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

Conference 7.286::digital

Title:	The Digital way of working

Moderator:	QUARK::LIONELON

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

1108.0. "Unmasking Incompetent Managers" by ODIXIE::CARNELL (DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF) Mon May 14 1990 15:14

    Are incompetent managers the greatest threat facing Digital?
    How are they identified?  How are they damaging Digital?  How 
    can they be unmasked and removed?  What are the criteria for 
    ensuring that Digital selects real leaders who will lead us 
    to greater success, ensuring our prosperity and future?  How 
    do we get leaders with those traits that are positive, 
    leading us to greater success; yet, how do we keep those VERY 
    SAME POSITIVE TRAITS from turning destructive?

    To start this discussion, let me share with you a recent 
    article titled UNMASKING INCOMPETENT MANAGERS, noted below. 
    (permission granted to copy and forward this note to anyone).

    (long note alert -- my apologies but the article is good)

                 UNMASKING INCOMPETENT MANAGERS
                               by
                          Daniel Kagan
                 INSIGHT Magazine, May 21, 1990
               (reprinted here without permission)

    SUMMARY: According to some psychologists, the biggest threat 
    facing U.S. business today is the incompetent manager, most 
    notably the one who displays narcissistic tendencies.  For 
    these executives, their self-interests are far more important 
    than the welfare of the organization.  As a result, experts 
    are working on ways to help recruiters spot potential 
    incompetents -- before they become problems in the office.

    What is the biggest threat facing American business?  Forget 
    rising interest rates and Japanese imports.  Corporate 
    America's worst problem, says psychologist Robert Hogan, may 
    be managerial incompetence: the failure of executives to 
    advance the interests of their companies because they can't 
    motivate their staffs, change their approach when they are in 
    error, plan strategically or force alliances with each other.

    Incompetent executives are not simply failing because their 
    jobs are too tough, says Hogan, director of the Tulsa 
    Institute of Behavioral Sciences.  Managers are usually 
    assumed to be basically competent, because most have been 
    chosen for their confidence, assertiveness, charm, ambition 
    and charisma -- qualities known to correlate highly with good 
    performance.

    But Hogan says that just those qualities often accompany 
    executive incompetence rooted in serious personality 
    disorders, and he warns that the usual means by which 
    managers are hired and promoted -- assessment testing, 
    personality profiles, supervisor evaluations, interviews and 
    so on  -- actually select a significant number of people in 
    whom seemingly positive traits are really symptoms of 
    psychological abnormalities.

    With strong apparent leadership traits, such people move 
    steadily up the promotion ladder because they do well in 
    assessments and interviews, and are good at ingratiating 
    themselves with their superiors and at making themselves look 
    good.  All the while, they are detrimental or even dangerous 
    to their organization.  They may actually destroy a company.

    "Superior self-presentation skills drive careers, not 
    competence," Hogan says ruefully.  Someone with a 
    narcissistic personality disorder, for instance, is motivated 
    to succeed because of an unhealthy craving for attention and 
    recognition, not out of a desire to do a good job.

    In these disorders, traits that are normal and necessary in a 
    manager become twisted or intensified while appearing as a 
    mask of normal behavior.  In narcissistic managers, for 
    example, self-confidence is distorted to the point that they 
    believe no one else has anything of value to say.  They will 
    not listen to criticism and devalue anyone who offers it, and 
    so cannot learn from experience or change behavior that leads 
    to wrong decisions.

    A resentful or revengeful manager with a passive-aggressive 
    or paranoid personality disorder might use persuasiveness and 
    charm to lull subordinates or peers into a false sense of 
    trust, while at the same time quietly gathering damaging 
    information on them and feeding it to others who will use it 
    against them or the company.

    Someone with an avoidant or dependent personality disorder 
    may become the often-promoted but unproductive manager who 
    "falls upward" -- what Hogan calls a "high likability 
    floater."  Self-confident on the surface and charming, poised 
    and congenial, such a manager quells deep insecurity by 
    carefully conforming to the demands of the social 
    environment.  Loyal to a fault, these managers never argue or 
    complain and are well-liked.  But they accomplish almost 
    nothing because they have no goals, no point of view and will 
    not take a stand on issues.  Such people are nearly 
    impossible to fire because they have no enemies and lots of 
    friends.  Says Hogan: "The arteries of large organizations 
    are clogged by such congenial, cautious, conforming mid-level 
    managers."

    In studying 25 years of survey research in industrial and 
    organizational psychology, Hogan found high levels of 
    employee dissatisfaction with superiors, a huge number of 
    people who reported considerable time working for an 
    intolerable boss and polls showing the primary source of 
    stress in the workplace is the tyrannical boss.  "I think a 
    substantial part of American productivity is damaged by 
    this," he says.

    The potentially most damaging disorder among managers is 
    narcissism, because narcissistic traits such as 
    self-confidence, extroversion, ambition, persuasiveness, 
    energy, achievement-orientation and dominance rate so high in 
    the executive selection process.  In healthy amounts, these 
    traits are assets: Chrysler Chairman Lee A. Iacocca is named 
    by experts as a good example of a manager with a high but 
    healthy level of narcissism, which helped him become a 
    genuine success and effective leader.

    But assessment procedures cannot determine whether those 
    traits exist at a pathological level, where self-confidence 
    is a mask for egotism, or dominance and leadership are really 
    expressions of exhibitionism.  The positive trait of 
    persuasiveness may actually reflect manipulativeness, so that 
    subordinates and peers are pawns to be exploited in order to 
    glorify the narcissistic manager, who is indifferent to the 
    feelings of others but will feign interest to get what he 
    wants.  Apparent ambition can mask a drive toward 
    self-glorification, which is the only goal, with the needs of 
    the company coming last.  Narcissists will not accept 
    responsibility for their failures but project them onto 
    others.  Inside they are emotionally empty and riddled with 
    insecurity.

    Yet such a type does not always stand out.  "This kind of 
    dealing often fits in with a company's corporate culture," 
    says Larry Hirschhorn, who heads the Wharton Center for 
    Applied Research.  "Companies are often based on the 
    systematic distortion of truth.  So much of corporate culture 
    is about what can't be said, how appearances must be managed, 
    how things are supposed to be imaged.  The narcissist is good 
    with this kind of fakery, [so he] is not just a problem 
    individual different from the milieu around him.  Often 
    camouflaged by their surroundings, the more they rise, the 
    worse things can get.

    "The higher up we go in an organization, the more the milieu 
    tells us the world revolves around us," says Howard Schwartz, 
    an organizational behavior expert at the Oakland University 
    School of Business in Rochester, Mich.  "This creates a kind 
    of narcissistic separation from reality."

    To complicate matters, some narcissists possess high levels 
    of valuable abilities.  They may rise to become CEOs or 
    corporate raiders whose real goal is to glorify themselves by 
    wielding power over those who work for the companies they 
    acquire.  "Put these characteristics together with real 
    talent and you can have a real success.  But they leave 
    behind them a scorched earth," says Hogan.

    Larry Gould, a psychologist who treats many narcissistic 
    managers, believes such executives are the exceptions.  
    "Severely disordered people rarely rise to the heights.  If 
    they do, they don't last long.  They seem to thrive only in 
    organizations where narcissism is the coin of the realm, 
    where everyone supports everyone else's glory-seeking."

    Most narcissists derail or hit a plateau at the middle or 
    upper-middle management level.  Typically, they do not 
    manifest poisonous traits strongly until they win some 
    authority.  "They get a chance to manage people, their traits 
    blossom and their ineffectiveness becomes obvious.  They get 
    fired, they get blocked in their careers," says Gould, who 
    thinks these types are less of a threat than do other 
    experts.  "They tend to stick out and be destructive and take 
    up too much room.  If they can be politically bumped off, 
    they are."

    Michael Lombardo, director of the leadership development 
    research group at the Center for Creative Leadership, 
    unearthed the concordance between narcissism and executive 
    failure while researching why promising careers go off the 
    track.  "We found that the common reasons for derailment were 
    also traits common to narcissistic personalities," he says.  
    The failed managers were insensitive to others, cold, aloof, 
    arrogant, destructively competitive and overly self-focused 
    in order to please top management; they also showed a lack of 
    composure under stress and betrayed trust.

    Narcissists may terrorize subordinates by manipulating them, 
    playing favorites and cultivating sycophants [a person who 
    attempts to win favor or advance himself by flattering 
    persons of influence; a servile self-seeker].  They create a 
    tense atmosphere in which the staff is afraid to speak 
    truthfully and must show inordinate loyalty.  They denigrate 
    people because they feel superior to them and fail to give 
    subordinates credit.  Morale and productivity falter, 
    absenteeism rises.

    Alternatively, a narcissist may initially charm and dazzle 
    staff into following him [or her].  "When they enter an 
    organization, they often cause a sensation...Initially they 
    infuse a lot of energy," says Hogan.  Their influence can be 
    seductive.

    "People in the orbit of a narcissistic superior feel a pull 
    to want to satisfy them.  It is like being sucked into being 
    a co-dependent with an alcoholic," says Hirschhorn.  "He will 
    use your normal tendencies against you.  He manipulates.  He 
    plays to weak spots in your self-esteem, sucks you in with 
    compliments and stroking.  In the beginning, he may idealize 
    his subordinates, feed their egos.  They tell him what he 
    wants to hear, because he strokes them.  This can create a 
    kind of groupthink among his staff.  He projects failures 
    outside the unit.  It is the fault of the guy down the hall, 
    of the marketplace.  This cements groupthink."

    "Their high outward self-confidence convinces us.  We all 
    subconsciously admire that.  It makes us feel good about 
    them," says Harry Levinson, a psychologist who runs the 
    Levinson Institute in Belmont, Mass.  And the narcissist has 
    an uncanny knack, he says, "to make you believe that if you 
    don't go along with what they want, there is something wrong 
    with you."

    Meanwhile, such managers are carefully cultivating a winning 
    image, manipulating superiors into thinking they are doing a 
    fabulous job as subordinates languish under their thumb or in 
    their shadow.  "They fawn upward and dump downward," Levinson 
    says.  Subordinates will not speak up, figuring that upper 
    management knows what this person is and likes it that way.  
    In some cases, upper management recognizes the narcissism but 
    tolerates it as a trade-off for valued traits, such as the 
    ability to sweet-talk and con difficult clients, government 
    regulatory officials or hostile consumers.

    So the damage mounts.  The narcissist is very good at 
    creating the illusion of success over the short haul.  To 
    attempt to look good by appearing to cut costs, for example, 
    such a manager may take over a troubled unit and show 
    on-paper savings by destroying resources -- firing key 
    personnel or jettisoning critical strategic strengths.  The 
    damage will not surface until after the manager has moved on 
    to avoid responsibility for the collapse of the unit, been 
    promoted again or been fired.

    Or the narcissist will create chronic problems.  James 
    Krantz, assistant professor at the Yale School of 
    Organization and Management, gives the example of a 
    manufacturing plant that has four sections, one of which is 
    managed by a narcissist whose staff is demoralized and 
    unproductive.  "The whole plant has problems, but the cost 
    accounting system can't pinpoint the problem," he says.  Or 
    the narcissist can become bitter and resentful, influencing 
    subordinates against management, complaining to customers 
    about upper management in the role of sort of heroic 
    ombudsman, or actively colluding against management with 
    suppliers or customers.  This can go on for years."

    Eventually, the narcissistic manager is brought down in 
    several ways.  Often, says Levinson, a key subordinate valued 
    by upper management quits in exasperation, telling senior 
    staff the reason for the departure.  Management may confront 
    the narcissist, who may flee rather than take responsibility.  
    In other cases "a union starts, work productivity drops...or 
    [the narcissist] gets caught sexually harassing a female 
    employee.  Sooner or later it all catches up with them," says 
    Hogan.

    Unfortunately, they usually find similar jobs elsewhere.  The 
    firing company will often write glowing recommendations to 
    keep them speaking well of the company and to avoid a 
    lawsuit.  They often bounce from job to job, using their 
    formidable interview skills to talk their way into new 
    positions.  Headhunters and search firms also favor such 
    types by overemphasizing self-presentation qualities and 
    turning executive recruitment into a beauty contest, as Hogan 
    calls it, that favors a manipulative, glamorous narcissist.

    Consequently, experts are trying to develop ways to spot 
    narcissists or sift them out during hiring.  Levinson, who 
    estimates that narcissistic managers are the cause of about 
    15 percent of the problems he is hired to solve as a 
    corporate consultant, uses a specialized interviewing 
    technique to unmask them.

    "I don't ask him [or her] to tell me what he does.  I ask him 
    HOW [personal emphasis] he does it.  What kinds of trouble he 
    has had with peers, subordinates, others," he says.  "And 
    there is consistency of response.  They will talk about other 
    people's inadequacy and how they are not very good.  Or they 
    will say they are the target of the rivalry or jealousy of 
    their peers because they get along so well with others.  Or 
    they will talk about their victories, how they won because 
    they were so bright."

    Levinson has a prescription for spotting narcissists during 
    hiring.  "I tell people to beware the person you like too 
    well too quickly.  I say, 'Ask yourself: What do they do that 
    I like them so much after 10 minutes?'  Are they too cordial?  
    This should be a red flag."

    Hogan and his colleagues have been developing a written 
    personality inventory that can spot abnormally high levels of 
    narcissistic traits -- and traits of other personality 
    disorders as well.  They are doing this because the standard 
    inventories used in executive assessment "have no real 
    predictive power in the real world.  The scores...have 
    nothing to do with the person's actual performance," says 
    Hogan.

    His inventory has so far been tested on 5,000 employees and 
    managers and has shown a high correlation between job 
    performance and strong trends in personality disorders.  
    Those who score high in disorder traits tend not to do well 
    in job areas that would be damaged by those traits.  Several 
    large companies have begun using the inventory experimentally 
    in internal evaluations.

    Hogan thinks the central issue is that executive evaluation 
    methods focus almost exclusively on analyzing the elements 
    that add up to competence, while ignoring the equally 
    influential flaws, ingrained in individuals, that may cause 
    incompetence no matter what positive attributes exist.  More 
    effort should be made, he thinks, to study the personal 
    dynamics of failure rather than the requirements for success.

    "There is a general lack of concentration by organizations on 
    the dark side of management and human nature," says Lombardo.  
    "Organizations are afraid to look at it.  It is a nasty 
    topic."  He decries the tradition of assessing only the 
    positive aspects of leadership.  "It creates the idea of 
    leadership as some kind of mechanical engineering or as an 
    asset sheet.  But the problem is, you get all the assets but 
    none of the liabilities [in the personality].  This takes an 
    unbalanced, naive, mechanical view of the role of human 
    nature."

    End of Article

    Is narcissism the coin of the realm in Digital, image more 
    important than substance, personal agenda and career 
    advancement more important than good of the company in total?

    What are some solutions and ideas to consider?

