Conference 7.286::digital

1071.0. "Honor at Digital" by RDVAX::MACHEFSKY () Mon Apr 02 1990 15:27

<Distributed and posted with permission of author>
<forwards deleted>
 
From:	HYEND::ENGLUND      "VAXcluster Systems Engineering" 27-FEB-1990 10:00:16.02
To:	MABBETT,AVERY
CC:	
Subj:	Digital Honor Society
 
Every once in a while I get totally frustrated with a lack of character
within the team.  While writing this note was done only as 'therapy' for
me, some have suggested that others may be interested in hearing a new
perspective on honor and where it applies to Digital.
 
I am asking for nothing more than your indulgence in reading this four
page note - where I suggest the creation of the Digital Honor Society.
 
Thanks.
 
- - Glenn
 

 
 
 
+---------------------------+TM
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| d | i | g | i | t | a | l |   INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+---------------------------+
 
To:  Digital Honor Society	Date:  February 26, 1990
			     	From:  Glenn R. Englund
			      	Dept:  VAXcluster Systems Engineering
				Loc.:  MRO1-2/S10
				DTN :  297-4125
				Node:  HYEND::ENGLUND
 
Subj:  Honor
 
	"When I decided to change the world, I started by drawing a circle,
	 large enough to hold only one person, and stepping inside the circle 
	 I began the process of change by affecting only the persons inside
	 the circle"
 
						- anonymous
 
THE STRAW:
 
I only wanted a small change!  I had a very new team, with great and enormous
responsibility, and wanted to help this group of individuals grow into a
cohesive team.  So I went about looking for office space which could house
this entire group of 16 people.  After more than 2 months of negotiations with
more groups inside ISB than I can remember, we had finally achieved a solution.
The solution required another group to move co-locating with another team, but 
that was considered a move toward goodness.
 
Then, when the actual move was to take place, someone in the group to be 
co-located (a secretary I believe) decided that this move should not happen. 
And thus, the wheels began to fall off our very neat solution.  While this
decision was achieved by Facilities working jointly with the managers of the
organizations involved, it was made invalid because the team would not 
honor it. 
 
This very small event was only the 'straw' that broke this camel's back.  It
is consistent with an attitude of mistrust and dishonor that I have observed
since joining ISB.  While I'm sure this attitude is not reserved for ISB, it
seems far more prevalent here.  This note suggests that we ought to talk a lot
more about honor.
 
 
THE SYMPTOMS:
 
Ever since joining the ranks of ISB (aka. HPS) last August, I have been struck
by an abundance of powerless people.  The curious thing, is some of these folks
are the most powerful people in the company.  I have often wondered what made
these folks so timid.
 
I have been to meetings where matters of enormous importance to the company 
are discussed.  I have met with people who have titles that would lead me to 
believe they ought to be in the position to make things happen (perhaps even
make decisions).  What I have found is that these folks defer decisions, 
establish committees to investigate further, and generally avoid as much risk 
as possible.  I have wondered what made it so hard for these persons to make 
decisions.
 
 

 
 
Digital Honor Society							Page 2
 
I have also seen some people who have actually made some decisions, taken some
risk, and tried with all of their might to make things happen.  I have seen 
them fail just as miserably as those who established the committees on decision
making.  Why, I wondered, did even those who made decisions fail to achieve
success.
 
I almost came to despair for having any opportunity to succeed.  Neither the
decision makers nor those who defer decisions seem to make things happen.  I
am the kind of guy who likes to make things happen; I like to enable and 
empower my team which in turn permits them to deliver to the highest of their 
capabilities.  How can I succeed?  What must I do to be able to enable my team?
How can I set them free to enrich themselves and our company?
 
 
THE CAUSE:
 
I believe at the root of this very serious problem lies a depletion of honor. 
It seems that we no longer believe in taking a person at their word, but instead
insist on writing everything down.  Hand shakes wont do any more, we need a memo
stating our intentions, wordsmithed to the highest degree, and agreed upon by
the Committee on Formal Intentions (CFI) before being able to deliver the memo. 
 
We have even modified the Digital decision style of 'buy in' to accommodate
our loss of honor.  No longer do we feel inclined to honor the decisions our
team mates struggle to make, but instead we seem inclined to push back.  While
we used to do this interactively with those responsible for making the decision,
we've grown so large that now we do it around them and in spite of them.  So 
instead of simply pushing forward on the directions our team has set, we find 
ways to disrupt those who try to make things happen.  
 
