Conference 7.286::digital

Re .0:  Seems that what you're actually proposing is office anarchy:
   "Every employee is totally self-managed and self-motivated
   to not only decide what work needs to be done, but to also create the
   changes, both within his or her job AND without, literally affecting
   any part of the company,..."

A certain type of "office politics" is normal and good. Given that lots
of people have different ideas, that most ideas require cooperation and 
coordination to implement, and that any company has finite resources, how 
do we decide which ideas get implemnented and how?  Office politics, 
of course. That is, people with ideas refine them through discussions,
try to persuade others to agree, and set up groups to implement the ideas.

I imagine, though, that what you're against is a certain type of office
politics -- that is, where someone promotes or stifles an idea ostensibly
for some legitimate business reason, but is actually motivated by 
self-aggrandizement, cowardice, or incompetence. But even here the "truth" 
of the matter is often in the eye of the beholder. For instance, what one 
sees as "self-aggrandizement" another might see as "aggressive leadership by a 
mover on the fast track." Or what one attributes to "cowardice" another will 
see as "prudent caution."

Anyway, in my experience DEC has a lot less of the "bad" office politics
than many other companies. Sure, there's some and it's bad when it happens,
but I think we should keep it in perspective.

    
    REF: <<< Note 986.1 by BOOKIE::MURRAY "Chuck Murray" >>>

   >><Seems that what you're actually proposing is office anarchy:
      "Every employee is totally self-managed and self-motivated
      to not only decide what work needs to be done, but to also create the
      changes, both within his or her job AND without, literally affecting
      any part of the company,..."
    
    On what evidence do you base your assessment that a self-managed and
    self-motivated workforce inspired to create and implement change to
    achieve greater creativity and Digital success would lead to anarchy?
    
    Toyata's employees generate over a million employee suggestons a year
    for saving money, increasing productivity, making money -- most are
    implemented by the company, and the company and each manager takes
    pride in the creativity of the employees in each group.  Evidence seems
    to suggest, shown by greater employee involvement and self-management,
    GREATER harmony and cooperation -- quite the opposite of your suggested
    anarchy.
    
    If you believe there is little office politics (for personal gain over
    the success of either the company or the employees in the group) and
    bureaucracy, then where is the "tracked" million suggestions last year
    within Digital by all its employees, most of which were implemented?
    

    David,  the way you described your vision suggested anarchy, while
    your Toyota example did not.   The difference is that your vision
    made no mention of the need for _some_ leadership through management,
    while your description of Toyota did make mention of "management".
    
    Yes, IF all the negative aspects of bureaucracy and political
    power-mongering could be eliminated, while keeping an environment
    where there is clear leadership and clear responsibilities for
    implementation _and_improvement_.....    then you have an organization
    where any one employee is both part AND whole of the company.  Each
    worker is a "whole"  -- that is, he or she is empowered to contribute
    toward the achieving of the "vision" -- which has been clearly and
    visibly communicated by the leadership.   But each worker is also
    "part"  -- that is, he or she works as part of a team, whether that
    "team" is a work group, functional organization, department, or
    the entire company.   In this way, all "parts" are also "wholes",
    thereby creating an entire organization of doers, improvers, achievers,
    and where appropriate, leaders.
    
    (You'll notice I used the word "leader" in the places where today's
    organizational model uses the word "manager".   While the terms
    are not mutually exclusive, I would much prefer to envision a future
    organization where leaders lead, workers work, doers do, and nobody
    spends resources "managing" things that need not be managed.)

    Glad to hear that you do not advocate anarchy, David.  I suggest
    that you add a vision of clear leadership to your model as stated
    in .0.    Empowered employees are only half the puzzle.  The other
    half is enlightened management.
    
    If you haven't already, I suggest you read a book called "Future
    Perfect" by Stan Davis.   His vision of the future organizational
    model in the future economy is fascinating.
    
    -Don-

I agree with .1, We need politics (spelled M A N A G E R S) to determine
What needs to be done and when. If Digital allowed what you suggest, to 
empower every employee to not only  "decide what work needs to be done"
and also to "create the changes" read, do what they deem necessary. Then I
suggest that we would all be on the unemployment line within six months.
How we could do this without "literally affecting any part of the company"
is really beyond me. No, what we need are managers who are not afraid to
ask there subordinates how to do something and then either to implement the
suggestion or not depending on its merits and we also need individual
contributors who will accept the decision.
    