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
1108.1	This conference is not restricted. All notes may be forwarded.	COVERT::COVERT	John R. Covert	`Mon May 14 1990 16:32`	11
	>(permission granted to copy and forward this note to anyone) Well, incompetence starts right there with that statement. You have no right to withhold that permission; your granting it shows that you seem to think you need to do so. Now had you stated "permission granted to repost this note in any other conference" you would have been saying something useful. /john
1108.2	I'm sorry	ODIXIE::CARNELL	DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF	`Mon May 14 1990 16:58`	11
	Ref: <<< Note 1108.1 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>> -< This conference is not restricted. All notes may be forwarded. >- >><<Well, incompetence starts right there with that statement.>> My apologies for being incompetent -- I was under the impression that no VAXnotes could be copied and forwarded to anyone without the express permission of the author. That said, may we now address the content?
1108.4	The turkeys are everywhere	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Thu May 17 1990 00:51`	20
	re .3 > I've seen it so many times it's scary to realize it may be endemic. > > It is far more prevalent now than in the past. It's real. People like people like themselves. It's one of the fundamental principles in improving your image when dealing with your supoeriors. It's also fundamental in what kind of people managers hire. Unfortunately, that means that competent managers bring competent people on board, and incompetent ones bring incompetent people on board. Incompetent people don't last long working for competent managers; competent people don't last long working for incompetent managers. Yes, I've seen (and sometimes sufferred under) all of the kinds of managers mentioned in the article. /Peters
1108.5	what now ?	SHIRE::GOLDBLATT		`Thu May 17 1990 03:52`	5
	I've seen a few of this type of manager as well. Unfortunately for Digital, we no longer have the income cushion that allows the effects of incompetancy to be ignored. David
1108.6	popularity contests ?	BEAGLE::WLODEK	Network pathologist.	`Thu May 17 1990 05:01`	7
	The real guys( provocation intended) , I*M ,had it for years. Managers are evaluated by there people, how it works in practice I don't know .
1108.7	Not everyone CAN be a manager	NEWVAX::MZARUDZKI	Feelin' like Road Pizza	`Thu May 17 1990 07:58`	14
	Perhaps Digitals flaw is in the process of choosing a manager? I cannot say how one goes about becoming a manager... I really don't know. But in a previous lifetime some people were promoted into management slots and MANY others were not informed properly. Some people are just NOT cut out to be managers. That does't imply they are not good at their present job. It means that not everyone is management material. In this day and age IMO managers will make or break organizations. So who has input into "So and so has great potential, let us make them a manager...." What gives? Mike Z.
1108.8		ESCROW::KILGORE	Wild Bill	`Thu May 17 1990 08:58`	16
	The solution to incompetent management has been stated in this conference before. As a software engineer, I am judged on the quantity and quality of the software I produce. As a manager, I would expect to be judged on how well I manage my people. And who better to provide that kind of information than the people I manage? But how many of you have been asked to provide input to the review of your managers? I'll wager large sums of money that you're in an exceedingly small minority. Peer and subordinate input to management review would quickly point out incompetence. It may help to be able to initally select good management, but the the key to sustaining good management is relevant feedback and review.
1108.9	If you have a solution idea, send it to Ken Olsen	ODIXIE::CARNELL	DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF	`Thu May 17 1990 09:27`	252
	In the October, 1989, Volume 13, Number 3, issue of DECWORLD sent to employees, Digital President Ken Olsen stated in his letter to employees, "We encourage people to express their opinions and to therefore help in the formulation of policy." He said that while Digital obviously can't accept everyone's ideas, it does mean that Digital still listens to all opinions. The implication of this statement (and others before and since by Digital Executive Committee members) is that employee opinions would be reviewed on the content, not the person submitting them, with arguments pro and con based on the merits of the ideas and opinions; that there would be no action by any employee in censoring the ideas and opinions, even if unpopular, created by another employee, submitting them for consideration; that no employee would be "put down" for submitting his or her ideas and opinions; and that no employee would be retaliated against for expressing his or her ideas and opinions. Here's my opinion (long note alert!) that I sent to Ken Olsen: I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 16-May-1990 08:10am EDT From: David Carnell @ALF CARNELL.DAVID Dept: Proposal Designers Tel No: 385-2901 404772-2901 TO: Remote Addressee ( KEN OLSEN @MLO ) CC: Remote Addressee ( ALAN ZIMMERLE @CFO ) Subject: Some ideas pertaining to building a more successful Digital Dear Mr. Olsen: Accepting your open invitation that any employee is welcome to send you any ideas and opinions, especially related to building a more successful Digital, I would like to share with you a recent article published in the INSIGHT Magazine, titled, UNMASKING INCOMPETENT MANAGERS, which suggests that managers who put personal interests and career ahead of the welfare of the company are today's greatest threat to U.S. businesses. If you find merit in the article, then I would like to present after the article some non-traditional ideas for solving the problem outlined in the article, which if implemented, I believe will lead to a more successful Digital in the shortest amount of time. UNMASKING INCOMPETENT MANAGERS (article removed since posted in Digital base note 1108.0) End of Article Mr. Olsen: In my opinion, to ensure Digital's future prosperity and success, Digital MUST have, at all levels in the organization, managers who are REAL leaders that can LEAD employees to higher levels of performance and achievement, nurturing genuine employee involvement, creativity, constructive constant change, and a sense of ownership with responsibility and authority. Digital cannot afford professional, incompetent bureaucrats whose sole priority and skill lies in advancing their personal careers at the expense of both their direct reports and Digital as a total corporate entity. And Digital certainly cannot afford, as a consequence of a lack of genuine leadership in managers, an apathetic workforce that only shows up to do a job for a salary but takes no ownership in creating and driving change, building a more successful Digital, GREATER than what is. You recently said something to the effect that history has shown that a Communistic society is a dismal failure in economic development as compared to a Democratic society. A society burdened with centralized bureaucracy simply does not work. You went on to say that Digital is more like a communistic system than a democratic system. I would like to convey some non-traditional ideas for changing the discipline in "how" Digital fundamentally works as a company that could make us a showcase in how a REAL democratic business can truly thrive and grow. These ideas would pertain to virtually all employees, all wages classes, and would include contract workers. 1. Decentralize responsibility down to every individual employee. Mandate that Digital will become the company that networks the world in the most effective information technology, satisfying customer wants better than anyone, and linking the "minds" behind every computer terminal where the "qualitative" THINKING value of information and idea exchange via computers will lead both to a new Renaissance in world development and cooperation but also to a Digital that will become THE most successful corporation in terms of revenue and profitability that has ever existed. Mandate that every individual employee is now charged with "thinking creatively" to come up and get implemented CONTINUOUSLY the tens of thousands of changes necessary in order to accomplish this dream, and all employees will be accountable for creating, contributing, and implementing creative, innovative change in all actions and processes where all will work SMARTER, not harder, increasing our efficiency and effectiveness in satisfying customer wants in information technology and making a LOT of money for doing it perfectly. 2. Decentralize authority down to every individual employee. Mandate that every group will meet weekly, via in person or via a private "group" VAXnotes conference, and will evaluate all ideas for change, either generated within the group, or coming in from other employees in Digital, or from customers, and will discuss the merits of each idea to build a more successful Digital; to increase efficiency and effectiveness in any and all actions and processes, products and services; to cut waste and cost; or to build REAL customer satisfaction, more customers, revenue, margin and profit. Each group will make GO or NO GO decisions, then and there each week, as a group, with majority vote ruling. The Group's manager will cast tie-breaking votes as needed. No longer will managers have the elite decision-making authority on change but now every employee will own the responsibility for change with a say in making change happen. 3. Make every employee own the responsibility and authority to ensure that their given group is being properly led and supported by real leadership in their group manager. Beginning now, and every six months, all direct reports will do written leadership performance appraisals on the group leader, and then as a group, will discuss those appraisals. A referendum of confidence will be taken on the group leader and if less than 2/3 positive, a list of actions for improving his or her leadership will be given to the group leader. If in the referendum held the following six months, the group leader has failed to improve, winning a 2/3 positive referendum, then the group, as a group, will find and select, from within the group or elsewhere in Digital, a new leader, and the current group leader will find a another group to lead or find an individual contributor position. No longer will any group be able to say "it's management, not us" for now all groups own the authority to ensure professional leadership to help the group plan properly, achieve its goals, and attain higher levels of accomplishment. 4. Make every employee own the responsibility for ensuring that all group members contribute their fair share of effort, and their fair share of creative thinking. Mandate that all employees of a group will be given performance appraisals not only by the group leader but also by every peer within the group. Every member will be responsible for improving based on the accumulative feedback from other members and will be subject to due process by the group leader if found by 2/3 of the group not to be performing in an acceptable manner as defined by the group, and not willing to improve per the feedback. No longer will any employee say, "he [or she] is coasting, protected by management" for all group members now own the authority to ensure that everyone is building a more successful Digital TOGETHER, each contributing in both performance -- AND EQUALLY -- in creative thinking to discover new ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness. 5. Make every employee an entrepreneur building a single more successful company. Mandate that every employee's future raises will be determined by both performance and creative thinking appraisal that has lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness, and cooperation and harmony within Digital to build a more successful company. In addition, as a reward to cooperating, and building large amounts of additional revenue and profit, via working SMARTER, mandate EQUAL profit sharing for all employees. Mandate any profit over a certain percentage of operating income to revenue (say anything over 15%) goes into a common entreprenuer profit sharing bucket that will be shared EQUALLY by the number of employees present at the end of the fiscal year (prorated for those working in Digital less than a full year). Thus, as an example, if Digital generates next year 20 billion in revenue and 5 billion in operating income, then 3 billion goes back into Digital and 2 billion gets divided by say 125,000 employees present at the end of the year, giving each a bonus check of $16,000. Now there is a profit carrot FOR EVERYONE, together as a SINGLE team, to BUILD something greater than what is, to look beyond just doing a good job getting a wage or salary. There is an incentive to think creatively and to incur change and to drive constructive change into reality,quickly. And there is an incentive to work TOGETHER in harmony and cooperation since the incentive is interdependently linked to everyone succeeding TOGETHER as a SINGLE DIGITAL FAMILY rather than an incentive for personal gain at the expense of the welfare of the entire organization. There would be a fire and a passion, the spark that drives entreprenuers to build something great, succeeding together as a real team. 6. Give every employee the opportunity to "skunk" new products and services, and most especially, new value-added BIG margin information service "BUSINESSES" that can optimize our proprietary information technology. Encourage and fund more creativity to "fly" within Digital, especially for independent but related "division" businesses, supported as required according to a burning dream any individual "sees" can be something GREAT for Digital. 7. Decentralize marketing and make every employee a "marketeer" with every Account Manager a "marketing manager" responsible for KNOWING what customers want for us TO DO so we satisfy them better than anyone and get all the business at premium prices. Reverse-engineer Digital's business and marketing plans, beginning from the final desired result: Digital wants customers who willingly buy from us, who willingly pay us premium prices, and who willingly remain loyal, because we satisfy their information technology/value-added information needs and wants better than any other alternative, providing our customers premium value-added benefits with our products, services and total actions of each and every Digital employee. The benefit is by working backwards, writing new plans, level by level, Digital can create new "detailed action change plans" for more effectively building a better and more successful Digital. Mandate that every employee begin listening to other employees and most especially to every CUSTOMER at EVERY contact, and begin documenting that feedback, and begin moving that "customer intelligence" upward through the Account Managers -- and from them -- to where needed throughout Digital in order that proactive changes be made enabling Digital to become more responsible in matching Digital actions to customer wants and expectations. At virtually EVERY customer interface between a Digital employee and a customer contact, via phone or in-person, the employee will ask the following: "Before we end this meeting, I and Digital would like you to candidly share your thinking on four quick questions, from which we might derive recommended changes in Digital products, services or actions, that would not only ensure that we maintain your current satisfaction, but would in fact lead to higher levels of satisfaction, all so Digital can be your vendor of choice, satisfying your wants better than anyone else, and of course, making money in doing so. The first question: What are your likes? Second: What are your dislikes? Third: What are your wants? Fourth: What are your further suggestions for changes?" The benefits are that Digital will quickly discover from our six million customer contacts exactly what must be changed in order to fine-tune the total Digital engine, via hundreds of thousands of subtle changes, to make more money via satisfying customer needs and wants better than any competitive alternative. These are a few ideas to consider -- I've sent more to Alan Zimmerle over the last year that I'm sure he'll share with you if you find any merit in any of my creative thinking to build a more successful Digital via real and total employee involvement, all working smarter, together in harmony, building a dream of something greater than what already is. Regards, An employee who wants to make a difference David
1108.10		REGENT::POWERS		`Thu May 17 1990 09:40`	23
	> <<< Note 1108.8 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >>> > As a software engineer, I am judged on the quantity and quality of the > software I produce. As a manager, I would expect to be judged on how well > I manage my people. AND WHO BETTER TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF INFORMATION > THAN THE PEOPLE I MANAGE? I believe it is a fallacy to expect that the managed can understand how well they have been managed. For some people, the process of their being managed should be invisible. Others need to deal with the process of being managed (and the person responsible for it) with every decision. A manager doesn't just manage his own people, he manages all the resources delegated to him: money, equipment, facilities, liaisons, AND people. To turn Bill's question around: Who better to judge a manager than the person who did the delegation? (All the way up the line.) Input from subordinates IS important, but it must be tempered with the expectation that the input is potentially biased and based on incomplete information. - tom]
1108.11		33018::MIANO	John - NY Retail Banking Resource Cntr	`Thu May 17 1990 11:32`	8
	RE: .9 Well, Mr. Carnell you really have balls. It sounds like you have been trying to start a revolution. I'm sure you'll keep us informed. There are probably a lot of people out here who are interested in hearing the outcome. John
1108.12	if you want change, you need to express yourself	ODIXIE::CARNELL	DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF	`Thu May 17 1990 17:45`	30
	REF: <<< Note 1108.11 >>> >><<There are probably a lot of people out here who are interested in hearing the outcome.>> If you think so, I guess I can share whatever I hear. Here's something relating to an earlier submission. I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 16-May-1990 07:51pm EDT From: IDEAS USMC USMC.IDEAS AT A1 at MCIS3 at MRO Dept: JIM PITTS Tel No: 8-276-8593 TO: DAVID CARNELL @ALF CC: IDEAS CENTRAL @OGO Subject: DELTA Idea #1286 David, I have scheduled your idea on "changing the rules" on the USMC DELTA agenda for May 25. We will be back to you on our discussions. Thank you on your submission. Regards, Jim Pitts
1108.13	Focus on accountability, on people, on future!	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Thu May 17 1990 23:01`	72
