    colleagues activities, but stress is your choice.  Your colleagues may
    exert pressure on you to perform, but they cannot cause you stress,
    unless you chooze to let them.  Let me try to illustrate.  
    
    You are dehydrated, and desperately in need of water.  You ask a
    colleague for a drink.  He gives you six ounces in a twelve ounce
    glass.  The water is tepid.  You can view the glass as half full of a
    life saving liquid, or you can see it as half empty and too warm to
    drink.  Yes, your colleague's actions have a direct affect on your life,
    but the stress of having a half empty glass of overheated water is your
    responsibility and only yours.
    
    Another example is the baseball pitcher, who goes into the ninth inning
    with a one run lead and quickly retires the first two hitters, but the
    third batter hits an easy to catch pop-fly to the left fielder, who
    drops it for a two base error.  The shortstop then muffs an easy
    grounder putting runners at first and third with two out.  The pitcher
    can chooze to accept the two miscues by his teammates, and concentrate
    on doing his job and retiring the hitter at the plate, or he can chooze
    to accept stress and rant and rave, becoming angry with the stupid
    manager that let those other two on the team, and point out their
    shortcomings to them, also.  Guess which pitcher is going to be the
    most successful?
    
    I picked the baseball example, because I have coached American Legion,
    Big League and Senior League for over 25 years and have seen that
    example many, many times.  Sometimes it is easier to learn from
    children on the playing field, when the stakes aren't quite so high. 
    But, the lesson is no less valid. 
    
                                            Daryl

    (I think I made this point just a minute ago... 8^)
    
    Re: [.30]:  I think you give the brain too much credit.  You suggest
    that people can will themselves not to become stressed.  The body is a
    largely autonomous machine, and a lot of things go on under the skin
    that you're not consciously aware of or in control of.  It's true you
    can take steps to reduce stress (I've been to classes!), but I disagree
    that external forces "cannot cause you stress unless you (choose) to
    let them."
    
    Han Selye was the person who first described stress.  (I read his book
    many years ago, so please excuse the inaccuracies of my recollection.) 
    He studied World War II airmen who languished in psychiatric wards. 
    They had flown scores of missions, even hundreds of missions.  They
    were not physically wounded in any way, yet they were utterly
    dysfunctional and unfit for duty.  Some couldn't stop trembling.  Some
    couldn't sleep.  Some couldn't shake terrifying nightmares.  Some would
    lose control of their bowels or bladders if they heard a loud noise. 
    Some had crippling ulcers.  The doctors at the time didn't understand
    it any more than the doctors in World War I had understood those
    soldiers afflicted with what they called "shell shock."
    
    All these men were not consciously aware of the connection between
    their problems and the stress of flying hundreds of miles through
    flak-filled skies against enemy fighters or heavily defended targets. 
    They thought they could will away their fears, but instead they
    destroyed their bodies.
    
    Selye called this condition "stress," and went back to the laboratory
    to experiment on rats.  He discovered that by stressing lab rats he
    could duplicate the same symptoms he observed in the soldiers he
    interviewed.  I believe he concluded that stress is a natural, or
    unconscious, bodily response to certain stimuli.

       
    Stress is indeed a "bodily response to certain stimuli".  It can
    be eliminated only if we deprive ourselves of sensations.  In fact,
    we would do nothing in our lives without stimuli (internal or
    external). The trick is to find a balance of stress that allows
    optimal performance without disfunction.  I think when most people
    think of stress, they equate it with the feelings of becoming less
    functional or disfunctional.  Of course, varying levels
    of stress can be withstood for varying levels of time be various
    people.  
                                 
    Stress can be reduced, controlled, or hidden (as in the WWII soldier
    example in -.1 but hiding stress will not control it.  As pointed
    out , some levels of stress can result in permanent damage.  Everyone
    needs to be careful to recognize early warning signs of disfunction
    to avoid such a scenario.
    
    -paul

    re:31  Later studies found the error of those early efforts, which was
    the many fighting men that did not display those symptoms, were not
    included in the studies.  Why do some men survive such trying times,
    while others succumb to "stress"?  I can let those outside stimuli
    bother me, and you're correct about it not being necessary for me to 
    consciously be aware of the situation as were those poor World War II
    fighting men, or I can accept what I cannot change and get the last out
    in the ninth inning. 

    At this point in my 13 years with DEC I am more concerned than ever
    before about the *effect* of the stress.  Perhaps it was my USMC
    training that has taught me to "handle" it.  I love this company
    and want to see it grow and prosper, but, the basic element necessary
    for prosperity is *people*.
    