- George    
    

    I readily agree that eliminating "office politics" would be a good
    thing for this or any other company (if we can lay aside the detail of
    what precisely constitutes "office politics" for another time).
    
    Unfortunately, the prospects for eliminating office politics seem grim
    to me.  Although there are some people around here to whom my best
    advice would be "Get a life!", when most of us go into our facilities
    our lives do not go into suspended animation, not to resume until we
    leave for the day.  Our lives, and our natural behavior, continue right
    through the day.  We get tired, we schmooze, we daydream, we fantasize,
    we get excited or angry, we apply ourselves, or we take a break.
    Sometimes we do commendable things, and sometimes we do not.  What
    we think of as "office politics" is just the way people behave, set
    against the backdrop of an office.
    
    If you took a time machine back to ancient Rome, Egypt, or China, I'm
    willing to bet that you'd see recognizable "office politics" going on. 
    Perhaps the only refinement might be that people today rarely commit
    murder in the office environment.
    
    So office politics are simply a reflection of human nature.  Unless
    that changes, I don't know what inroads we can make in the task of
    eliminating office politics in a company of 125,000 human beings.

    Let's take a few ideas and see if they could help reduce the office
    politics and/or trim some fat:
    
    1. The suggestion box at SOCIAL::INVOLVEMENT is a good start. I would
    like to see more regular response after the first reply, but it's a 
    good start.
    
    2. Perhaps an OMNIBUDSMAN would help. There are notes in this
    conference which discuss that idea.
    
    3. Take 2 chapters from the book "Up The Organization"
    
    	Chapter 1   " Fire the Personnel Dept."
    
    	Chapter 2   " Replace them with a PEOPLE department"
    
    The present view of personnel by many is far less than favorable. We
    need Personnel Reps that objectivly listen to BOTH sides and then have
    the COURAGE to stand up for what is right.
    
    4. The open door policy needs to work. It does in spots, but there are
    again entries in this conference that indicates it doesn't work
    everywhere.
    
    5. We need to reduce the levels on management.
    
    6. We need more people in DIRECT contact with the customer.
    
    7. No customer is too small. Digital had a staff of three 35 years ago!
    
    8. We need to allow folks with an idea a clear way to propose it,
    giving them help with preparing a presentation, which include market
    research and a budget for development. We need a rewards system that
    encourages the entrepreneur in some of us.
    
    9. Top management needs to spend lots more time talking to the workers.
    
    10. So does Mid-Level Management.
    
    
    That's a few Ideas. I like Davids topic, and don't see any anarchy in
    it at all!
    
    dick

    My understanding of the way Tom Peters talks about Excellent companies
    is that these companies have found a way to minimize office politics
    and maximize the things .0 mentions.  When I use the term office
    politics I'm thinking of the negative kinds of office politics.  I
    don't think you can maximize empowering employees without minimizing
    the bad kinds of office politics.  One excludes the other.  Thus an
    effort to empower employees would have a drastic affect on office
    politics and it would probably take a while to sort out all the results
    of that.  I think some of the recent re-orgs are efforts at this, but
    the inertia to true change is quite high.  KO needs to walk around
    some more.

    Implement direct profit sharing (not stock options).
    
    Track those suggestions - make someone responsible to reply rather than
    ignore employee suggestions.

    W/o dealing too much into the sophistry of your thesis; I applaud
    your hypothesis but cannot derive your conclusion directly from
    a negation of it.  One logical fallacy is that one can "prove" a
    negative.  Removing "office politics" [and by that do you really
    mean ALL of it, or only the part that offends you?] will no more
    make us an effective, efficient organization than removing weight
    will cause an airplane to fly. 
                                                           
    I suspect that we have a "subjective" vision of "office politics"
    as a totally distrupting and disabling distraction of clear action
    towards a common good.  There is in fact a more objective view of
    these processes as being the necessary "lubricant" and "linkage"
    between the formal and rather non-tactical directives of the
    organization on the one hand, and the rather limited and biased
    behaviors of the individuals on the other hand.  Those two extremes
    would be even more ineffective w/o the social context and natural
    play of leadership that comes to play in any social arena.
    
    More importantly, let us not forget that any individual or team
    will always have a rather limited view of the whole "dream state"
    of the organization since such entities cannot  encompass the
    whole complexity of a robust organization.  In that case, where
    an individual's or team's vision is limited in scope and range,
    there needs be a heirarchy of relationships each overlaying and
    linking the dream states of the individual and team entities to
    provide communication and control throughout the organization.
    