	re .10 > I believe it is a fallacy to expect that the managed can understand > how well they have been managed. For some people, the process of their > being managed should be invisible. Others need to deal with the process > of being managed (and the person responsible for it) with every decision. > > A manager doesn't just manage his own people, he manages all the resources > delegated to him: money, equipment, facilities, liaisons, AND people. > To turn Bill's question around: > Who better to judge a manager than the person who did the delegation? > (All the way up the line.) Judgment, responsibility and accountability should process all the way up the line. Unfortunately, part of the culture today also seems a lack of willingness to confront managerial problems head on. Even managers who may personally have a problem with a manager working for them will cover that up when one of those manager's subordinates complains -- if they made that person's appointment to management. The person with the problem manager just becomes a "complainer." In the outside world, problems are resolved in ways that hopefully benefit all concerned. But to do that, you have to objectively assess the situation and deal with all the facts on the table. Here, we often "solve" problems by refusing to acknowledge they exist. By not confronting them and solving them, we not only punish the innocent but doom ourselves to perpetuate the same mistakes over and over again. On a more general note... I've found a real propensity, especially among people who have not managed before DEC, to become more preoccupied with things than people. Things -- schedules, forecasts, meetings -- scream out for attention, like a ringing phone. Without experience and discipline, a manager will rush to answer everything and degenerate into a morass of crisis management. When management from the top communicates and enforces the message that people are our most important resource by making sure that PEOPLE ISSUES take precedence over "THING" ISSUES, then the culture will start to move toward productive, effective and constructive management. What hurts us most, however, is our own low expectations of the changes management can effect. We always talk about individuals making a difference. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't still be here putting up with what goes on around here. But we never talk about individual managers making a difference. We don't expect anything from managers. Indeed, the most effective, most respected individuals are those who can navigate around DEC and personally solve all their own issues -- without help from management. In fact, in two years as a manager here at DEC (coming here with about 5 years of management experience), I realized that in fact it was impossible to effect change from the low end of the managerial ladder. What time I didn't spend trying to make Digital look like a sane organization to customers I spent lobbying for changes I thought were obviously necessary but which I could not effect. Why? Because the changes I needed to make required a long-term horizon (beyond a quarter or fiscal year boundary) and leveraging individuals' experience ACROSS an organization, making all individuals more effective and productive, instead of always tying them to a sequential series of point opportunities having to do with a $ sign. And when I actually GOT SOMEONE to work on fixing things, within 3 months they were sucked down a project management black hole never to return. And my manager said that it was taking too long anyway (longer than a quarter to produce fixes). What's the common denominator? I just realized it: I was the only manager in our entire organization with outside experience managing on the outside. A sobering thought for myself and my own prospects at DEC. /Peters who just became less hopeful :-(
1108.14		ESCROW::KILGORE	Wild Bill	`Fri May 18 1990 09:07`	20
	re .10: > I believe IT IS A FALLACY TO EXPECT THAT THE MANAGED CAN UNDERSTAND > HOW WELL THEY HAVE BEEN MANAGED. That sounds a lot like "I believe it is a fallacy that the cattle can understand how well they have been prodded." Certainly a manager should be judged on _all_ facets of management, not just a chosen few. And certainly the final judgement of a manager's performance belongs to the person who delegated the responsibility. But if an important part of a manager's job is to manage _people_, and if, as Ken and others have stated so often, people are this company's most valuable asset, then I submit that those who pass judgement on managers are not sufficiently informed if they do not solicit the input of the managed. And so I ask the question again -- when was the last time _you_ were asked to provide meaningful input to the review of your manager?
1108.15		ESCROW::KILGORE	Wild Bill	`Fri May 18 1990 09:23`	6
	Re .11:, Re .9: Yes, I'd like to hear Ken's reaction to a 514 line memo (~10 pages or 22 screens) with the ideas buried somewhere in the bottom third...
1108.16	Since you asked...	TIXEL::ARNOLD	Gotta be a pony here somewhere!	`Fri May 18 1990 09:32`	10
	Since you asked: .14> And so I ask the question again -- when was the last time _you_ were .14> asked to provide meaningful input to the review of your manager? Much to my dismay (and possibly also much to the skewing of several managers reviews due to lack of input in this area), I have NEVER been asked for meaningful (or otherwise) input. Jon
1108.17	Digital & Managers???	FENNEL::LYNCH		`Fri May 18 1990 09:32`	9
	Myself and many I work with believe that Digital focuses on individual contribution and neither recognizes or rewards managerial efforts! Everyone at Digital has a voice and evryone one has the option to chose what they will or will not do. But is anyone really in charge? And does anyone listen to and respect leaders? How can you have managerial structure when evryone plays musical chairs so often? I guess you are starting to sense how I feel!
1108.18	Managers can be Evaluated!	DELNI::OVIATT	High Bailiff	`Fri May 18 1990 09:34`	17
	The BEST group I ever worked for (both inside and outside Digital) where people were content and knew they were measured on an objective basis, constantly, was my first group when joining Digital 9 years ago. The line people all had objective numbers they had to meet in order to get favorable reviews. Their managers were measured on their objectivity, how well they set and enforced goals, how well they coached their personnel, how well they helped knock down any barriers their subordinates were encountering in doing their job effectively and how well they helped their people grow. The system in effect was to have the Manager's Manager do periodic interviews with a randomly selected line person. The system allowed for confidentiality and real exploration of how life was in the entire organization. It was one of the most effective, efficient groups I've every been associated with. In a lot of ways, I miss it.
1108.19	Cause and effect.	AYOU46::D_HUNTER	The dust never settles!	`Fri May 18 1990 10:08`	40
	re: .14 If that's an open question then I can answer that in 13 years with digital I have never, formerly been asked to give meaningful input towards the review of my manager. re: .13 I think the problem around digital's managers being preoccupied with things rather than people is the fact that good engineers don't necessarily make good managers. Many of them see things in black and white, right or wrong, and understand a full duplex multi-plexer better than an under-trained subordinate who tries hard but is failing. re: .0 While being able to spot such narcisstic individuals within a company is good, getting society to produce less of these individuals would be very good. If you're brought up in a society where competition is all and values such as compassion, understanding, generosity etc. are ignored or even derided, the narcissists will grow and flourish. More and more will produced and become a product of the morales of the society we have become. If you're brought up in a society which tells you incensantly that you are one of the historically down-trodden ones and that everyone throughout history has exploited you in every way imaginable, is it any wonder that paranoid tendancies surface in later life. It isn't digital's fault that these people exist. If there's blame to be apportioned, lay it at the door of the Educationists, the Theologists, the politicians. Weed it out at source. The Insight article only deals with the effect not the cause. Don H.
1108.20	answer to "high bailiff"	AIMHI::KILBRETH		`Fri May 18 1990 10:32`	2
	Where was this group inside Digital?... ......
1108.21	Administration is the norm	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Fri May 18 1990 17:54`	42
	re .17 > Myself and many I work with believe that Digital focuses on individual > contribution and neither recognizes or rewards managerial efforts! > Everyone at Digital has a voice and everyone one has the option to chose > what they will or will not do. But is anyone really in charge? And > does anyone listen to and respect leaders? How can you have managerial > structure when everyone plays musical chairs so often? DEC is a culture of individuals. The matrixed organization, people often having more than one manager up the line, etc. indicates that the essential part is the pool of individuals. It's only how they officially get accessed that changes. And how they get informally accessed never changes. When the "model" star performer is someone who can navigate through DEC without management help, what does that say about our image of what managers do? And it doesn't help that many managers administrate only, letting all the chaos and turmoil above them pass right through and directly impact the people working for them. Is anyone really in charge? No. It's some task force somewhere deciding on the next round of corporate reorganizing and procedure modifying. If I see one more diagram called an "organizational template," I think I'll puke. Will anyone listen to and respect leaders? Yes and no. The people who work for a real leader will listen to and respect that person. The problem is, will the manager above the leader who is not a leader listen to and respect that person? Bingo! There is no structure. Remember the note that Marge DH entered about who she reports to? Her job had not changed, K.O.'s job had not changed. Yet every level of management between Marge and Ken changed in one year. If Marge knows her job well enough that such a drastic management change doesn't negatively affect her, then why have all those managers in the first place, other than to sign papers and write reviews?? There's a big difference between manage and administer, and, I fear, many managers at DEC don't know the difference. That's not even a reflection on the individual. You can't know what you haven't had the opportunity to learn. /Peters
1108.22	I worked for a REAL manager - Once.	SSDEVO::EKHOLM	Greg - party today, tomorrow we die! (Cluster Adjuster)	`Sat May 19 1990 13:48`	17
	With my 17 years at Digital, I have had the pleasure of working for one TRUELY good manager. He cared about his people and would do anything to help them succeed. On the other hand, the people would do anything to help him succeed. He went on to become a plant manager of a couple of different manufacturing plants and finally ended up hitting the upper roadblock and left DEC. I see the "SAND CASTLE" building done by managememt NOW coming to an end! It's to bad that there are "working" people also involved in this "SAND CASTLE" as it is coming down. Colorado Springs plant is now looking at another 400 people to leave their present jobs and the time frame is short. The NEW Digital will be different than the old. I just hope it's better and this problem of management addressed. From statements that KEN has made, I think it will be. Greg
1108.23	Some remedies needed - not	CHEFS::OSBORNEC	It's motorcycling weather again	`Sun May 20 1990 17:56`	34
	Been out a lot, so just catching up. Have read this topic from base note through. Very interesting. Recognise much of myself in the summary in the base note, & many elements of other managers. May be a raving narcissist - don't know, no-one has ever said so (or the reverse). Shades of Basil Fawlty - "Pretentious - moi?" Have been a manager for a fair number of years, on several continents. Heavily involved in management development & appraisal for a 50,000 staff company. Many of the premises of the base note feel right based on experiental feedback. We used to spend a great deal of time identifying as positive many of the behaviours addressed, & testing for their prescence. Many of the attributes were felt to be inborn, rather than easily learnt - the theory then was that you could hone what was there, but not implant what was missing completely. Is the converse true? Can you convert a narcissist to something else? To what, why? What preferred behaviours do you want to achieve to improve profit? Many of the behaviours in the base note were precisely the skills headhunters etc will look for. How do you determine in advance whether these skills will be used creatively & effectively, or in a damaging way? FWIW, this managers view is that Digital is a most difficult company in which to manage, compared to others in which I have worked - but that's a different topic (or is this the tendency to blame everyone else, as identified in the base note............)
1108.24	Gulf between DEC-only and outside management	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Sun May 20 1990 23:38`	37
	> FWIW, this managers view is that Digital is a most difficult company > in which to manage, compared to others in which I have worked - but > that's a different topic (or is this the tendency to blame everyone > else, as identified in the base note............) I've managed elsewhere, and it is more difficult. Digital has a curious dichotomy about it. On the one hand, you can do almost anything. On the other hand, your hands are tightly bound in other areas. There is much less discretion in the day to day: expenses, supplies, facilities, resources, etc, than there is in more major areas, for example, establishing new positions in an organization (provided you can get approval). The situations that result from this sort of culture require patience and creativity. For example, I became our district's expert at revenue accrual. But that's hardly a constructive use of one's creative impulses! What this really means is that where you would normally expect roadblocks, there are none. Where you wouldn't expect roadblocks, there are. That's a real problem, especially for managers who have managed before coming to Digital. As a manager I would expect to deal with problems -- but I wouldn't expect to deal with them where they shouldn't/don't exist outside DEC. So, if you managed before DEC, you get extremely frustrated, often because you may be working for someone who only managed at DEC -- and who, by means of their experience, expects "the system" to be just the way it is. You can't know what you don't know. Personally, I'd suggest that managers who've only managed at DEC should be given sabbaticals to manage in some other organization, perhaps academic or charitable, to get some fresh perspectives. I just see a tremendous gulf between outside and in-DEC management. /petes
1108.25	For non-managers only	MOCA::BELDIN	Dick Beldin	`Mon May 21 1990 10:52`	100
	Why all the fuss about Managers? From all the discussion about incompetent (and other kinds) of managers, I believe that we must be selecting the most disliked persons for promotion to these positions. Otherwise, how would someone be able to generate the ill-feeling that seems so prevalent? Here are some of the hypotheses I have dreamed up: Substitute for (favorite-ethnic-group) bashing Since it is no longer socially acceptable to make ethnic jokes, managers are a safe substitute (at least in digital where their power is minimal). Notes appears to be the network equivalent of the water-cooler, where employees from different offices have traditionally gather to gossip about the boss(es). Generalization from personal experiences Some of the comments appear to be the results of generalization from very powerful negative experiences. (Similarly to the half-truths that become racial myths.) Unjustified generalization is a common human failing, even among people who aren't managers. Convenient scapegoat In the last analysis, I have to discount the abstract characterizations of managers in general, while recognizing the legitimate concerns about how some people treat other people (regardless of race, creed, or ethnic origin...) What is a reasonable role (function) for digital managers? It seems that there are not clear expectations about what managers can and should be doing. Perhaps a review of what kinds of functions a manager can exercise would be helpful to eliminate some of the myths. Leadership The one managerial function that gets positive response is Leadership. All the adjectives and synonyms used to describe leadership are positive: Goal Setting, Inspirational, Vision Building, Charismatic. But there is a darker side. The same kinds of behavior can be described as fanatical, obsessional, utopian, single-mindedness. So leadership is a two edged sword. Any manager cited for leadership can also be accused of being a fanatic. Administration The definition and operation of procedures is an area that many people will exclude from management when trying to emphasize the glamorous leadership function. So we distinguish between Leaders and Adminstrators. The former and "good managers", the latter merely competent (or even mediocre.) But, regardless of the less attractive nature of administration, in this role the manager has the biggest opportunity to help or hinder his company's competitiveness. To get things done, a manager must Identify needed resources, Coordinate and set resource priorities, and negotiate to Resolve conflicts between various goal-directed activities. What supporting roles (functions) are needed to make managers useful? No manager can do things alone. If he could, he would be called an Individual Contributor. So, what kinds of supporting roles must be available to make a manager useful to the company? Does any of the discussion in previous notes suggest that we may be denying some managers the conditions necessary for them to be useful? Expert Someone (it could be the manager, but doesn't have to be) must have the Knowledge of at least one way to achieve any goal which the manage wants to achieve. For many goals, Mastery of some specialized skill(s) is required. So the manager must have access to at least these kinds of skilled experts. (Note, I said have access to, not have as employees!) Followers Its pretty difficult to be a leader if no one follows. Every useful manager will have some followers who are: capable of Active listening, Willing to follow instructions, and Commit to complete tasks assigned to them.
1108.26	We're seeking patterns, not stereotypes	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Tue May 22 1990 01:01`	78