This becomes a most ugly cycle.  A team member makes a decision, which is not
honored by other members of the team.  The decision gets escalated to the
supervisor, who makes another decision (perhaps even the same one), and it
again fails to be honored.  Everyone on the team becomes timid, for they fear
that they too will lose the respect of their peers if they make a decision and
it too fails to be honored.
 
Even 'bosses' become victims of this ugly cycle.  Because they have found so
few of their decisions honored, they tend to defer decisions to committees.
A committee cannot lose respect by making a decision that fails to get honored,
we only disband the committee to form another, creating yet another ugly cycle
supportive of the first.
 
We actually find comfort in these cycles.  Because we expect that others will
check our work (ie. review our decisions and change them/ignore them as they
deem appropriate), we somehow feel safe.  I suggest that much of the 'process'
that makes us so slow to move comes from the safety we have found in these
cycles of mistrust and dishonor.
 
Ken Olsen's own note to us in a recent management memo lamented some of these
same symptoms.
 
 

 
 
Digital Honor Society							Page 3
 
A SOLUTION:
 
Lets create a new cycle.  In this cycle we begin with a commitment to honor
each other.  While this attitude pervades more than just decision making, it
certainly has a significant impact on the decision process.  It actually 
enables and renews the 'buy in' process.  It begins with management, but 
requires commitment from the team members themselves.  In fact, if you consider
the manager as simply a member of the team with a different function (eg.
representing the collaborative efforts of the team in front of upper management)
then one could simply say - it begins with team mates who honor each other.
 
Lets begin with a manager who operates with honor.  Lets suppose that I were
such a manager (I wish I were).  When I honor my team, I leave to them as many
decisions as they are willing to accept, and I back every decision they make. 
When I disagree with a decision a team member has made, to maintain honor I 
should discuss the matter with the team member, and convince them to alter 
course.  If they persist, or cannot change their decision, then if I am to honor
them, I too must follow.  Should one of their decisions prove incorrect, I can 
honor them if I learn with them to avoid repeating the same mistake in the 
future, help them discover a way to recover, and genuinely laugh with them as 
we try to pick up the pieces. 
 
Examine a team which operates with honor.  Because they expect that the 
decisions they take are to be honored, they also honor the decisions made by
others; their team mates and their boss.  They understand that the decisions 
they make will be carried out, so they tend to make better informed decisions.
They cannot afford to make haphazard decisions or remarks - for there is no one
standing on top of them or behind them to correct their individual mistakes.
They operate more responsibly as a result. 
 
An honorable team member, whether individual contributor or manager, does not
take decisions which do not belong to them.  And they honor the decisions made
by others, for to do anything else is to take a decision away that doesn't
belong to them. On the other hand, they do not avoid making decisions they could
and should make.  They operate as if the company were their own, as if it were
that each one were the CEO, and they make their decisions based upon both
business and technical data they have gathered. 
 
To make the best informed decision, an honorable team member would certainly
seek as much help and consultation as possible.  Through meetings, networking,
and research they would determine what decision to make, and when to make it.
They would consult with all those affected by the decision.  They would, in
effect, renew and enable the traditional 'buy in' process.
 
Because decisions made by an individual would receive as much honor as those
made by a team or committee, we actually enable a process of decisions made
in parallel.  Decisions (not just research) could be delegated to individuals
and many individuals making decisions in parallel can significantly improve
our ability to act more quickly.  Think about it - what makes us act?  Research
delays action, so does deliberation.  Rework, reevaluation, rethinking, restarts
all delay results.  Decisions, honored, cause action!
 
Committee meetings, and decisions relegated to committees, become significantly
different within an honorable team.  Committees become meetings of individual
decision makers who must make decisions which are interdependent on each other.
The only time to call for a committee or task force is when multiple decisions
must be made which are interdependent.  Note, in an honorable team, committees
make MULTIPLE decisions - never just one decision.
 

 
 
Digital Honor Society							Page 4
 
THE CHALLENGE:
 
I am sitting here reading again my own memo.  I have learned how shallow my own
commitment to honor has been.  I have been struck by the power embodied in this
basic core value.  I have really only concentrated on the effects that honor
brings to decision making, and realize that I have ignored the greater potential
which will exist if we honor each other.  Still the effect that honor would 
bring to decision making, and thus to action is powerful.
 
So I have decided to draw a circle, only large enough for one person.  I have
decided to step inside that circle and muster every bit of courage, energy,
help, and guidance to become a member of the Digital Honor Society - committed
to honor; to honor others and their decisions.   I am convinced that honor is 
a lot like humility - once you've achieved it you cannot boast of it.  
 