    At Digital; team leaders, managers, staffs and and influencers all
    play a role in this process.  We can no more reduce the organization
    to only "doers" than as individuals we can for-go stomachs, gall
    bladders and lower bowels just because they don't directly cause
    action to happen.
    
    Have FUN!
    
    Tim                                            

    re: .0
    
    
>    Since all Digital employees are empowered to think for themselves, we
>    should be able to readily outline the changes required to realize the
>    above that will lead to a more successful Digital, benefiting everyone
>    (employees, management and stockholders) accordingly.  
    
    This is not the problem. I feel quite able to think (I don't like the
    word "empowred"). The problem is getting mangement to change and
    take action. Empowered to think? Yes. Empowered to take action based on
    what I think? No.
    
    On politics:
    
    Politics at the lower levels of the company (which I think is the kind
    many previous notes have referred to) may be healthy as some noters
    have asserted. Even unhealthy politics at the lower level has little
    effect on the corporation as a whole.
    
    However, there is little room for political nonsense in the top
    eschelons, especially the unhealthy kind. Unhealthy politics there can
    DRAMATICALLY affect success and even paralyze an organization. IMHO,
    we're quite immobile at this point in time because of this very
    problem. 
    
    Put another way, individual contributors who futz around and do
    something dumb because of politics don't cost us much money. Big shots
    who control large organizations and big buckets of expense money can do
    a lot of damage if they act in the same manner. I submit that politics
    at DEC in the top levels is costing us a BUNDLE, and I don't feel the
    least big "empowered" to do anything about it.
    
    /se
    
    

    re .4 and others:
    
>I agree with .1, We need politics (spelled M A N A G E R S) to determine
>What needs to be done and when. 
    
    Yes, we do.  But, the problem is that too many of them spend too much
    time making their boss happy and managing the bottom line, and too
    little time LEADING their people to do a quality job.
    
    My suggestion is that those "managers" become responsible to the people
    they manage.  Project managers, program managers, unit managers, and
    higher levels if they interact with real workers, should be evaluated
    by the people whose lives they are affecting positively or negatively.  
    
    Instead of just allowing non-responsive, bureaucratic, NOPs to pollute
    and demoralize for months or even years, make them responsible for the
    effects of their decisions on their troops.  Provide incentives for
    producing a quality product, for developing better workers - NOT just
    replacing the ones that burn out or leave, for motivating the troops,
    NOT JUST FOR MAKING THE BUDGET AT ANY COST.
    
    It seems like I recall a suggestion in another note for manager
    evaluations, with guidelines for correcting situations, and provisions
    for removing the ones that aren't willing to be leaders, or work to
    build teamwork with their subordinates as well as superiors.  

    I honest believe that a key element is managers who are "empowered"
    to get the work done, without a lot of upward negotiating and
    continual politics.
    
    The basenote does not discuss this at all -- some of the ideas have
    merit, but I have to agree with the comment about encouraging anarchy
    by allowing each and every employee to decide WHAT and HOW they are
    going to do it.
    
    Toyota (and Honda) don't work that way -- they clearly have leadership
    that works, and which supports self-managed work groups who know what
    their work is, how they are measured, and are rewarded directly based
    on their efforts.  None of these work groups decides WHAT they're going
    to do (e.g. assemble car doors, etc.) but they do have a direct say
    in how the work gets done, how to improve performance and quality.  I
    liked the part I've read about Honda workers -- their quality group is
    made up of folks who normally do the work, who rotate into the quality
    group periodically. These folks know what they're inspecting, since
    they normally do the job.
    
    

    re .11  WELL SAID!

    sidenote:
    
    Is SOCIAL::INVOLVEMENT (referenced in .6) a real notesfile?
    

	SOCIAL::INVOLVEMENT is, right not anyway, a mail drop not a
	notes conference. That is you can send mail to it. I believe
	there is an ALL-IN-1 Mail address as well.