	re .25 I don't think it's an issue of disliking a class of people or engaging in some primal urge to engage in bashing. I've been at DEC 5+ years, two in the middle as a manager. I was a manager at my two jobs prior to DEC. When I became a manager, I NOTEd in our local notes file and expressed my opinions on the state of things, management philosophy, anything else people wanted to discuss. People were shocked. (Not so much at what I said but that I said anything at all.) Unfortunately, frankness can also be career limiting at times (another topic). Generalizations are not negative. They can be, if you are dealing in stereotypes. But they can be a positive influence if you are seeking to find a pattern, a root cause, of a problem. And we do have a problem. Now that I'm not a manager anymore -- and people feel they can again talk completely freely -- I see a mounting cynicism about management at Digital. That the managers who care about their people and set about to do the right thing burn themselves out while the ones who buy drinks and lunches for their bosses get ahead. As for what we expect from managers, I think we agree. Part of the confusion about what managers do at Digital is that they are limited by bureaucracy. I agree about your assessment about leadership qualities being a potential two-edged sword. But the touchstone is a simple question: are they working just for their own good, or for the good of their people and company (and their own good by extension)? Administration is not a negative. Effective and timely administration is a critical factor in management. Administration has become a "negative" term at DEC because paperwork is done in lieu of managing. Simple example. I was a PSS manager. After a quarter or two of falling into the "no, you can't take vacation right now" and "no, you can't go to training right now because I need two more weeks of billable time to make budget," I sent people on vacation when they planned it, and sent people to training when they needed it. Period. I dealt with the problem of needing to make up the revenue. That's my job. It's NOT my job to abrogate my responsibility and make my budget a personal concern of my employee. If I do pass through responsibility, I'm not managing, I'm just pushing papers somewhere in a corner--"administering." I'm more of a hands-on manager, some, equally effective, are more hands off. That's a matter of style, and I suppose some might identify one more with "managing" and one more as "administering." But, again, the issue is that "administering" has become another word for paper-pushing. It's interesting you bring up supporting roles. For a long time I've had a little slip of paper from a time management course I took about 8 years ago. It has the 3 D's of management: DO DUMP DELEGATE In two years of DEC management, I had no one to delegate anything to. It was just my secretary and me (and doing administrative related work kept her busy full-time). There was little I could dump. There is, actually, the fourth D of management, DELAY, but I couldn't do much of that either. But, as I indicated in an earlier note, I've only realized on reflection that there were things I could not get done simply because other managers, either peers or superiors, did not think they were necessary. I used to blame myself for my lack of persuasiveness, or in more frustrating moments, others for their abundance of denseness. The truth is somewhere in-between, more like two managerial cultures mixing into toxic shock. I don't think things will change until we use metrics to measure business, not people. Only at DEC can someone with no people skills and no staff loyalty succeed year after year because they made their metrics. Right now its still the managers who give people with months of accrued vacation time the choice of 1 week of training or 1 week of vacation, but not both, because they need to make their numbers (and succeed) that get ahead. /petes
1108.27	Point of Problem Origin?	CLOVE::LYNCH		`Tue May 22 1990 09:09`	6
	Where does the problem of managerial behavior originate from? Top? Bottom? Middle? Metrics or lack thereof certainly contribute!
1108.28	Counterpoint	AGENT::LYKENS	The Tellurians are coming...	`Tue May 22 1990 09:27`	6
	Suggestion: How about a new note titled "Unmasking Competent Managers". Maybe if employees identified the good ones...naa that would be too counterculture (-; -Terry
1108.29	Management by metrics is another problem	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Tue May 22 1990 10:56`	19
	.27 In many cases, metrics are all that managers use. Changing that has to come from the top down. Metrics are the binary pass/fail -- actually, A+ or F -- grading system, especially in the field. Make your yearly $1.5 million revenue number by 1K or 2 cents, and you're golden. Miss it by the same amount, and you're a dog, you kiss a large percentage of excellence (SWS) participation goodbye, etc. etc. etc. Metrics and tracking metrics has become a pablum substitute at Digital for real management. I know, I've been there. Metrics are a tool, not an end. .28 Do we have any volunteers? Several people have mentioned one or two really positive experiences. /pete[r][s]
1108.30	it's who you know, not what you know, that counts	ODIXIE::CARNELL	DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF	`Tue May 22 1990 11:14`	129
	Posted on behalf of a Digital employee who wishes to remain anonymous. REF: 1108.0 Yes, I too read the Insight magazine article. Strikes close to home doesn't it? You might also scan "What Leaders Really Do" by John P. Kotter, in the May-June 1990 issue of the Harvard Business Review, for comments on managing complexity and change. Some reactions based on these articles, the continuing malaise at Digital, and nearly thirty years managerial experience in the computer industry are: A. Digital is much more a politicized company than a bureaucratic one. Bureaucracy, in and of itself, is not bad. In fact, once an organization reaches a certain size a bureaucracy is needed. The trick, of course, is to keep it focused only on process, not let become an end in itself, nor allow it to become the gatekeeper to operational issues. Sunset clauses always help. Adages like "To move along (i.e., ahead), go along" or "It's who you know, not what you know that counts" ring very true at today's Digital. Proof can be shown in recent senior management appointments which can only be explained as patronage. B. Digital's management style: "Management by Subordinate Commitment" or MSC, and is very similar to that found in the high-flying US aerospace industry of the late 1950's and most of the 1960's (See "Professional Suicide" by Cole). This style can be characterized as: coercive, slogan-filled ("Do the right thing."), absolving management of any responsibility, self-inflicted personal stress, etc. The "empowerment" theme plays very neatly into MSC. The scenario is: If you, the individual, accept a task, then you are held TOTALLY accountable. In the event that you fail, YOU FAIL AND ONLY YOU. If you succeed, great! The next task becomes even more Herculean, and so on ... until you fail. Again total management absolution for failure. At Digital, the people who are "killed" are the ones that truly desire to make a difference, commit to heroic efforts -- and fail (i.e., It's your personal failure -- YOU weren't good enough, YOU couldn't "influence" the right people, ...). The people who move ahead do not make this mistake; they become very visible meeting goers and "go along" never making decisions. The people who were early advocates of UNIX, open I/O busses, industry standard PC's, and other "risks" are mostly "non-people" in today's Digital. They had it "right" and paid. Moral: Always get an agreed to support plan (in detail, in writing) from management when taking on a new task. C. If management has the onus of the stewardship of culture, as Schein says, then it should not be surprising that normative behavior is as it is at Digital. Things that do not change, remain the same, to paraphrase George Odione. It is sometimes useful to turn the question about change at Digital around. If change is not happening, when most rational person can see, understand, etc. that change is needed -- instead of wringing your hands in frustration, ask what would be a rational reason that it is not changing. Very different perspective with interesting insights. [Hint: It most often has nothing to do with moving Digital ahead.] During it's history, Digital has been extremely lucky. Honeywell killed 3C, the PDP-11 resulted only after a threat from Data General, PRIME had 32-bit minicomputer before the VAX, IBM ignored the mid-range, etc. In all of those past instances, DEC employees rallied, independent of most management involvement, and "Did the Right Thing." Issues were openly discussed, anyone could offer a position on anything (i.e., a finance person could comment on an engineer's plan) -- as long as it could be backed up with homework. Any idea (positive or negative) had merit, issues and not people were argued. Personal attacks were NOT ALLOWED. Decisions were openly made, communicated, committed to ,and supported. The team either "won" or "lost" -- no individual ever failed. That was DEC culture. Today, rallying is not happening. Is that a surprise? Digital is not DEC for many well known reasons. Some most certainly of which are the lack of respect for the individual employee, MSC, "turf wars," etc. So much for the stewardship of culture. What is happening though, from the bottom-up, is a movement to have decision-making forced upon those squarely responsible -- Digital management. The argument "...put decision-making closest to those affected." is the false plank of the flimflam rationalization for Digital's management by subordinate commitment. Big salaries and restricted stock options for people normally mandate BIG problem-solving and HEAVY decision-making -- ideally based on competence. Our current transition as stated at the last State of the Company meeting is driving some of these issues. This will be a very painful transition, but necessary if Digital is to survive. The litmus test for competence will be clear: decision makers, leaders, and managers working with all of Digital's employees to build a team is the only way to move forward. The employees know which is which. The salad days of constant quarterly revenue increases that fostered the "Good old boy's/girl's" to take root and thrive are over. D. Change at Digital, if history serves, will only come when external threats are sufficient enough to cause it to happen. Digital has never been able to effectively re-direct itself otherwise. Digital's management history indicates their belief that what made Digital successful in the past will do so again. The risk of change to that implicit assumption is not within their universe of reality. The party-line "leadership in ...." can not mask a lemmingism march over a cliff. Inherent vulnerables require fundamental changes to occur -- now the stakes are extremely high and the risks are enormous. The question is: does Digital have the time to amplify its strengths. I truly hope so. Just some thoughts.
1108.31	terrific insight	ATLACT::GIBSON_D		`Tue May 22 1990 12:33`	1
	re .30 nicely put.
1108.32	IMHO	AUSTIN::UNLAND	Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum	`Wed May 23 1990 03:51`	52
	re: .30 the MSC trap ... Ouch! I and others have learned the hard way about MSC. All too often have I watched a subordinate accept an onerous task and make a committment, assuming that the manager delegating the task is also committing support for the subordinate. All too often has the first message been "Do what you can, we'll understand" and the followup has been "We never committed to you, but you committed to us ...". In business law, a contract that does not have two equitable parts (deliverable and renumeration) is considered "unconscionable". In Digital, it has become more and more a way of life. re: a comment previous about rewarding management ... Pete[r][s] Vecrumba raised a point about properly rewarding management. I agree that it has been a central problem, but I look at it from a slightly different viewpoint: not as a reward, but as "Just Desserts". Management (and the individual contributors, to be fair) rarely get their just desserts in today's Digital. The message is "If you don't mess up, you'll keep your job and get raises". The message should be "If you don't deliver, you'll lose your job and get nothing!" I don't mean this in a negative sense, that we should manage by fear and intimidation. But there has to be balance in the universe, yin and yang, positive and negative. As long as a manager can survive and prosper by not making commitments or taking responsibility, then there will be no motivation for a manager to ever do so. As long as a person gets the same amount of raise (or little enough difference as not to notice) no matter what his job performance is, then there will be little improvement in his productivity, and none at all in our overall profits. It's a thorny problem, especially for middle management. Many may feel that have nothing at all to gain by taking risks and responsibilities, and that they have everything to lose. We can tout loyalty to the company, "the greater good", and all the other cliches, but if they have to choose between themselves and the company, then it will be themselves, and I don't blame them. The same holds true for middle level individual contributors. So the decision and the action has to be taken at the top levels, and the actions have to be clearly explained to all the employees so that there is no misunderstanding. Morale and confidence in management will only rise if we see actions and results. I don't look forward to that time, because it will be messy and emotional. But I do look forward beyond that time to when Digital has a workforce committed to the company's success, and has the wherewithal to reward the workforce appropriately. IMHO of course, Geoff Unland
1108.33	don't pass the buck	SALEM::SHEPARD		`Wed May 23 1990 08:47`	17
	Felt this had a spot here. Reprinted here withuot permission from May 1990 issue of Readers Digest. QUIP LASH During a sales meeting, the manager was berating all of us on the sales staff for our dismally low sales figures. "I've had just about enough of poor performance and excuses," he began. "If you can't do the job," he added, "perhaps there are other sales people out there who would jump at a chance to sell the worthy products that each of you has the privilege to represent." Then pointing to our newly recruited, retired pro-football player, he said, " If a football team isn't winning, what happens? The players are replaced -right?" The question hung heavy for a few seconds, but then the ex-football player answered. "Actually, sir, if the whole team was having trouble -we usually got a new coach."
1108.34	incompetent or misguided priorities?	SHALOT::FAILE	Thief! Baggins! We hates it!	`Wed May 23 1990 10:52`	49
	I've followed all of these replies with interest; however, I hate labeling someone incompetent. As my 16 year old son once told me "Dad, no one is useless, at least they can serve as a bad example." ;') I've been programming now for about 15 years; 3+ at Digital. During the time before joining DEC most of my work has been on various customer sites developing software (contracting). I've seen a lot of managers, management techniques, and lack there of. The absolute best manager I ever had was while I was working for a national consulting firm. He taught me one thing to look for in a good manager; interest in the people you represent/manage. It was his belief that he couldn't be successful without the support of those he managed (there's a novel idea!). His technique was really very simple, he would listen, decide, and take action. You the individul were important. There was no double-speak or speeches laced with fancy/worn-out cliches. I always had a straight answer on any question within a few hours or days. Can we find managers like this in Digital? IMHO, yes we can. I'm sure that a certain amount of a manager's job is developing his/her political awareness/network just as it's a programmer/engineer's responsibility to develop new skills as the industry changes or you become obsolete. I think problems surface when the manager places to much emphasis on the political environment and not enough on people. The manager becomes more politician and less manager. The same result would happen if a programmer read technical manuals in order to stay current with the industry but never produced any code because of the time spent reading manuals. The person might know a lot but hasn't produced a thing. Managers who place political maneuvering above the importance of the people they represent might be recognized in many facilities throughout the Digital community and greeted with smiles where ever they go except the one place it matters most; their own people. Are these people incompetent? Who knows? I think it's more a question of misguided priorities. If you're going to call yourself a programmer you've got to produce code sometime. If you're going to be a manager, accept the responsibility, get involved with your people, and manage. If you're going to be political opportunist, go ahead and run for office but don't try to manage others at the same time. In short, do the job you agreed to do when you accepted it. Cheers, Cody
1108.35	Could not have said it better than .34 !	MEMV02::OSTIGUY	Secure it or SHARE it	`Wed May 23 1990 12:08`	5
	.34 Right on the BUTTON ! Lloyd
1108.36	eating the seed corn	SMOOT::ROTH	Think you can? or you can't? UR right!	`Wed May 23 1990 14:06`	18
	Re: .34 I once knew the kind of manager you described... they were a TRUE LEADER and they had it in spades. But the higher-up managers that routinely spewed forth euphamisims and empty promises choked them.. when this manager tried to calmy take a realistic approach to many issues they were told that they were a 'boat rocker' and 'not a team player'. Personal agendas and pride of higher ups came first. Digital, as a result, lost. This person is still functioning as a manager but not in any kind of key role. This once energetic, hopefull, talented individual is now dis-illusioned, frustrated and bitter. This scenario is being repeated at many companies, not just DEC. Digital's future is in its people. We may just be eating our seed corn folks. lee
1108.37		BAGELS::CARROLL		`Wed May 23 1990 14:35`	44
	digital has many "managers". A "good" manager at digital is one who only cares about his/her "numbers" and, as long as the "numbers" look good to the higher ups, the "manager" looks good. I know of one who got a 1 on his/her review this way. Digital needs leaders who will take the "numbers" and put them in the wastebasket where they belong. We need leaders who can motivate, inspire, properly reward/admonish; people with a real desire to make DEC what it should/could be, the number one vendor and the best place to work in the industry. We have the technology (no thanks to management), we have the people (partly in thanks to management). We have the capability of making the proverbial 6 million dollar man, BUT MANAGEMENT IS CONTENT TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. Either they are deaf/blind, incompetent or insincere. Whatever the reason, they must be gotten rid of. How can we resolve this problem? (or any DEC problem) Management at the very top may be aware of DEC's problems but the farther away from a problem a person is, the more abstract the problem becomes and, as such, more difficult to understand. Middle and lower management will not present to the top exactly what the problems are because in doing so, the will be confessing to not properly doing their jobs (political suicide in their minds). Our problems will go unresolved, we at the bottom will have to continue to "break the rules" to get our jobs done, and we will wade through as we have been doing until a better job comes along(now lets see, which vendors haven't I worked for yet, aah, yes, IBM, oh well, I better get a higher pair of swampers, looks like I am stuck here) (this is no knock against my manager, she is one of the best I have had in my career)