    Allow me to quote from "A Business and It's Beliefs", by Thomas
    Watson, Jr. - relating to a "bad" period in IBM's past:
    
    	"We recovered because we had enough cash to carry the
    	cost of engineering, research and production.  Second,
    	we had a sales force whose knowledge of the market 
    	enabled us to tailor our machines very closely to the
    	needs.  Finally, AND MOST IMPORTANT, we had good company
    	morale.  Everyone realized that this was a challenge to
    	our leadership.  We had to respond with everything we
    	had - and we did".
    
    Perhaps a prerequisite for DEC is a stint at USMC RD at Parris Island,
    South Carolina?
    
    Jerry

    More and more people are going out on 'stress disability' in my area. 
    It seems to me that some are (in my opinion) using stress as 
    an excuse to avoid job responsibilities, and sit home and collect
    money.
    
    Given the current state of the company, it makes me *sick* to think
    that some of these 'stress disabled' employees may just be taking DEC 
    for a ride.
    
    I just hope that Digital *thoroughly* (and often) researches all 'stress
    disability' cases for authenticity.
    
    Personally, I am 'stressed' quite often, but when NEVER even think of
    going out on disabilty.
    
    -Colleen
    
    DISCLAIMER:  I am not saying that all employees are faking stress
    disability -- I'm sure most are legit.  I AM saying that some may be
    abusing the system.
    
    

    No manager can deny STD...period! If a person goes to personnel and
    their doctor with the proper paperwork, they'll get it.
    
    In fact, managers are not allowed to ask what the reasons are or
    contact the person while on STD (going purely by the book).
    
    
    My personal opinion is that STD is abused WAY too much - I know of 2
    people in the last year on stress-related STD. 
    It's sad because the legitimate STD-takers are sometimes hassled
    because of a stigma attached to STD by often questionable use of the
    policy.
    
    Personnel should be better equipped to handle these situations. If
    stress is the problem, personnel should be able to help the people
    before it hits the fan. Or the person is in the wrong job and should
    look elsewhere.
    
    Phil

    Let's not go down the road of questioning the moral integrity of those
    going on STD. It happens. If it hasn't happened to you, you're lucky.
    
    There, but for the grace of god, we might be.
    
    
    /andy/

I always figured that stress was that aspect of my job for which I really get
paid.  The other stuff is so much fun, I'd do it for subsistence.

Pete

    Little late to this topic, but I've been there......my stressful
    situation escalated into depression.
    
    However, I went initially to EAP......they confirmed the depression
    and got me to a therapist ASAP.  The therapist also confirmed the
    diagnosis but I still needed the additional confirmation of a
    licensed psychiatrist before STD was approved.....as someone else
    mentioned it, my manager had nothing to say about it. (I was for-
    tunate, I had a caring manager who had noticed that I seemed to
    be going down for the count, so she was very supportive).  Believe
    it or not, boredom with the job fed into the situation big-time....
    being bored stresses me out!!
    
    I was a WC4 at the time, so I could have stayed out 6 months;
    however, at the end of 3 months of intensive therapy and work, my
    therapist and I agreed it was *time* to get back into the swing of
    things.  We also agreed a more challenging job would be in my best
    interests and set a time frame of 3 months for me to find such a
    job.
    
    I returned to work in July of 1989 and by October of '89 I had
    found my current position with Remote Sales Support.  I love what
    I'm doing.....the sales reps have sent my manager rave reviews
    and I receive a 2 rating on my PA yesterday.  (I realize this
    paragraph is self-serving, but I read somewhere that if you don't
    blow your own horn, someone else will use it for a spitoon :-)
    Actually I read it in "The 59 Second Employee, or How To Stay One
    Second Ahead Of Your One-Minute Manager :-) :-)
    
    There are no barometers that I know of that can measure one person's
    stress against another.  I spend 7 hours a day doing telephone sales
    support.......I love what I do, yet telephone support is recognized
    (and not just by Digital) as being a very stressful type of work.
    I've worked in the CSC long enough to recognize burn-out and I can
    see it starting in co-workers that have only been on the job 6
    months.
    
    I agree that if some people are finding it "easy" to get out on
    STD this seems rather unusual.....it certainly wasn't the case for
    me.
    
    The period that led up to my going out on STD was one of the
    most frightening times of my life.......I hope I never have to
    walk that path again!!
    
    Don't be too quick to judge; or considering the state of the 
    company and the high-anxiety of most employees these days.....would
    stress-related illnesses seem all that unusual?
    
    Karen
    

    re .-1 Good for you.
    
    in re personnel etc.
    
    As best I understand only two digital employees are entitled to know
    the reason an individual has taken STD.
    
    1) the employee
    2) the designated nurse(or -i 'spose- the designated STD administrator)
       at the site where the employee works.