			Alfred

    re .11
    
    You are essentially saying what Dave Carnell had send to
    social::involvement. I must say I share the same sentiments and is
    hardpressed to fend off real-life problems (customers' and DEC's) so I
    cannot spare much time thinking deep into this. (Dave, if you're
    reading this, I'm sorry I've not got round to replying to your mail,
    YET :).
    
    
    re.14
    
    this is an interesting idea, why don't somebody hold a conference for
    this purpose? the suggestions that went into social::involvement can
    also be posted or summarized in the conf so the rest of us can *think*
    about it and perhaps spark off other ideas.
    
    hw

    Any bureaurocratic organization is comprised of the "formal" and
    "informal" parts.  Idealistically, there is a balance, but when the
    formal part becomes unresponsive, uncaring, or impotent, the informal
    part becomes stronger.  It's a coping mechanism -- your manager isn't
    listening or caring or leading, so you have to thrash it out, somehow,
    amongst your fellow workers.  There will always be office politics, but
    if it becomes too dominant, it can be destructive.  This is a failure
    of MANAGEMENT.
    
    P.S.  I think that people know the difference between what is said --
    open door, people matter, management cares, etc. and what they
    experience or observe.

    re .16
    
    My second suggestion to social::involvement was exactly that...
    The reply was a form... no action. 
    
    There is a notesfile that might apply   Human::ideas  (not much
    activity, Not sponsored by mgmt...)
    
    dick

    
    I believe that bureaucracy and the stifling of creativity and change
    has created an apathy that is preventing greater employee involvement
    which in turn means less success for Digital than is currently being
    realized.
    
    Perhaps the first step toward reducing office politics and bureaucracy,
    and in turn apathy, is to determine how real and extensive this might
    be.
    
    I would suggest that the Employee Involvement staff conduct a universal
    written sensing with virtually all employees.
    
    Some questions that might be asked:
    
    Are you afraid to express your opinions and ideas to anyone in Digital?
    
    If so, why are you afraid?
    
    Do you believe there is bureaucracy in Digital that is creating apathy?
    
    If so, how much is there?
    
    How would you define office politics?
    
    What are your experiences with office politics?
    
    What is your experience in having your ideas solicited and nurtured?
    
    Could you as well as Digital be more successful if these impediments
    were non-existent?
    
    Do you consider yourself just an "employee" or an integral member of
    the total Digital family whose intelligence and thinking are valued as
    much as any other member?
    
    How would you define the Digital "dream" that every employee is looking
    to make reality as Digital moves into the new decade, inspiring each of
    us to create a more successful Digital than what currently is?
    
    What changes would you like to see considered in policy that would lead
    all employees being more involved and motivated to build a more
    successful Digital?
    
    
    
    

    That's a good idea David, but some folks would be afraid to answer...
    
    There will laways be folks who are to timid to tell you that you are
    standing on their foot, no matter how much it hurts....
    
    A good begining point might be some skip level talks... 
    
    skip several levels....
    
    
    Ie: SR VP talking to IL/DL
    
    The involvement folks holding sensing sessions from the folks who have
    sent suggestions to them... (These folks have shown they are willing to
    speak)
    
    

re .19:
        
>    Perhaps the first step toward reducing office politics and bureaucracy,
>    and in turn apathy, is to determine how real and extensive this might
>    be.
>    
>    I would suggest that the Employee Involvement staff conduct a universal
>    written sensing with virtually all employees.
    
    <set mode = REALLY NOT trying to shoot the messenger>
    
    GREAT IDEA.  But, just out of curiousity...  what are they going to do
    with the information?  Is somebody AT THE TOP going to FIX the problems
    that are revealed?   
    
    Or, are a whole lot of people going to spend their time filling out a
    survey, and get their hopes up that FINALLY somebody is going to DO
    SOMETHING and not just pay lip service, and then have the information
    get ignored because to fix the problems would a) require "unpleasant"
    action, b) MIGHT have an adverse effect on the short-term bottom line,
    or c) MIGHT show that some cherished myths are BS (pick your favorite). 
    Even though it makes long-term improvements that actually improve
    quality, morale, and have a positive effect on the bottom-line.
    
    re .20:
    
    >That's a good idea David, but some folks would be afraid to answer...
    
    If you want people to be more inclined to participate, give them some
    assurance that there will be ACTION, not just words.  If this "Employee
    Involvement" group has the kind of TOP-LEVEL support that says "If 50%
    + 1 of however many employees are surveyed says THIS, then THIS is what
    we'll do"...  period.  If that doesn't work after a reasonable time,
    we'll try something else.  If the current system isn't working...
    
>    The involvement folks holding sensing sessions from the folks who have
>    sent suggestions to them... (These folks have shown they are willing to
>    speak)
    
    Better yet, just have them look through this notesfile to find people. 
    Have 'em pick up the phone...  I guarantee the 5 of us at this customer
    site with WON'T be timid.
    