1108.38	My .02....	COMET::MESSAGE	I will not go quietly...	`Wed May 23 1990 17:16`	10
	.37 hit it on the head, folks...."Managers" try to control situations and people. "Leaders" try to show, by word and deed, what the desired behaviours (outcomes?) SHOULD be. Title of manager DOES NOT automatically mean that the person with that title is going to be one or the other type, but experience shows that, not just at digitial, the former have the job the majority of the time, for the reasons listed in .0. Bill
1108.39	One line summary of management?	GOFER::HARLEY	Yvonne, I love you, but he pays me...	`Wed May 23 1990 17:31`	7
	I recall seeing the following quote a while ago in this conference: "Management is a function, not a class" Seems appropriate for this topic... /harley
1108.40	What do you do when the wrong team is in charge?	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Thu May 24 1990 00:36`	57
	re .32 Not providing support is central to how we do things at DEC. For example, we tell sales reps not to worry about where the resource will come from to deliver services. Business sold? Crisis management. One of the reasons I do the survival guide on my own time is so that the only commitments I make are personal ones to fellow Digital employees. If I commit to management, and they send me out on something that requires full-time plus attention, then I'm still held accountable for my original commitment. I didn't even tell management I was doing it until it was done. Managers also have a way of "telling" you what to do on your personal time. I've had my management try and pull this on me and people working for me. Have a problem? Study it. Define a process to cope with it. Make sure the process holds no individual accountable. For example, submit a "911" for a resource. No resource? Too bad. I never used the process because there was no resource guaranteed at the end of it. In fact, if I had used the process, I would have had an easy out for not providing resources for accounts whose PSS business I was responsible for!! What a gift horse!! What bullshit. About rewarding management, I completely agree with you. Everyone is accountable for their own action or inaction. We need to discourage knee-jerking, inaction, and risk avoidance through committee indecision or "process" failure. re .33 Great story! Everywhere but DEC (that I've worked) you work there at the discretion of your employer. They can just tell you to leave and not come back. Not at DEC. Either we promote people up and out or make their lives miserable until they decide to leave. Whether the unwanted person gets the former or latter depends on their political skills. re .34 I've always been straight-forward with people working for me and that I've worked for. I have met very few managers at DEC genuinely interested in listening, considering what people have to say, and acting on it. They say yes, yes, yes. They do nothing, nothing, nothing. If a manager does nothing then they are not competent as managers. re .36 Yup! It breaks my heart to see bright motivated people turned into burnt out, stressed out, disillusioned employees -- marked as "boat rockers" and not "team players." The problem is, what to do when the right team isn't in control? re .37 You don't have to put numbers in the wastebasket. They should just be part of what you're responsible for as a manager. The problem is, there isn't anything else that counts more than the numbers. That's a problem that comes from above.
1108.41	encouraging leadership to happen	ODIXIE::CARNELL	DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF	`Thu May 24 1990 09:17`	75
	cross-posted from MARKETING VAXnotes conference with permission from author <<< ASIMOV::$1$DJA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MARKETING.NOTE;1 >>> -< Marketing - Digital Internal Use Only >- ================================================================================ Note 1220.9 Now IBM are buying Valid Logic. 9 of 12 KEEPER::THACKERAY 46 lines 21-MAY-1990 12:11 -< Another challenge. >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a yet another alarm bell. For those of you who don't know yet, Don McInnis has now left Digital to go to Prime/Computervision. We are now in a heavy sea and a shark has eaten the rudder. Where is our leadership coming from now? Nowhere, as far as I can see. Our UNIX strategy is incomprehensible. Our third-party strategy is in tatters and failing on a regular basis. Our workstations are great but have few applications. What tools there are lag behind SUN and HP and IBM. As yet, we have no articulated strategy to compare with IBM's CIM Series, which clearly lays down their approach in Engineering, Manufacturing and Integration. We are losing to Oracle. We are losing to IBM. We are losing heavily to SUN. HP are in their most threatening position ever and are going to be bigger than us soon, mostly from Engineering and Manufacturing markets. From this other angle, I repeat my challenge to Digital's Senior Management. Relinquish your grip on our strategy and listen to Tom Peters and Peter Drucker. Find the bright, knowledgeable, aggressive, restless, frustrated people in ESG, SSE, CTC, sales, etc. and give them the tiller and authority. It's obvious who they are. You probably don't like them, because they are constantly griping about the barriers of internal politics, re-organizations and beaurocracy. Swallow your pride. You've failed. It's time to try something else. Let go of the reins. Things have become too complicated for you. The people who know the answers and who are chafing at the bit want to move, but are currently powerless because you have a total lock on authority. When these people try to do something, you change the rules. It's becoming intolerable for those who care. These people are the people who work at the details. Who have their hands dirty. Who feel pain when they have to implement strategies and tactics they don't believe in but are told to do them. Who talk to customers and find out for real what they want. Who have to wait FOR MONTHS OR YEARS for "the next" re-organization, when "things will be worked out". For goodness' sake, LET GO!!! Become real managers by encouraging leadership to happen; by ALLOWING it to happen. Let those who suggest action GO AND DO IT. Open the doors for them. Stop burying them under beaurocrats who have no hands-on understanding of the technologies or customers. Sincerely, Ray I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 22-May-1990 02:50pm EDT From: THACKERAY THACKERAY@IE0022@CSDPIE@MRGATE@ODIXIE@ALF Dept: Tel No: TO: CARNELL.DAVID@A1 Subject: RE: Notefile MARKETING Note 1220.9 David, you are welcome to cross-post any note I have already entered into a public forum such as Notesfiles, or to copy to any interested parties. Regards, Ray
1108.42	Tough going? Call Competence 911	CSG001::MAKSIN	Joe Maksin 291-0378 PDM1-2/H4	`Fri May 25 1990 09:35`	34
	Re: .-1 Excerpt from forthcoming book, "Father, Son & Co.: My Life at IBM and Beyond," by Thomas J. Watson, Jr. and Peter Petre (Bantam Books, Summer 1990), is taken from June 4, 1990 issue of Fortune magazine, page 124: Over the years Vin had proven again and again that he knew how to take hold of a troubled project and bring it off. I agonized about the effect this would have on my brother. I called Dick into my office on a gray December afternoon. "I've got to tell you some things that are not very pleasant," I said. "The future of the business depends on the 360. It looks bad now, and I'm going to have to take the whole project and put it under the person I believe is most competent to bring it out of the woods." I told him it was going to be Vin, and that Dick would shift over to be chief of the corporate staff, with no line-management responsibility. I'd say an intimate glimpse of very consequential decision making, leadership, and recognition for the need of competence. Competence, i.e., a proven track-record, gained from experience in problem-solving the issues at hand. [The IBM System/360 (circa: 1964) was a watershed for the computer industry, acknowledged by C. Gordon Bell and Allen Newell in their 1971 classic, "Computer Structures: Readings and Examples" in the McGraw-Hill Computer Science Series of books. C. Gordon Bell, often referred to as the father of the VAX -- another successful family of computers, extended the lessons the 360 taught.] Joe
1108.44	nice book to read	ROM01::CIPOLLA	DEC's margin on an IBM sale is zero!	`Fri May 25 1990 19:09`	9
	the previous note reminded me that i'm finishing to read "The Managerial Mistique, Restoring Leadership in Business" by Abraham Zaleznik {Harper & Row editors} as the title says, it focuses on the difference btw leaders and managers (i find it absolutely great!) Bruno
1108.45		SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Tue May 29 1990 22:51`	5
	re .44 Has the book given you any insights you find applicable to Digital? /Peters
1108.46	wow, this article is the best	RUTLND::GOODMAN		`Fri Jun 01 1990 17:18`	37
	This was the best article I've read since I've been at DEC (5 years now). It really speaks to what I've seen, FELT, and believe about many managers. I agree that managers need more guidance to be held accountable for their impact on PEOPLE'S LIVES perhaps we need to reward people not just on how many widgets their group produces, but... on wether or not their group used their potential, felt valued, and at the very least didn't feel put down, used, or abused. I believe the pyschologist who had input into the article knew what he was talking about. The tough part for me has been how to voice my concern and how to help solve the problem in a positive way (I.e. not a "witch hunt"... ...although after working under one of these types of managers for a while it sure is tempting to advocate this, ha ha...ouch..). I believe that a managers review should reflect, in part, their subordinates evalutions... perhaps some of the "negative feedback" many managers would be hearing could be presented as invitations to grow as opposed to harsh criticism. A concerned employee, Shereen
1108.47	Managers rarely (really) welcome candor	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Fri Jun 01 1990 19:02`	43
	re .46 > I agree that managers need more guidance > to be held accountable for their impact on > PEOPLE'S LIVES > [and maximizing people's potential] So true. It's not where you work, it's who you work for. Corporate "culture," no matter how beneficent, only filters through a manager to their staff if the manager feels like it. I, for one, found that tolerating a bad situation hoping for improvement until it becomes intolerable, then complaining to management just branded me as "emotional," probably because my manager's manager had emotional responses to everything (so my emotional response was just "letting off steam," never mind that by the time I get emotional over a situation something is GRAVELY wrong). I was left out to "hang" for a LONG time. That's a direct quote. What's worse for me, I find, is that once I feel I've been gravely wronged, I can't put it behind me, even if the other parties involved have put it behind them. For some people, their work and personal lives are separate, For others, like me, it's only one life, and if I can't respect someone personally, I can't respect them professionally. So, I avoid them and, by reducing my own visibility, do my own "career blocking." (I once didn't talk to my direct manager for months, in fact, until I got a change in managers.) > Perhaps some of the "negative feedback" many managers would be hearing > could be presented as invitations to grow as opposed to harsh criticism. The managers who need constructive criticism the most are the least likely to accept it graciously. Unfortunately, the only solution I've found that works is to work for someone else. If the problem extends up, then the only solution is to change organizations. Otherwise career blocking sets in. (Unfortunately, I rarely follow my own advice. :-( ) I occasionally think I might be interested in management at Digital again if it were in a position where I had the authority to effect real change. (A UM it ain't!) Best regards, Peters
1108.48	Here's a mgr who sought help	DYER2::WADDINGTON	Wadda ya mean, WE?	`Sun Jun 03 1990 22:00`	54
	I clipped this article a few weeks ago. I've just gotten around to typing it in: From The Home News (New Brunswick, NJ) May 13, '90 (reprinted without permission) Managers sometimes have to learn to cope with rebellion By Andrew Grove Knight-Ridder Newspapers Q. I manage a department of professional employees. These people have all been on their own at one time, and they are an energetic, creative but rebellious group. That seems to be the nature of things with people of their ilk everywhere. In our case, this certainly makes for a lively work situation with a rather loose organizational structure: These people just don't like - lets make it stronger, the detest - hierarchy. Yet in our firm we have a reporting hierarchy, they just ignore it. My problem is most acute with a certain individual. He is one of the most talented employees, but he is the worst when it comes to showing respect for the reporting structure. This person always questions me - he questions the assignments I give him as well as my way of doing things. He conveniently forgets that I have been in the field much longer than he has. Now, I actually don't mind challenge, but this employee continues to resist even after I have made my position clear. How can I insist that this person respect the lines of authority without completely demotivating him? A. Make peace with the idea that he is entitled to justifications for your decisions beyond your having been in the field longer. Your longer experience should enable you to come up with good reasoning and arguments, but it, in and of itself, is not one. So, take advantage of the fact that you have an employee who puts you through your intellectual paces. This kind of test should greatly increase the probability that your decisions are good ones. If you have argued for your position at length and still failed to convince your employee of your position, you have no choice to remind him that you are required, in the end, to call the shots. Be neither aggressive nor apologetic about this - it's just the nature of your job. Explain it to your employee, and simply ask for his cooperation.
1108.49	Working here has been a net psychic loss	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Mon Jun 04 1990 02:25`	42
	re .-1 Certainly sounds like a possible scenario at Digital! When a manager deals with a questioning employee, perhaps the most important thing to stress is their relationship. Someone who is an able and adept individual contributor would not like to have every technical decision they make questioned in great detail and be put in a position of justigying their actions. Just as they need their manager's respect and trust, so must they return that same respect and trust to their manager for them to work together as an effective team. It's always right to let people know why you decide something. However, if you put yourself in the position where you so that by taking your employee through the entire decision process so they can make the same decision independently for themselves to verify your actions, then you have completely undermined your own authority. As for questioning decisions, the example cited is fairly common. What I find here at Digital though, is that it is very easy for the roles of experience to be reversed, where an inexperienced manager manages someone much more experienced. What does the more experienced person do in this case? I've spent over 5 years at Digital. My greatest frustration is that everywhere else I worked, especially as a manager, I had the opportunity to nurture my staff and impart my experience, but I worked for managers who, in turn, nurtured me and imparted their experience. Here I find that (a) I still get to impart my experience to junior people (b) constructive upward criticism usually has no lasting effect (c) blunt upward criticism can be career blocking (c) I have not "grown", having had no one to grow from Without any inflow, the psychic drain is enormous, and it takes its toll. /Peters
1108.50	Once bitten...	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Sun Jun 10 1990 09:12`	25
	re .47: >>> What's worse for me, I find, is that once I feel I've been gravely >>> wronged, I can't put it behind me, even if the other parties involved >>> have put it behind them. This is true of me too, Peters. It's like being bitten by a snake. No matter how well the wound heals, you'll always cringe at the sight of that kind of snake. Having been swindled, conned, shafted, fooled, trodden on, treated with contempt and exploited by one or more managers, one's attitude to managers in general is bound to change. They notice this, and identify a troublemaker. The more you are sinned against, the more you get punished. If you complain about it, or even resent it, that's your fault too. Meanwhile the ones who harmed you have floated on towards the top. Of course, since our people are our most valuable asset, any manager who treats them badly or gives them a permanent chip on the shoulder is dealt with accordingly, right? /Tom
1108.51	Be sure to include reality	MANANA::ARNOLD	Gotta be a pony here somewhere!	`Mon Jun 11 1990 12:41`	8
	.50> Of course, since our people are our most valuable asset, any .50> manager who treats them badly or gives them a permanent chip .50> on the shoulder is dealt with accordingly, right? Wrong. Those managers are then promoted. And this is not intended to be a SWAG answer, as I've seen it happen with sad regularity. Jon
1108.52		AUSTIN::UNLAND	Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum	`Mon Jun 11 1990 14:11`	17
	The thing I can't understand about our whole management mess is that managers are employees, too. They have to be responsible to their bosses for getting something done, don't they? Why would a middle-manager mindlessly promote an incompetent? I can't believe that a middle manager would not welcome input from anywhere in his organization about the performance of his employees. Unless there has been some factor within Digital that caused the company to accumulate incompetent management over a period of YEARS, there must be a lot of talent in the management organization somewhere. I guess the key is to actively seek it out and work for it, and refuse to cooperate in "carrying" an incompetent manager. Lots of people do it, for career or financial reasons, but does it really pay off in the end? On second thought, don't bother with that last question, I already know the answer far too well.