To achieve this goal, to learn to honor others, I will need your help.  There
will continue to be times where I show disrespect to you and others, and where
I will fall short in honoring you.  I will need your correction to show me how
I can better honor you.  This may be where I try to take decisions you should
make, or worse, where I refuse to follow a decision you have made; to 
potentially let you fail.  I will also need your help when I must take a
decision, for I too will fail, and will need your help to pick up the pieces. 
 
Should you decide that you wish to become a member of the Digital Honor Society
I would encourage you to do no more than draw a circle, only large enough to
hold one person, and step inside.  Then apply all your might to making sure that
everyone inside that circle applies all their courage, energy, and commitment
to learning to honor others.
 
Imagine, if you can, a company where decisions are made by individuals,
authorized by honor, made in parallel with the decisions of their team mates,
all of which the team and company follows. Now there's a team going places fast!
 
	"Power to the People!"
 
			- Boy is my age showing!
 

 
 
------- End of Forwarded Message
 
 

    
    re. .0
    
    BINGO.

    
    REF: 1071.0
    
    >><<Imagine, if you can, a company where decisions are made by individuals,
    authorized by honor, made in parallel with the decisions of their team
    mates, all of which the team and company follows. Now there's a team
    going places fast!>>
 
    >><<"Power to the People!">>
    
    I agree with the author.  However, his dialogue beseeches genuine
    employee empowerment, where there is a real acceptance of
    responsibility and authority to make decisions, and to drive
    constructive change to build a better and more successful Digital.
    
    I don't see that this can happen without a real decentralization of
    authority to create changes and to make decisions as I perceive there
    are too many pockets of managers AND individual contributors alike
    whose philosophy is to submit no decision nor idea for change UNLESS
    YOU FIRST KNOW A HIGHER UP HAS ALREADY APPROVED IT!  Bureaucracy.
    
    Real empowerment, i.e. real honor, must necessitate having real
    authority to make decisions and to create and promote changes,
    affecting ANY PART OF DIGITAL, that any employee honorably feels would
    result in positively bringing about a more effective and efficient
    Digital leading to higher levels of success.  My perception is this
    will only happen effectively if Digital were turned upside down, where
    creativity and authority are mandated from the top down, in a
    non-traditional approach to management practice, decentralizing to all
    levels total responsibility with authority create and drive changes,
    anywhere within Digital, based upon knowledge and intuition of those
    closest who "know" the changes and decisions to be made that would lead
    to constructive decisions leading to a more successful Digital.
    
    To support my perception, I offer as evidence the lackluster embracing
    of the "voluntary" DELTA program in the U.S. field -- a program
    designed to nurture individual creativity and decision-making that
    leads to a more successful Digital.
    
    In any organization where there is honor and ethics, there is also
    mandated discipline.  Digital from the top should mandate creativity,
    constructive change, decision-making, and leadership, all flowing from
    the bottom UP.
    

    Responsibility minus Authority equals Stress.
    
    Liked .0.  Never happen.
    
    Karl, watching Sales give away the store to get a good-looking year-end 
    number.  An annual event.

RE: .0

Beautifully put. 

Twenty years or so ago, Digital's Management Development program used
Douglas MacGregor's book, "The Human Side of Enterprise". Your
describing his Theory Y style of management where one assumed people
enjoyed being productive if you gave them a chance; ie, honored them.

It's also reflective of the real ideas behind 'valuing differences' - your
ideas and styles may not match mine, but they may contribute just as
well or better. 

From what I read, it's also reflective of the typical Japanese
management attitudes. 

Good Luck! Hope it spreads.

/George

I believe the concept described in .0 is excellent, however, I disagree with
the belief that decentralization, to the degree described, is productive. I
have been working at DEC for only about 14 months, my observation of DEC
management style, as compared with other companies I have worked for, is that
DEC allows TOO much delegation and decentralization of decision making.

The team that I work on continually get into quagmires of wasted man-power,
frustration, and stress due incorrect solutions to problems. My belief is 
that these quagmires could have been avoided with a little strong management
intervention and direction. Instead, what our team has is a whole lot of
chiefs and no indians, alot of people going in many directions at once, all
of which does not seem to be helping us provide the service we are supposed
to be providing.

I believe management style is very much like a pendulum. When the pendulum
is all the way over to one side you have dictatorial management, on the other
side you have complete bottom-up management where the managers just represent
the entire team but provide no direction or solutions. The happy medium seems
to me the best method of management, managers who provide direction and who
listen to team members input and as a group decide what directions they should
work towards.

I don't believe that a business should be run as a democracy, there has got to
be leaders, there have got to be persons with the grand vision, there have
got to be persons pointing the way just as there has to be followers not 
everyone can or should make decisions, anarchy would follow.