    Personally, I'd fill the thing out anyway.  But, out here in
    never-never land we've heard a lot of words... 

    I don't think it reasonable to expect leadership and management
    to automatically and universally come from the same brain.   The 
    conceptual qualities needed for these two attributes are mutually 
    exclusive.  Leaders need to think globally and with vision.  Managers,
    at least in large and mature organizations like DEC, need to wrap
    their arms around myriad detail.
    
    Yet in DEC (and maybe the majority of companies) there is an
    organizational assumption that the two functions co-exist.  Flattening
    organizations is an attempt to nurture leadership close to the work.
    The problem as I see it though, is that leaders are not encouraged
    or recognized as such.   If they are noticed, they are made into
    managers (something they may be lousy at).   
    
    When good organizers are recognized, they too are made into managers
    with an implicit responsibility to be leaders (something they may
    be lousy at).   I think in many cases that we see young and succesful
    companies where leadership and management are resident in the same
    people.   As these companies age, the leadership and management
    begin to appear in different people.   The result is a company with
    everyone looking to the managers to lead (and they can't) with
    frustrated  and unrewarded leaders not leading (because they won't).
    
    There is no career path for leaders in Digital.   If you try to
    lead  and you are not a manager it will inevitably result in 
    confrontation (politics) with the manager class (who are threatened
    by the loss of control).   Too often, I have seen leaders rewarded
    with nothing more than an attaboy/attagirl/pen and pencil set.
    
  
    I believe any office politics solution must include a resolution
    to this fundamental fact of [most] human nature.   

	
    	Where do you get the pen and pencil set?

    I just finished reading a book; Barbarians to Bureaucrats, Corporate
    Life Cycle Strategies, by Lawrence M. Miller.
    
    The premise put forth in this book is that corporations have life
    cycles that can be understood by examining the rise and fall
    of civilizations.  He draws the parallel that civilizations have
    external (foreign) and internal (domestic) policies just as companies
    have external (market) and internal (organizations) pressures.
    
    He puts forth six phases to a corporate (or a civilization) life cycle:
    
    	1. Prophet
    	2. Barbarian
    	3. Builder/Explorer
    	4. Adminstrator
    	5. Bureaucrat
    	6. Aristocrat
    

    Phases 1-4 require different coping strategies for successful
    attainment of long term growth and health.   Phase 5 requires peaceful
    revolution while phase 6 usually ends in violent revolution (neither
    being healthful phases to remain in).
    
    Interestingly, Digital doesn't fit cleanly in a phase.   We are
    in a Barbarian phase if you focus on our pursuit of an 'administrative'
    IBM.   Yet we are 'administrative' if one focuses on our relationship
    with a 'barbarian' Sun Microsystems.   Also, we are still in posession
    of our 'prophet'.   

    It is a fascinating read and I recommend it for any of you 'Barbarians'
    out there who are impatient with the grip of bureaucrats.
    

    re:
    
        1. Prophet
    	2. Barbarian
    	3. Builder/Explorer
    	4. Adminstrator
    	5. Bureaucrat
    	6. Aristocrat
    
    I believe that DEC, as a whole, is best described by "Bureaucrat"
    here in early 1990.   There are segments of the company that could
    be described by any of the six categories, but all in all, Digital
    is now, and has been for about 2-3 years, a bureaucratic corporation.
    
    -DM-
    

    Note 904.33 in this conference is a concise summation of the
    bureaucratic attitude of one branch of one Digital organization, and
    why it is in fact bureaucratic.  To quote a character from the movie
    "Nothing in Common":  "Pay attention girls, this is what you want to
    avoid later in life."
    
    We can't deduce from this isolated example that Digital as a whole is
    now a "bureaucratic" company.  Opinions will vary according to personal
    experience.  Personally, I think we're well on our way 8^(

    
    While middle management wants more productivity and work, and says
    they're for employee involvement, perhaps they in fact, are neither for
    worker involvement nor change of any kind?  Why?  Because of the fact
    that most managers have already made it, big house and all the other
    goodies, and thus, there is no longer any real ecnonomic drive to build
    a greater Digital than what currently is, since any further reward is
    unnecessary and marginal at best, and not worth taking "career
    limiting" risks.
    
    Notice how the phrase "career limiting" keeps cropping up everywhere.
    