1108.53	AUDIT THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT ASSET	ODIXIE::CARNELL	DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF	`Mon Jun 11 1990 15:15`	165
	I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 11-Jun-1990 12:54pm EDT From: David Carnell @ALF CARNELL.DAVID Dept: Proposal Designers Tel No: 385-2901 404772-2901 TO: Remote Addressee ( EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT @CFO ) TO: Remote Addressee ( IDEAS CENTRAL @OGO ) CC: Remote Addressee ( ALAN ZIMMERLE @CFO ) Subject: Idea Suggestion: Audit our most important asset Many executives within Digital have proclaimed that Digital's MOST IMPORTANT ASSET is its employees. If this is so, then the controls of ensuring the optimization of our "most important asset" should EXCEED all controls now in place regarding other assets: such as cash, capital assets, and property. One such control that should be in place is auditors that ensure our most important asset is indeed being optimized by managers. Are not all managers charged with making the most out of Digital assets, especially their direct report employees, our most important asset? Now, what should be audited? Time? Should they be auditing to see that everyone is working their required 40 hours per week? Or is the "REAL" asset that which resides within all Digital's employees; namely, the intelligence within the minds of each of us, and how we "could" use that intelligence creatively to build a more successful Digital, greater than what is? A co-worker posted his words on this in the DIGITAL VAXnotes conference and gave me permission to share his words with you: "Our people are of the highest caliber and are our most valued asset." "This statement is beginning to grate on my nerves. "MANY of our people are of the highest calibre and work very hard. "Some of our people are of fairly high calibre and work fairly hard. "Some of our people are of pretty low calibre. "Some of our people are just putting in time. "After this, the second half of the statement rests on sand. Whatever it may mean, it certainly isn't the case that the minority who are of high calibre and produce amazing results are valued. Quite the contrary." He goes on to say: "If people were our most valuable asset (instead of money) then we would account for our people and their skills just as assiduously as we account for money. Can you imagine THAT! For instance, the auditors saying "Hey, Mr Manager, can you explain this deficiency of 10,000 units of VMS, workstation, knowledge engineering, CASE and Digital organisational know-how last quarter?" And the manager replying "Well, you know, the son-of-a-bitch got up my nose with his know-it-all ways - it was either him or me. "And experience accounting is NOT done by sending round a 12-sheet document consisting of 800 lines, each showing one "skill" and asking people themselves to fill it in on a scale of 1-5. Let's imagine THAT in financial terms - auditing would consist of making up a sheet showing all the assets the managers could think of one sunny day, and asking each individual to "estimate" how much money he or she was responsible for. "No, whatever employees are, they are NOT treated as "our most valuable asset". You manage valuable assets, you don't just leave them lying around and hope that occasionally one of them will corner you and force you to listen to a good idea." Exactly. How can the intelligence within every employee be properly managed as our most important asset if it is "optional and voluntary" for managers to seek out the ideas of their employees on how Digital could cut costs, increase productivity, develop new and better products and services, and increase our effectiveness, anywhere within any activity, that would lead to getting and keeping more customers, revenue, margin and profit? In several major, much larger corporations elsewhere in the world, managers are charged with correctly managing their most important asset: their people and their peoples' ability to THINK creatively. These managers, in fact, take PRIDE in the amount and quality of creativity of their direct reports, and on the incremental improvements developed accordingly by people "thinking" -- unlike some groups in other organizations with their people just showing up to work, doing the processes, catering to the ego of the boss, and going home with no ownership of CREATIVE CHANGE in order to continuously improve ALL company activities, increment by increment, fine-tuning the engine that makes money and benefits all. My idea suggestion: the executive committee should begin doing audits of our "most important asset" and ensure controls are in place to ensure that Digital's "most important asset" is indeed being properly optimized. Have these auditors ask every employee a lot of questions, such as, o How many times in the last three years has your manager (or all managers if more than one in that period) asked you for your ideas to cut costs, increase productivity, develop new and better products and services, and increase Digital's effectiveness, anywhere within any activity, that would lead to getting and keeping more customers, revenue, margin and profit, building a better and more successful Digital greater than what is? o How many of your ideas in the last three years has your manager implemented (or if more than one manager, for each)? o For those ideas outside your manager(s) control, how many of your ideas in the last three years has your manager(s) championed on your behalf? o Describe HOW your manager supports your creativity in applying that ability "to think" to build a better and more successful Digital. o For those of your ideas NOT implemented by Digital, how many did you receive a response detailing the logic of why your idea was not appropriate for implementation? o Digital considers you, and the creative thinking that you are capable of, to be its most important asset -- describe those actions which indicate to you that this is true. o What are your suggestions and ideas for optimizing your creative intelligence such that your ideas for change are fairly reviewed and implemented as appropriate toward building a better and more successful Digital. If Digital considers its employees the company's most important asset, then Digital's actions in its management practices should reflect this. Consistently, universally throughout Digital. Without exception. If employee involvement and empowerment are to be considered by some in management as just fluff words of no consequence and are allowed to be ignored by pockets of management within Digital, then how is this of any less importance, and just as critical to Digital's future prosperity, than the mis-management of millions of dollars of revenue, margin, profit, or cash? Digital executive management would not tolerate the mis-management of money; why does it allow, the mis-use, or lack of use, by some, of our proclaimed most important asset: our employees, and the thinking capability, creativity and enthusiasm within every employee, which has enabled Digital to make money in the first place, and which could enable Digital to make a lot more money in the future. Objective auditing might be the first step in identifying a problem in the optimization of Digital's most important asset, and possible solutions to it. Regards, An employee who wants to make a difference David
1108.54	Just deleted one from a conference it didn't belong in	COVERT::COVERT	John R. Covert	`Mon Jun 11 1990 15:26`	7
	Ohmigosh; another one! Dilbert had a related suggestion the other day -- he noted that in every case employees were smarter than their managers, and that switching jobs would result in an immediate 200% productivity increase. /john
1108.55	Goods ones are out there too!	CIVVAX::MZARUDZKI	Feelin' like Road Pizza	`Mon Jun 11 1990 20:53`	10
	Perhaps we should create a new note for unmasking competent managers. It would seem alot easier. I have known of mid-managers who given the chance and proper backing would excell. To my knowlege one I know of know seems to be on the way to excelling. How did this come about? It looks like their managers were all moved aside or along. Sooo, lets round up the good ones cause they DO EXSIST. -Mike Z.
1108.56	It must be a worse problem than designing VAX or CDA...	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Tue Jun 12 1990 10:13`	178
	re .52: >>> The thing I can't understand about our whole management mess is >>> that managers are employees, too. They have to be responsible >>> to their bosses for getting something done, don't they? Why >>> would a middle-manager mindlessly promote an incompetent? I >>> can't believe that a middle manager would not welcome input from >>> anywhere in his organization about the performance of his employees. We must be very careful when using natural language about these issues (English is one of the most flexible and ambiguous languages). Symbolic logic would be safer. Please distinguish between the following: "Employee_1" any member of the company "Employee_2" an employee_1 who is not a manager "Manager" a subclass of employee_1 It's also useful to analyze organizational issues dispassionately, like a problem in mechanical dynamics. That is, instead of thinking "that wicked man has deliberately harmed those others, and betrayed his trust", think "the resultant of the forces acting on that man pushed him in a certain direction, and lacking any inner convictions, he submitted to them". Now let's go over Geoff's remarks quoted above.. > managers are employees, too. Managers are employee_1s. They are not employee_2s, by definition. Most employee_2s in Digital, according to my observation, are more or less free to "do what's right". Sure, there is a lot of stuff uttered about JPR and management by objectives, but it's mostly just talk. Managers, however, have three unique forces which push them away from "doing what's right": 1. They are, by selection, those people who are most ambitious. (The Digital culture does not, as a rule, reward valuable employees except by promotion, and that is usually to a managerial position). Therefore they are slaves to their own success - they do not see themselves as free to do anything that will not aid them to rise further. 2. They are measured by simplistic, numerical, yes/no metrics, to the exclusion of common sense or initiative. They have three alternatives: (i) Work blindly to maximize their performance according to the metrics placed upon them. (ii) To a greater or less extent, ignore the metrics and follow their own judgment. (iii) Reason with their bosses to modify, remove, or relax the metrics. Only (i) offers realistic chances of further promotion. 3. Because Digital's culture equates technical knowledge with juniority, a committed manager must immediately stop seeking it. (Some go as far as forgetting, overnight, the knowledge that took years to acquire. I have heard a manager who, five years before, TAUGHT the VMS System Seminar, look blank at the mention of VMS and reply "You'll have to talk to one of my people - I'm not technical".) This means that, given the date on which a given individual became a manager, one can accurately estimate what he does and does not understand. Most of our top management set their feet on the bottom rung of the golden ladder before software was invented 8-), and that is why they think only in terms of hardware. > They have to be responsible to their bosses for getting something > done, don't they? Do they? A useful (though simplified) organizational model consists of establishing "formal goals" and "private goals" at each level of management. The formal goals are the ones stated in public. The private goals are those the individual is actually working to attain. An organizational theorem which makes sense to me is: "The formal goals at a given level reflect the private goals at the next higher level". Think about it. Ken Olsen says: "We must work to cut down bureaucracy". This is a formal goal at the top level. The VPs also have to embrace it as their formal goal. But if a VP's principal private goal is to build up his organization so as to become as powerful as possible, his direct reports will get formal goals that are something like this: We must work to cut down bureaucracy in the company. Since only we really understand the company's strategy and culture, this goal cannot be met unless we implement it. So our first objective must be to gain control of the program to reduce bureacracy. This can be done by attending all the meetings, making convincing presentations, suggesting dynamic reorganizations, and setting up a program office staffed by our own people. Nice thinking, hey? Meanwhile the business goes to hell in a handbasket, saved only by the desperate struggles of those who have taken their eye off the ball and have failed to realize that real power and success will go to those who are seen to have led the program to reduce bureacracy. So the answer is - yes, managers are responsible to their bosses for getting something done. Namely, making their bosses look good. > Why would a middle-manager mindlessly promote an incompetent? There's nothing mindless about it. The reasons for promoting people who are not very good managers, or even very good at anything, are well understood and documented in several books: 1. Someone less able than me won't make me look bad (or even replace me). 2. Someone less able won't ask awakward questions about the policy and metrics I have set up (or even worse, those my boss has set up). 3. Someone less able won't rock the boat. Getting myself promoted is a 40-hour-a-week job, and I don't have time to deal with unnecessary distractions. 4. If I promote someone able, he will start managing and stop producing (aka "delivering" or "performing"). Then I'll need to hire someone else and that will dent my numbers. 5. I don't want any smartass at my meetings. I get uncomfortable with the things they say. Even when they shut up they get that smug, superior look during my presentations. 6. "We don't want things done a better way. We want them done our way". Enough, already. A more radical and distrubing question is "Supposing some reckless manager decided to promote a competent employee, how would he go about identifying an employee who would make a good manager?" I don't know. Do you? > I can't believe that a middle manager would not welcome input from > anywhere in his organization about the performance of his employees. Well, let's go back to basics. Why would a middle manager want to know any of that stuff? How would it help him to look good? Either his employees are performing well (in which case he doesn't need to do anything, or know anything about it). Or else some of them are performing badly - which might reflect on him. Why find out? After all, the only way his boss is likely to find out about that sort of thing is through him. If he collects the information and it looks bad, his boss might hear about it and start asking questions. Much better to concentrate all eforts on maximizing those old metrics. >>> Unless there has been some factor within Digital that caused the >>> company to accumulate incompetent management over a period of YEARS, >>> there must be a lot of talent in the management organization somewhere. Well, I go back 16 years and the relevant cultural forces haven't changed very much as far as I can see. That's probably long enough. Of course there's a lot of talent in the management organisation. Unfortunately, very little of it is management talent. That's why it would be very constructive if we had a program to help managers step out of their dignity and go back to doing whatever it was they once did so well they were made managers as a reward. /Tom
1108.57	Cutting the Gordian Knot	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Tue Jun 12 1990 10:50`	44
	The organizational and cultural problem of incompetent managers seems to be self-perpetuating. In terms of Chaos theory, it's a stable complex. Before anyone asks, though, I do have my own idea of the secret weapons which will do most to break up the status quo. 1. Openness. This conference is a hopeful symptom, but it's only a start. The CAPNET::DELTA_IDEAS conference is another, more positive step in the right direction. If we can do away with secrecy, Star Chambers, information "black holes", and people who attempt to manage by choking off information - we'll be on the right path. Whenever you have to make a decision, ask yourself: "will this enhance or decrease openness?" 2. Altruism. There are several well known paradoxes, such as the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons, which present the question: shall I make the choice with the best payoff for everyone, or shall I work to minimize my own losses? The Prisoner's Dilemma is something like this: you and a friend are accused of some crime, and imprisoned separately pending trial (your guilt or innocence is irrelevant). The prosecution offers you this deal: - If you inform on your friend, you will be set free and he will get 20 years. - If he informs on you first, he will be set free and you get 20 years. - You are quite sure that if neither of you informs, you will both get one year in prison. Obviously, if you could communicate you would both agree to keep quiet. But - can you trust him?? There isn't a logical solution. But it occurs to me there is a very convincing answer in the Bible - Jesus' teaching "that ye love one another". (By the way, I'm agnostic). It's ironic that this advice, so often criticized as visionary and idealistic, turns out to be suprememly practical and to transcend logic. /Tom
1108.58	Amusement parts take money from you ...	CUSPID::MCCABE	If Murphy's Law can go wrong ..	`Tue Jun 12 1990 15:34`	25
	RE .56 I feel so depressed. Little did I know that now matter how hard I worked I was destined to fall into the ranks of the incompentant. So, as of today I've brought my walkman in, unplugged my phone, taken out my C manual, placed everyone in the group on the Cost Center signitory list, and send everyone in the group off to training classes just for fun. God, I Feel better now. Maybe tommorrow I'll order a VAX 9000 for each engineer, give out 20% raises, mandate health club time in the middle of the day, cut the work week down to 10-15 hours and push out those deadlines so that the stress level around here drops through the floor. I'm gonna even open this up to the whole Digital community. REQ's galor. Hire everyone who thinks this is the proper working environment and, Reccommend the lot of em for layoffs!
1108.59	Oh no! I hit an innocent bystander -	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Thu Jun 14 1990 09:27`	12
	Re .58: Mr McCabe, you have my apologies. Of course I didn't mean YOU! If you are reading this conference, you are more likely to be part of the solution than part of the problem. Actually, I owe everyone an apology. I was so carried away by explaining the syndrome I saw, that I forgot to spell out that what I said applies only to a minority (well, perhaps a small majority). Certainly not to all managers. /Tom 8-)
1108.60	The DEC Way (or "How Initiative Gets Crushed Out")	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Thu Jun 14 1990 09:34`	68