Honesty and integrity, in any environment is important and valuable and should
be demanded everywhere work, home, or play. What is described in .0, to me,
seems too pie in the sky, it denies human emotions and all the good and bad
that go with them.

I guess the bottom line is I don't GET IT, whatever IT is. Management styles
I have observed within DEC and what is described in the previous replies just
don't make any sense to me when I think of how I would run a company.


						Mark K.
						CSC/CS

    RE: .5
    
    You make some valid and important points -- I especially agree with
    your thoughts on "democracy" and "leaders" as they relate to
    corporations.
    
    \Gil Goodridge

    
    
    Maybe just a nit, but I couldn't help noticing that the person to
    put a monkey wrench in the move was "A secretary".  I wonder if
    if it would have been more justifiable if it had been "an engineer"
    or some "Wage Class 4" person or even as "bad".
    
    How did this one person overrule a majority consensus anyway or
    did I miss something?
    
    "not just a secretary"

    
     A lot of good points in .0, especially about self
    evaluation. But now my manager wants to know why
    i've drawn a circle on my office carpet!

    I totally agree with .0 and its not really "blue sky"....It's all a
    matter of ethics and principles....sounds corny maybe, but thats what
    allows me to sleep at night.. A lot of this was in a course I took here
    at DEC taught by an outside consulting firm... The course was "MFE
    II",( Managing for Excellence, Part II).. Without a doubt, the best
    course I've ever taken.... Well, anyway.. my circle is drawn and I'm
    standing in it....I hope you are too. 

	I also noticed that it was a secretary that fouled up the
	move.

	If the manager is going to give anyone the power to affect
	a decision like this, then they'd d___ well better get
	that person's buyin early.  They obviously didn't.
	That's just bad management, besides resulting in dishonor
	for the manager.

	Maybe we need an official Honor Roll.  Who's credible
	this month?  Groups as well as individuals.  Otherwise
	a dishonorable group or person could cause all kinds
	of trouble throughout the organization before it is 
	widely known.

	Also, this manager is obviously not measured on his/her
	credibility with the other group.  When you give managers
	money for only one or two things, that's what you'll
	get, to the exclusion of nearly everything else. 

	The "secretary" also might just be an excuse.  The real
	problem might be the manager's supervisor.  A couple
	levels up things are real chaotic at DEC, with signals
	changing daily, especially regarding office moves and how
	it relates to turf or getting an office next to the
	boss and boss's boss.  And no one knows how to fix THAT.

    If this organization|award|other_manifestation ever comes to pass
    (and you never can tell), take a bit of thought to the name. 
    
    Many people, hearing "Digital Honor Society", may be reminded of the
    National Honor Society, which in my high school was an offensively
    prim self-congratulation club.  For 25 years I thought my opinion
    of them was sour grapes because a minor, um, adventure in my senior
    year disqualified me; but the feeling has survived so much wisdom
    gained and lost, that I'm convinced it must be accurate!
    
    There, you've been warned.  Honor Roll is slightly better, but still
    has ready-made connotations that probably aren't what you want.
    
    How about Credibility SIG?	:-)
    					-JwT

    Re: .0 - ABSOLUTELY!  
    
    See also - Quality - as Robert Pirsig discusses it in "Zen & the 
    Art of Morotcycle Maintenance" - As a personal passion, overriding 
    and underlying goal, and point of personal honor.
    
    Re: "This ain't no stinking democracy - it's a business"
    
    Yes, BUT - there IS NO LEADERSHIP PROVIDED BY MANAGEMENT (in my
    personal experience), only examples to the contrary. Mixed messages or
    no messages at all filter down from on high, all the way out to where
    we have to support customers without knowing our "metric du jour". Even
    if each individual puts forth a best effort, those individual efforts
    will diverge and diffuse in the absence of imposed or derived
    consensus.
    
    Which means to me, if Mgmt won't lead/impose/state a goal, then we must
    individually strive to do our best. But we ain't all pointed in the
    same direction. So even if we hear a vague shout thru the cannon smoke
    of daily business "You troops go take yonder hill!", we-uns is gonna go
    yondering to all points of the compass, and get chewed up. In practical
    business terms, my best effort will not be recognized as the best
    effort for the company, REGARDLESS OF MY INTENTIONS OR RESULTS, because
    those doing the measuring don't have a clue where any of us are
    supposed to be going. 
    
    
    SO we try to create consensus from the bottom up. What other consensus
    do we have? And those of us who try to be honorable (sign me up for a
    circle on my office floor), keep doing our best to counteract those
    whose manifest goal is self-promotion NO MATTER WHAT.