    Thus, one could argue, that there is no sense of ownership in affecting
    change by most middle management because they "made it," and no sense
    in affecting change by most workers, since there is no authority to
    make REAL changes plus there is no interdependent reward (equal profit
    sharing) to nurture and encourage thinking, creating, driving change
    into reality, and fighting management levels who resist change.
    
    The best solution I see is a driving stupendous Digital dream plus
    equal, large, interdependent profit sharing for every employee plus
    total worker empowerment (total responsibility to build and change with
    total authority to drive change, which includes then the ability of
    every employee to guarantee effective leadership of a given group,
    meaning the right to have an equal say on who will be, and be
    continuously, that given group leader).
    

    From the book:  Your company is in the Administrative age if ...
    
    	... much of the energy of the managers is devoted to streamlining
    and improving procedures.
    
    	... you are well established in your market and feel confident
    that customers will buy from you.
    
    	... there is little sense of urgency or crisis
    
    	... your organization is investing in expensive offices and
    staff headquarters.
    
    	... new products or services are expected to come from the staff
    research and development group. 

    
    Your comapny is in the bureaucratic age if....
    
    	... your company is growing more by acquisition than by new
    product creation
    
    	... your company has reorganized more than once in the past
    three years.
    
    	... employees and managers alike feel they can do little to
    alter the companies fortunes.
    
    	... managers and employees tend to talk about "the good old days"
    when things were fun and exciting.

    	... managing or fixing the systems and structure receives more
    time and attention than selling and producing.

    
    Based on these definitions and taking some liberty with them I would
    have to agree with the previous noter that said we are in the
    bureaucratic age.   I felt when reading the book that we were just
    entering this age, actually in a transition from administrative
    to bureaucratic.

    It also occurs to me that NOTES is a marvelous medium for preventing
    bureaucratic 'creep'.   Listen to what the coping strategies are
    if you work for a bureaucrat [ic organization]....
    
    	... he [it] will tend to focus on performance that fits the system
    without asking whether it is the right performance.  Help him [it]
    by asking him [it] questions that will lead him [it] to consider
    the 'why' questions that may lead to more creative responses.
    
    	... the bureaucrat needs order and conformity.  Non conformity
    makes him anxious.  Don't be wierd.  It's hell to work for a nervous
    boss, particularly if you're the one making him nervous.
    
    	... you need to be a buffer for your subordinates.  You must
    manage them to produce creative responses without interference from
    the bureaucratic boss.  Don't make your problem, your subordinates'
    problem

    
    
    NOTES and other electronic media at our disposal, break the grip
    of bureaucrats and enables the free flow of ideas around any artificial
    roadblocks they may create.   Can you imagine our founding fathers
    in posession of tools like this?   Better yet can you imagine how
    difficult it would be to evolve a communist bureaucracy (the grandaddy
    of all bureaucracies) in the face of communication tools
    like this?   
    

    Re: .28 (Bahlin):
    
    >> ... Can you imagine how difficult it would be to evolve a communist
    >> bureaucracy (the grandaddy of all bureaucracies) in the face of
    >> communication tools like [NOTES]?   
    
    One Russian with a desktop publishing system and a laser printer was
    probably more dangerous to the regime than Trotsky.  I think the rise
    of the PC, and its slow trickle into Russia, probably contributed to
    the advent of glasnost.
    
    Any sharing of information in those societies was a mortal threat. 
    This is why Romania, until a few weeks ago, registered typewriters(!).

    
    re: barbarians et al.
    
    To the person who thought we were beneath IBM's level of bureaucracy,
    I believe that we are their equal.  Managerial authority at IBM is
    much more powerful at the lower levels, which allows them to react
    much faster in field sales situations.  That's just one example, but
    there are others.  Every day, we seem to strive towards doing things
    the IBM way, even while IBM is trying to reverse the trend.
    
    As for Sun, they have an interesting plight.  One the one hand, their
    people have grown more confident in their abilities to compete and win
    against just about anybody in their field.  On the other hand, their
    morale still seems to be very low, and fear seems to be their prime
    motivator;  fear of their own agressive goals, and fear of disasters
    in the organization like the order-processing snafu of last year.
    
    DEC seems to suffer from neither fear nor an overabundance of
    confidence, rather we seem to be gripped in a sort of melancholy
    that keeps up from acting in any forthright manner.  Some call it
    corporate inertia, and say that DEC is too big to react fast.  But
    we are too powerful as a corporation to succumb to any sudden fiscal
    disaster.  My sneaking suspicion is that we might just slowly slide
    down the tubes like Burroughs or Honeywell, and that others will
    come in and feast upon the remains.
    