	The following story goes back at least to 1984, which is when someone mailed it to me. The story itself seems to be timeless. Please notice carefully how it ends - the disturbing element (the engineer trying to get something done) has gone away, and everyone can go back to life as usua (i.e. routine). To quote (or possibly paraphrase) Mr Heinlein, "Men fear nothing on earth as they fear thought" /Tom T H E D E C W A Y . ======================= Once upon a time, there was a DEC engineer who thought about computers until he came up with a good idea. He called the management together and said, "If we produce my idea, we shall have a good product to sell. Who will help me in this project?" "Not I," said his project leader. "Not I," said his supervisor. "Not I," said his manager. "Then I will," said the DEC engineer, and he did it as a 'midnight' project. The design grew firm and was ready for implementation. "Who will help me implement my design?" asked the DEC engineer. "Not I," said his project leader. "I've a meeting to go to," said his supervisor. "I'd have to commit myself," said his manager. "Then I will," said the DEC engineer, and he did. Time passed and it the design was implemented. "Who will help me document my project?" asked the DEC engineer. "I can't spell," said his project leader. "I've got another meeting to go to," said his supervisor. "I've got to visit the States," said his manager. "Then I will," said the DEC engineer. He finished the documentation and went about his normal work, using his midnight project in front of all the management. They all wanted to use it, in fact, they demanded that it became a corporate product. "Go re-paint the white lines down the M4!" said the DEC engineer. "Selfish sod," said his project leader. "Stop complaining," said his supervisor. "You won't get a pay rise," said his manager. And they all sent him mail messages with ESCAPE sequences to mess up his terminal. When the head of European Engineering came round, he said to the DEC engineer, "You must release and support the product." "But I did all the work," said the DEC engineer, "AND in my own time." "Exactly," said the head of European Engineering, "thats the DEC way. Anyone in DEC can do as much work as he/she likes, but under our modern managerial system the one who does the most work gets least reward. The workers must support the parasites." The product prospered, the salary review and hireing freezes were lifted, and everyone lived happily ever after. Including the DEC engineer, who smiled and chuckled, "I do get job satisfaction, I do get job satisfaction," and played computer games all day. But the management team wondered why he never again did another 'midnight' project. (With apologies to THE LITTLE RED HEN parable and FINANCIAL WORLD.)
1108.61	How to sort out the managers from the mere achievers	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Thu Jun 14 1990 09:40`	40
	To: Jesus, Son of Joseph, The Carpenters' Shop, Nazareth. From: Jordan Management Consultants, Jerusalem. Dear Sir, Thank you for submitting the resumes of the twelve men you have picked for management positions in your new organisation. All of them have now taken our battery of tests. We have not only run the results through our computer, but also arranged personal interviews for each of them with our psychologist and vocational aptitude consultant. It is the staff opinion that most of your nominees are lacking in background, education, and vocational aptitude for the type of enterprise you are undertaking. They do not have the team concept. We would recommend that you continue your search for persons of experience in managerial ability and proven capability. Simon Peter is emotionally unstable, and given to fits of temper. Andrew has absolutely no qualities of leadership. The two brothers, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, place personal interest above company loyalty. Thomas demonstrates a questioning attitude that would tend to undermine morale. We feel that it is our duty to tell you that Matthew has been blacklisted by the Greater Jerusalem Better Business Bureau. James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus definitely have radical leanings, and they both registered a high score on the manic depressive scale. One of the candidates, however, shows great potential. He is a man of ability and resourcefulness, meets people well, has a keen business mind and has contacts in high places. He is highly motivated, ambitious and responsible. We recommend Judas Iscariot as your controller and right hand man. All of the other profiles are self-explanatory. We wish you every success in your new venture. Yours faithfully,
1108.62	Plenty of this to go around...	HYEND::DMONTGOMERY		`Thu Jun 14 1990 11:40`	6
	Saw this in a magazine recently: "Every project, it is said, has three phases: It will not work; It will cost too much; and I knew it was a good idea all along." -Don-
1108.63	the book, worth it.	ROM01::CIPOLLA	Me ne frego del campionato!	`Thu Jun 14 1990 11:47`	11
	re .45 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA >> Has the book given you any insights you find applicable to Digital? (the book is "The Managerial Mistique") yes, a lot, you can see Digital's type of behavior depicted in every page of the book, it analyzes many "types" of managerial habits from a psychological point of view and is well worth reading. 8-( BC
1108.64	(aside)	SNOBRD::CONLIFFE	Cthulhu Barata Nikto	`Thu Jun 14 1990 11:50`	7
	Re .59, re.58 You know, that's the first time in almost 10 years that I've seen Kevin McCabe referred to as an "innocent bystander". Who, me, cynical? Nigel
1108.65	BETTER THAN HIDE AND SEEK	LUDWIG::JLUSSIER		`Fri Jun 15 1990 06:30`	7
	<WRONG TITLE FOR THIS NOTE> SHOULDN'T THE TITLE BE UNMASKING COMPETENT MANAGER'S P.S. GOOOOD LUCK
1108.66	It's Not Just a DEC Phenomenom	SALEM::KUPTON	I Love Being a Turtle!!!	`Fri Jun 15 1990 08:30`	39
	Not to throw gasoline on a fire, but..... Having worked for two large corporations prior to DEC, I've found that managers often a no more than a product of the environment in which they exist. For example: Croton on Hudson - The General Electric Co. Managerial Training Center. I five days, an understanding newly promoted, open minded person is tranformed into a coporate robot. Classes begin at 7:30 am and run to noon. Noon to 1 is lunch with your classmates. Class begins again at 1:00 PM and runs to 5:30. Dress for dinner at 6:30. Back to class from 8:00-9:30 and homework that will take until midnight. This goes on until Friday. When the class is dismissed at 1:30 Friday afternoon, 30 different human beings begin their climb to the top (?) of the GE ladder. At Fairchild, supervisors and managers were required to take 13 weeks of Zenger-Miller. Or how to deal with every corporate and personnel problem the ZM way. Attitudes change after 39 hours of supervisory group encounter. No matter where people work, they tend to become like their management whether they like/want to. If your manager works for a sneaky, job fearing, incompetent weasel, he'll become sneaky and suspicious of the people that work for him. If your manager works for an open minded, rewarding, enthusiastic manager, he'll be very similar. To often, good people are bad managers and develop habits and traits that they despised as subordinates. Once their subordinates transmit their dislike for his/her methods, the manager becomes defensive and retreats or becomes offensive and attacks. Either way, a bond of trust will take a great deal to build. It's not easy working for self promoting tyrants or managers who were promoted beyond their capacity. The problem is the person that promoted them can't admit to error of judgement or his credibility is shot. It's a never ending, vicious circle that you will find no matter where you work. Even if you work for yourself....... Ken
1108.67	A thought on finding the value in difference	WORDY::JONG	Steve Jong/T and N Pubs	`Fri Jun 15 1990 15:41`	59
	Anent .8 (Bill Kilgore): Your reply strikes at the heart of the objections to the "Valuing Differences" concept. Every time I've ever heard this program discussed, someone invariably jokes, "I'm a bigot. Value me." The program seems to have been renamed "Understanding the Dynamics of Difference," a New-Age title that nonetheless removes this obvious retort. But the jokes are obscuring the true value of the program by suggesting that we are asked to value that which has no value, such as bigotry. Instead, it seems to me the program is trying to get us to value the value of people. That's an odd phrase, so to illustrate my point, let me introduce you to Paul Dunbar. Paul is an engineer. He is fresh from the University of New Hampshire and working somewhere in Massachusetts. He was originally working in Spit Brook, but his group was transferred south. He is enraged at having to pay high property taxes in New Hampshire and high income taxes in Massachusetts, and lets off steam in Notes conferences by suggesting that someone should shoot the governor of Massachusetts. Paul knows he is better versed in his trade than some of the older engineers he works with, and he's proud of it. He's single and unattached, so putting in eighty hours a week isn't hard. In fact, he works harder than anyone else in his group, and produces more and better results. He thinks he ought to be the highest-paid engineer in his department. He doesn't say so in as many words, but his coworkers pick up his attitude and dislike him intensely. He senses their disdain and returns the feeling. Paul's supervisor is about at his wit's end. Paul is an egotistical, abrasive, disruptive employee. It takes more than five hours a week of his supervisor's time to deal with Paul and the problems he causes. Two valued, long-time employees have actually cited Paul as a reason for transferring to other groups; now the department is down two people, with no immediate prospects for filling the open slots. Paul does good work, but the cost seems prohibitive. Paul's supervisor used to be the department manager, but he asked out of the assignment because he wasn't happy. He's been with Digital for twenty years. To Paul, the man is an obsolete tool, a proven incompetent who couldn't cut it as an engineer and couldn't cut it as a manager. Generally, Paul listens to his boss, nods curtly, and then does whatever the hell he pleases. But for his current assignment, Paul would transfer to a group with management he can respect. Ah, but the assignment! Paul is working on a new pipelining architecture for the VAX 9000. Based on some ideas he's had, he is confident that he can improve the performance of the CPU by fifty percent with no increase in production cost. He has prepared his report, and now it's time to go to his boss... I don't want to take up more time to write out the scene, but in many corporate (and human) cultures, Paul's idea, regardless of its value, is DOA, simply because his boss, for some understandable reasons, hates him. In this situation, by ignoring Paul's idea, the company loses, and Paul loses as well. The supervisor, if he yields to the temptation to bury the idea, may drive Paul away from the group; at the moment, driving Paul away sounds like a good idea to him.
1108.68	I joined DEC. I left ....	CUSPID::MCCABE	If Murphy's Law can go wrong ..	`Fri Jun 15 1990 17:44`	51
	Now what's valuing new age crystals got to do with this? Paul Dunbar used to work at Digital. DEC actually. He's responsible (in other guises of course) for major operating systems, hardware, inovations, the few big name money making software products, sold the record number of products for product line/reigon ... He often worked late/early/weekends. He pissed off his supervisor/manager/coworkers to extreams. He hates process/useless/ procedures/meetings/paperwork He does not avoid conflict, and in many instances his presence was enough to cause it to occur from thin air. He's rude, swears ands is abusive. From reading this conference many people who work here would have left meeting with him because of his attitude, language, or failure to conform. Paul was not an uncommon sight. Sometimes Paul could be controlled, because there were older mellower more experienced Paul's around to teach him human behavior, often by teaching him humility. Few people around who'll take the time, or command Paul's respect. Don't worry about Paul. We've finally figured out how to deal with him. He'll leave. Most Paul's have. The one's who stayed have been abused into a state of crippling frustration, given a chance to succeed over and over until the manager taking credit for Paul finally burnt him out and used himn as a scapegoat. Or else the process adapted to effectivily stifle Paul. The manager's likely to be pretty important now. Might catch them fondly remembering Paul at one of the 5 or 10 or 15 year dinners. What do we do with Paul in the short term. Let him tell his boss about the big win he can pull off. Or let him spread it around that he can do it. Impetuous type like Paul are likely to do it anyway and tell everyone. His boss with thank him for the extra work, long hours, and midnight hacks, then give him a 3 on his review and send him to Positive Power & Influence. By definition Digital can't lose. He's merely one person who we'll work very hard to prove to that they are not indespensible. Oh yes one of the remaining Paul's last projects is getting to be 8 years old now, a couple of other Paul's did one that now 12 years old, another 16, The multimillion profit stream is drying up. Maybe after this Paul finishes with the 9000 we'll be through with the last of them and can get down to doing some serious business with some leadership products that do, ah, um, arrgh, em, ... ....
1108.69	I know this guy	REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Mon Jun 18 1990 14:04`	11
	Oh? You mean the Paul Dunbar who thinks ergonomics is a pointless waste of time and effort? The one who says he'd read all the documentation, but just tosses it in a corner and never looks at it again, because he knows best? The one who refuses to do it the way everone told him it should be done, because that was the way <X> wanted to do it, and he is NEVER going to let <X> have his way? The one who makes his coworkers physically miserable, because the thermostat is nearest his office, and he likes it cold? The one who could annoy S--- R---------? Ann B.
1108.70	Where does the customer fit?	CHEFS::OSBORNEC	It's motorcycling weather again	`Wed Jun 20 1990 05:11`	34
	What's Paul's view of what the customer wants? Can he recognise a customer, or is he a technofreak who wants technology for technology's sake -- plenty of them around. BTW, his manager IS incompetent. It's the manager's job to set direction for his team, & ensure success -- that's what the manager is (or should be) judged by. If the manager is not judged that way, it's his boss that is incompetent. Steering difficult staff is the most difficult management challenge - but often a daily need. A great deal depends on how the team work plan is created - imposed, debated, or non-existent. Individual ownership & commitment to the plan is often directly proportional to the level of input a staff member was able to make. A maverick may have splendid ideas, if you can find ways of using his/her creativity. If they do not contribute, or are disruptive to the achievement of the team goals, then they need some corrective feedback. If all they do is upset the manager's ego, then both have a problem --- which may or may not hit our profits. If it does put profits at risk, then the managers's manager needs to join the act -- before commercial damage is done. Much of the pain in the Topic is NOT about managing -- it's often about administration. Unfortunately, the difference is not always made clear to new managers -- or to their staff. Colin
1108.71	What happened to "OUR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT"?	NCDEL::PEREZ	Just one of the 4 samurai!	`Fri Jun 22 1990 01:01`	12
	re -.1: > they do is upset the manager's ego, then both have a problem --- > which may or may not hit our profits. If it does put profits at > risk, then the managers's manager needs to join the act -- before > commercial damage is done. Lots of mention of "profits"... this is a TOTAL and recurring theme here too - to the exclusion of all else. Just out of curiosity, where do the things not mentioned like employee morale, ethical leadership, employee empowerment, and MOST of all bidirectional respect and trust fit into this picture?
1108.72	get real buddy, this is the NEW Digital!	SMOOT::ROTH	Grits: Not just for banquets anymore!	`Fri Jun 22 1990 09:19`	14
	Re:< Note 1108.71 by NCDEL::PEREZ "Just one of the 4 samurai!" > > Lots of mention of "profits"... this is a TOTAL and recurring theme > here too - to the exclusion of all else. Just out of curiosity, where > do the things not mentioned like employee morale, ethical leadership, > employee empowerment, and MOST of all bidirectional respect and trust > fit into this picture? Those are noble concepts but they cannot be measured. Profit, headcount, margin, customer survey- these are numerics, and therefore, are reality. That's what managers are measured on so skip that other fluff. Control the numbers and you control reality. Numbers. Think numbers. Don't do more, don't do less. Just make your numbers and be content.
1108.73	BRING BACK THE BARBARIANS	NCDEL::PEREZ	Just one of the 4 samurai!	`Sat Jun 23 1990 01:55`	14
	re -.1: >Those are noble concepts but they cannot be measured. Profit, headcount, >margin, customer survey- these are numerics, and therefore, are reality. >That's what managers are measured on so skip that other fluff. Control >the numbers and you control reality. Numbers. Think numbers. Don't do >more, don't do less. Just make your numbers and be content. Thank you. That is PRECISELY the point I was hoping would be abundantly clear to everyone. I agree absolutely with you, and I think if the current trend (as epitomized by the above) continues, this company will wind up staffed by overhead, deadwood, and a bunch of people that couldn't have an original thought if their life depended on it.
1108.74	Survival matters	CHEFS::OSBORNEC	It's motorcycling weather again	`Sat Jun 23 1990 14:18`	13
	I used the word "profit" intentionally. I have been a manager for many years, in several companies. I have managed very large international staff groups. I value people, motivation, leadership, & involvement. For those reasons, it concerns me that I rarely hear profit mentioned in my work environment, or in Notes. Shame, because all the social factors that we value need profits to feed them. One recalls apocryphal stories about the band playing whilst the Titanic went down ...............
1108.75	Winning pennies and losing dollars is not profitable!	AUSTIN::UNLAND	Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum	`Sat Jun 23 1990 15:54`	31