    Perhaps we will have some dramatic crisis that sweeps down and causes
    everyone to either rally or abandon ship, without time to quibble about
    18 vs. 21 month pay raises.  Perhaps Ken will put together a management
    team that will reverse the erosion of confidence and morale, such that
    we will all work here for the pleasure of being on the winning team.
    I'm certainly not counting on economic conditions reversing themselves
    to the point that DEC can offer across-the-board massive pay raises
    just because the coffers are overflowing.  Those times are past, and
    may never return.
    
    Geoff
    

    One of the things I find intriguing is that we automatically assume
    that the bureaucratic stage is bad. Do we do this just because it uses
    the word "bureaucratic"?
    
    It seems the administrative stage can be tolerated, but the
    bureaucratic stage is the pits. Is this really true?
    
    I suggest the aristocratic stage sounds better. So my questions have to
    be:
    
    How do we turn the bureaucratic stage to uor advantage and make a
    success of it?
    
    How quickly can we get to the aristocratic stage (assuming we can't go
    backwards)?
    
    Or, more to the point:
    
    Why don't we ignore all this stuff and get on with doing the right
    thing and the fun that ensues when we do?
    
    Maybe someone could then right a text book about how we changed the
    rules.........

    re: .31  phases and health
    
    Please don't imply from my synopsis that advanced phases are good!
    Quite the opposite is true.   Think about history for a moment.
    An Aristocratic civilization was reached by the Roman Empire, The
    French (w/Louis the XIV?), and arguably Romania, Britain under King
    George, and on and on.   None of these civilizations endured.
    
    For a list of famous bureaucracies, name some countries in Eastern
    Europe.  These civilizations are not making it.   The book draws
    the conclusion that, without intervention, a civilization or
    corporation is already in decline by the time it reaches the
    bureaucratic era although it won't generally by noticible due to
    momentum.
    
    There is a balance that can can be achieved which has the possibility
    of bringing a corporation to a 'synergistic' phase.   In this phase,
    competent 'administration' is desired but it is constantly stressed
    such that it can not evolve to the bureaucratic stage.  Creativity
    is encouraged with a zeal such that prophets and barbarians and
    builder/explorers aren't made subserviant to administration.
    The goal is to "Thrive on Chaos" (my interpretation, from Tom Peters
    book).
    

    <Sound of knuckles cracking...>

    You are right to say that a "bureaucracy" per se is not bad.  However,
    it has grown to have unpleasant connotations.  The dictionary
    definition (_The American Heritage Dictionary_) gets around to them:
    	
    	bu-reauc-ra-cy... 3. An administrative system in which the need to
    	follow complex procedures impedes effective action.

    However, the definition of a "bureaucrat" leaves no doubt:

    	bu-reau-crat. 1. An official who insists on rigid adherence to rules,
    	forms, and routines.

    A bureaucrat is someone whose concept of his job has become so
    distorted that he works *not* to do his job.  By the dictionary
    definition, a bureaucrat is someone who thinks it's more important to
    follow procedure than to do the tasks he is paid to do.  No wonder
    "bureaucratic" civilizations are in decline!

    I know someone who was cut off from Social Security benefits.  She
    filed an appeal, but heard nothing from the Social Security
    Administration for eight months.  When someone interceded on her
    behalf, he discovered that the bureaucrat who received the appeal
    discarded the paperwork because it was sent to the wrong office.  The
    bureaucrat knew which office it was supposed to go to, and could have
    forwarded it himself without effort.  Or he could have responded to the
    appeal and pointed out that it should have gone elsewhere.  But in his
    mind, throwing the paperwork away constituted "doing his job." 
    Meanwhile, a human being went eight months without benefits to which,
    arguably, she was entitled.  (The bureaucrat was reprimanded, by the
    way; his superior thought his actions, even by the standards of the
    SSA, were outrageous.)

    There's no need to go outside of the Digital environment to find
    examples of bureaucracy; we needn't even leave this conference.  The
    Petty Cash group so resoundingly spanked in Note 904.33 acted as if its
    job was *not* to disburse petty cash (as if it's their money or
    something).  Some of the people in the ASSETS program, in the opinion
    of the author of 991.0, acted as if their job was *not* to give out
    information about the ASSETS program.  Note 920.0 discusses Corporate
    Employee Activities, which in one case has acted as if its job is to
    *discourage* employee activities.

    Try this simple test.  Your job is to process orders.  A salesman files
    the paperwork for a $1,000,000 order.  He has screwed up the paperwork. 
    Do you (A) fix the paperwork, if necessary contacting the salesman? or
    (B) reject the paperwork, because it is screwed up?  (Extra credit:  If
    you choose (B), do you tell the salesman you rejected the paperwork, or
    do you let the salesman follow up with you?)  If someone comes down on
    you for choosing (B), whose fault was it: yours, for rejecting the
    paperwork, or the salesman's for screwing it up?

    The first principle of this corporation is -- all together now! -- In
    Every Situation, Do the Right Thing.  The essence of bureaucracy is to
    do the wrong thing for the right reason.  I contend (and does anyone
    seriously doubt it?) that bureaucracy is the very antithesis of what
    Digital strives to achieve.

    Sadly, there are far too many examples of people within Digital who
    choose (B) every working day.

    RE .-1
    
    I full heartedly agree, too many people choose B. Just last week I saw
    both a B and an A. To cut a long story short after going through many
    phone calls of people pointing me off to other people I discovered that
    I had to submit a TELECOM work request (no we don't accept electronic
    mail, I can interoffice mail you a copy if you'd like!). So I go to
    my group administrator to find this form I find a copy and fill it in.
    Then we notice it needs the cost center manager signature. At which
    point I'm about ready to admit defeat to the process, the cost center
    manager wasn't readily available. No problem for her though she signs
    the form with a near perfect copy of the CC managers signature and
    appends a /PO her initials. We need more of these sort of people.
    
    Anyway back to the type Bers, the ones who insisted I fill out a form.
    I handed it to them personally, they now can't find my work request and
    suggest I call the person who they wouldn't let me call before because
    I hadn't submitted a work request.
    
    I see far to many examples of procedures that cost more time and money
    than they save.
    
    Dave

    It's common for service organizations to deny service.  That way the
    rest of us can know they're there and can appreciate how important they
    are.
    

    re .27
    
    well said, Dave
    
    Think I'll summarize it:
    
    There SOME people in DEC who is working FOR THEMSELVES when they're
    SUPPOSED to be working FOR DEC!

    re: Service groups that don't service
    
    Have you ever noticed though, that when a really good group exists,
    it is 'invisible' and over time it won't be able to sustain the
    level of service because their budget dries up.   
    
    I sometimes wonder how much administeria is actually attempts by
    service groups to accomplish an accounting that will keep them from
    becoming invisible and subsequently extinct.   I once had a guy
    working for me who easily spent half of his time answering questions
    as he did his work.   He was like a walking database and exceedingly
    helpful.   I was naive and so was he I guess because he never got
    the credit he deserved for performing this valuable 'teaching' service.
    
    How much bureaucracy evolves to solve this dilemma?   I should have
    put up a little booth (like in Peanuts), "ADVICE 5 CENTS", and made
    an empire of it :^) .
    

re Note 986.29 by WORDY::JONG:

>     One Russian with a desktop publishing system and a laser printer was
>     probably more dangerous to the regime than Trotsky.  I think the rise
>     of the PC, and its slow trickle into Russia, probably contributed to
>     the advent of glasnost.
  
        It is well-accepted that informal networks of VCRs supplied
        with tapes produced with amateur camcorders played a
        significant role in the underground information network in
        eastern Europe.

        Bob

    Could you please list the publisher of the book described in the
    previous note?? There are a number of us that would be interested in
    reading it.
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Art

    re: .39  Are you refering to 986.24????
    
    If you are refering to "Barbarians to Bureaucrats", I'll get the
    publisher's name tonight.

    re: .39 Publisher Question
    
    I hope this is the book you are talking about:
    
    
    	Barbarians to Bureaucrats
    	By:	Lawrence Miller
    	Publisher:	Clarkson N. Potter Inc./Publishers, New York
    	ISBN:		0-517-57135-8

    
    How did people ever get along before they had all those government
    bureaus to tell them what to do? In a bureaucracy, they shoot the
    bull, pass the buck, and make seven copies of everything. The proper
    way to greet a visting bureaucraT IS TO ROLL OUT THE RED TAPE.
    A sure sign of bureaucracy is when the first person who answers the
    phone can't help you. Bureaucracy is based on a willingness to 
    either pass the buck or spend it.
    
                                             RM