	re: Note 1108.74 by CHEFS::OSBORNEC "It's motorcycling weather again" > I used the word "profit" intentionally. > Shame, because all the social factors that we value need profits > to feed them. One recalls apocryphal stories about the band playing > whilst the Titanic went down ............... This is exactly the point some of us are trying to make. In your very apt analogy, the band is accomplishing its short-term goals ("play music") while ignoring the long-term consequences. Many of us feel that management within DEC is doing the same thing. There are many managers who know this is the bad thing to do, but they have a metaphorical gun at their heads. If they refuse to be like the band on the Titanic, and "play music", then they will get shot on the spot, without a hope of rescue. Perhaps another analogy would be how we treat illness. In today's enlightened society, if someone is ill, we spend extra money on medicine and good food to aid the healing process. Instead, what if we were to reduce food intake (don't want to waste valuable food), refuse medicinal help, and try to get as much work out of the person as possible. What are the chances of survival and recovery in this situation? This is the "new" DEC way of treating problems in the Field, and I think that it will be our downfall. Geoff
1108.76	1 vote for noble concepts here	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Mon Jun 25 1990 13:02`	82
	Been away on vacation... re .66 > Having worked for two large corporations prior to DEC, I've found > that managers often a no more than a product of the environment > in which they exist. This is, in large part true. A manager's behavior is molded by the criteria which determine his/her success. I've probably mentioned this already, but after two years of unit management, I found that things I had done as a manager prior to DEC, that I had accepted as unconcious deeply-ingrained habit, I was no longer doing. Other things that I did do, like send people to training even though not sending them would guarantee me making my numbers and sending them made it close, if not impossible, I kept doing because at some level I could only sink so low. It was only my experience as a manager before DEC that kept me going all the way down the Digital black hole of management. re: last several [being driven by numbers, not noble concepts], .75 > ... In your > very apt analogy, the band is accomplishing its short-term goals > ("play music") while ignoring the long-term consequences. Many of > us feel that management within DEC is doing the same thing. There > are many managers who know this is the bad thing to do, but they > have a metaphorical gun at their heads. If they refuse to be like > the band on the Titanic, and "play music", then they will get shot > on the spot, without a hope of rescue. We just had a district meeting last Friday. One of the presentors was from outside DEC, Jan Pedderson, who does presentations/training on changing corporate culture. She described the 3 phases of life of a corporation. First, is startup -- take risks, make decisions, forgiveness for bad decisions, etc. Second is the mature corporation -- beuroracy, risk avoidance, overmanagement, etc. Third, and this is where companies survive, or don't, is the successful or failed attempt to break beyond into a company where values reemerge, where "noble concepts" (quoting a previous note) take precedence over metrics. Jan had done training for our district's unit managers, district managers, area managers (SWS). First, each level of management said: "This is great. If only you could get this message to _our_ managers we could start to change things." Second, I threw down the gauntlet so to speak and asked her: the things that drive the corporation how are all goals which can be quantified and measured. The goals we should be striving for are not as easily quantifiable or measureable. So, how do you change goals people are measured on from quantifiable to non-quantifiable? DEC is very adaptable to change -- if the goals changed, IMHO, a lot of "bad" behavior would change overnight. For example, there's DEC 100 for sales [making 100% of one's CERTS budget]. Now, a bumbling idiot could fall into a huge order and make their budget, they're golden. An extremely competent and motivated individual could miss an order because of a customer's budgeting schedule, they're in the doghouse. In the "correct" DEC, the latter should be rewarded, not the former. How do you change that? What do you "measure" to make sure you recognize and reward the person who _really_ deserves it? Even Jan didn't have an answer to that one. But, she did answer it in another way. When someone asked her about the "desired" behavior at her previous regular employer (Xerox), she said that it just happenned, that everyone just did it. I'm not sure what this means about how we change our metricized management culture. Maybe, for starters, we declare that: MEETING ALL METRICS COUNTS FOR NO MORE THAN HALF OF ANYTHING i.e., no more than half towards awards, awards, performance appraisals, promotion criteria, etc. This would make all of those processes require more work on the part of management, like paying attention to and being able to cogently describe to their peers what's _behind_ the numbers and their evaluations. BTW, Jan said it typically takes 6-8 years to change corporate culture, but that's too long a time now for any company that needs to change to survive.
1108.77	The Titanic band is not a good example of blindness	MINAR::BISHOP		`Mon Jun 25 1990 15:33`	8
	Trivial point: The band played on the Titanic as it sank to maintain morale, and was a consciously self-sacrificial act on the part of the musicians. Many people died; more would have died if there had been a panicy struggle for lifeboats rather than a tense but orderly allocation. -John Bishop
1108.78		SMOOT::ROTH	Grits: Not just for banquets anymore!	`Tue Jun 26 1990 08:59`	10
	re:< Note 1108.76 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA "Do the right thing!" > > BTW, Jan said it typically takes 6-8 years to change corporate culture, > but that's too long a time now for any company that needs to change to > survive. That's about how long ago DEC (at least here in the field) began to 'go metric'. Lee
1108.79	Beyond competence ==> ethics	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Wed Jun 27 1990 20:49`	153
	I've noticed an alarming amount of discussions in DIGITAL about the wrong things -- bad things -- being done. I'm coming to realize that we're not just talking about issues of competence: we're really talking about issues of personal and business ethics. We've bemoned that our culture is going downhill. We've talked about being guided by "noble concepts" without being able to put our finger on them. I submit that the "noble concept" we live by is ethical behavior, no more, no less. I was going through a difficult time at DEC about a year and a half ago. Browsing through a bookstore, I noticed a small paperback titled: The POWER of ETHICAL MANAGEMENT by Ken Blanchard, most known for "The One-Minute Manager", and Norman Vincent Peale who wrote "The Power of Positive Thinking". [I knew one or two people who could have used a copy of this book.] I think it offers positive guidelines that each of us can apply, that can begin to effect the kind of necessary cultural change we're striving for. It's 136 pages of quick reading, but here it is in about 136 lines. All emphasis in quoted materials is in the original. ---- When you first run into a situation where you're not sure what the right thing to do is, apply the "Ethics Check Questions": "1. Is it legal? Will I be violating either civil law or company policy? 2. Is it balanced? Is it fair to all concerned in the short term as well as the long term? Does it promote win-win situations? 3. How will it make me feel about myself? Will it make me proud? Would I feel good if my decision was published in a newspaper? Would I feel good if my family knew about it?" The book talks about the importance of setting an example (both your actions and inactions count!), taking a stand on issues, and the very real conflict between what is "right" and what is (accepted) "reality." So, with all the pressures to do what's expedient, what do you do to reinforce doing what's right [ethical behavior]? You apply the Five P's of Ethical Power: "Purpose" what you're striving towards, not a "goal"; a goal is an end -- purpose is ongoing "Pride" sense of satisfaction, self-esteem; no false pride: "People with Humility Don't Think Less of Themselves... They Just Think About Themselves Less"; no self-doubt: "No One Can Make You Feel Inferior Without Your Permission" "Patience" having a sense of balance, having a sense of faith -- of positive thinking -- that you will ultimately succeed: "Nice Guys May Appear to Finish Last, But Usually They're Running a Different Race." "Persistence" To quote Winston Churchill's ENTIRE speech given late in his life at the prep school he once attended as a child: "Never! Never! Never! Never Give Up!" It's not trying to do something, it's actually doing it: "Trying is Just a Noisy Way of Not Doing Something." "Perspective" seeing what's really important -- this binds all the "P's" together -- it's the spot from where you look at the other P's and watch what's important These principles apply to you as an individual in the conduct of your affairs: "The Five Principles of Ethical Power for Individuals 1. Purpose: I see myself as an ethically sounds person. I let my conscience be my guide. No matter what happens, I am always able to face the mirror, look myself straight in the eye, and feel good about myself. 2. Pride: I feel good about myself. I don't need the acceptance of other people to feel important. A balanced self-esteem keeps my ego and my desire to be accepted from influencing my decisions. 3. Patience: I believe that things will eventually work out well. I don't need everything to happen right now. I am at peace with what comes my way! 4. Persistence: I stick to my purpose, especially when it seems inconvenient to do so! My behavior is consistent with my intentions. As Churchill said, "Never! Never! Never! Never! Give Up!" 5. Perspective: I take time to enter each day quietly in a mood of reflection. This helps me get focused and allows me to listen to my inner self and to see things more clearly." The Five P's also apply to organizations; it is an organization's responsibility to promulgate and promote your personal application of these principles. Accordingly: "The Five Principles of Ethical Power for Organizations 1. Purpose: The mission of our organizaiton is communicated from the top. Our organization is guided by the values, hopes, and a vision that helps us determine what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. 2. Pride: We feel proud of ourselves and of our organization. We know that when we feel this way, we can resist temptations to behave unethically. 3. Patience: We believe that holding to our ethical values will lead us to success in the long term. This involves maintaining a balance between obtaining results and caring about how we achieve these results. 4. Persistence: We have a commitment to live by ethical principles. We are committed to our committment. We make sure our actions are consistent with our purpose. 5. Perspective: Our managers and employees take time to pause and reflect, take stock of where we are, evaluate where we are going and determine how we are going to get there." Some general observations about behavior as an organization: "Managing ONLY For Profit Is Like Playing Tennis With Your Eye On The Scoreboard And Not On The Ball" "If We Take Care In The Beginning, The End Will Take Care Of Itself" "Sometimes When The Numbers Look Right The Decision Is Still Wrong!" And, finally, when you feel you have no options to change the situation by doing what's right and no one around you is doing what's right: "It Is Better to Light One Candle Than Curse The Darkness" ---- I thought we could use some positive things to think about and some positive principles to work toward. I hope you find this valuable and useful. I highly recommend the book as an effective tool for keeping your perspective when everyone around you has lost theirs. /Peters
1108.80	Ahhh... how refreshing!	DCVAX::MZARUDZKI	Feelin' like Road Pizza	`Wed Jun 27 1990 21:42`	9
	RE -.1 Please! Someone write lock this topic while we are on a positive note! Excellence comes from within! -Mike Z.
1108.81	from the net-waves	ATLACT::GIBSON_D		`Mon Jul 02 1990 11:24`	31
	BOEING DISCOVERS NEW ELEMENT The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by Boeing physicists. The element, tentatively named Administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have 1 neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons. Since it has no electrons, Administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Administratium caused one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than one second. Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not actually decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each reorganization. Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations and universities and can usually be found in the newest, best appointed and best maintained buildings. Scientists point out that Administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.
1108.82	Anonymous reply	QUARK::LIONEL	Free advice is worth every cent	`Tue Jul 03 1990 15:34`	185
	The following reply is from a member of our community who wishes to remain anonymous. One possible way to improve management performance ..... 2. Please describe the following aspects of your idea: Opportunity or issue your idea addresses. Management performance is not currently evaluated on the "downward managing" aspects of the job. I.e., management is evaluated mostly on their ability to manage upward, and in meeting metrics that do not reflect the importance of properly managing their direct reports. Managers who are "successful" by measurements of metrics may be unsuccessful in managing their staffs, but there is no system in place to detect and correct these situations. Typically, the problem is only addressed when the problems have developed to the stage where staff turnover results and morale becomes critically low. This is the source of significant problems within the company, and can be readily addressed by empowering employees to have input into the evaluation process for their managers. The solution is to detect problems earlier so that corrective action can be taken. Result will be better management/employee relations, higher morale, increased staff productivity, lower turnover, etc. Describe proposed remedy and any support your idea needs in order to succeed. Require that staff provide direct input to their manager's evaluation ("performance appraisal"). This needs to be done in a manner that provides anonymity and requires that corrective actions be taken. I suggest the following approach: o Every six months, the staff in convened for a short meeting of perhaps no more than 30 minutes, without the manager present. Perhaps this meeting is hosted by a representative from the human resources organization. This should be done every six months to provide input for the semiannual PA cycle, and also to catch problems early so they can be corrected. o Each employee is given a short evaluation form, which will be completed and turned in. No employee identification will be present on the evaluations, assuring anonymity. o For those employees who are unable to attend the meeting, they will have the opportunity of completing a form and returning it to human resources. o Completion of these evaluations should be a requirement on the employee's own PA. This is an important process, and managers to need feedback from their employees to gauge how they're doing; just as employees also need feedback from their managers. o The forms will contain a sequence of questions designed to thoroughly evaluate the management's skills in managing his/her staff. Typical questions might include: "Please evaluate how accessible your manager is to you: 1 = Excellent 2 = Good 3 = Average 4 = Poor 5 = Poor, unsatisfactory" "I feel my manager listens to me: 1 = Almost always 3 = Sometimes 5 = Not at all" "I feel that I can disagree with my manager without fear of reprisal: 1 = Yes, I am comfortable in expressing a different opinion 5 = No, I fear for my job" "Has your manager ever attempted to influence your input to this evaluation process: 1 = No 5 = Yes" "Overall, I would rate my manager's performance as: 1 = Excellent, top-notch 2 = Above average 3 = Average 4 = Poor, but can improve 5 = Should not be a manager" o In addition, the employee should also be given the opportunity to express comments that may not fall within the scope of the questions, via free format areas, such as: "A few of the things my manager does especially well are ..." "A few specific things my manager can do to become a better manager are ..." o Evaluation of the forms might be done either by the manager's manager or human relations, or both. I'd suggest that human resources be involved, to prevent a manager's manager from doctoring the scores to make them look better or worse than the staff reports. After all, it is the evaluation by the employees that this process is measuring. o The results will be communicated to both the manager and his/her manager in the form of numeric values (i.e. "you were rated overall by your people with a 2.3 rating, your scores on accessibility were 3.5, ...) as well as transcribed feedback (i.e. "your staff suggests the following things you can work on, and the following areas you do especially well" -- these are transcribed for obvious reasons, the original employee forms should be destroyed once the scoring and transcription is made). o The employee feedback should be a significant portion of the metrics upon which the manager is measured. If it isn't, it will be ignored. o Some mechanism needs to be incorporated to ensure that problems identified in this process are acted upon in a timely fashion. This can be through the involvement of human resources, by adding a metric to the manager's manager to ensure actions are take to correct problems. o Education of employees about this process is critical. The importance to the company of this process should be stressed, to encourage honest evaluations. While there will be some 'axe-grinding', most employees will be professional in their evaluations. Especially, employees need to understand to only hold their managers accountable for things under their control. For example, if the corporate guidelines on raises is x% (presumably a small number), the manager shouldn't be blamed for being unable to procure 2*x% raises. o While this should be a positive process to improve our management's skills, it will have a negative connotation to management because it is providing a new accountability -- to their staffs. There will be managers who are resistant to this idea. o Likewise, this shouldn't become a "popularity contest" for managers to campaign their staffs. Human resources should clearly state that _any_ attempt to influence employee feedback on the evaluations will be considered harassment. o Strong support needs to be given to this program by top company management to make it work. Employees have to believe that they are empowered to work to solve problems with management. o Special circumstances might require special handling. For example, a manager with very few direct reports might be able to discern the input from a particular employee. In this case, some variation of this program will be necessary. o A shortcoming of this approach is that problems at difference levels of management other than between managers and their direct reports will not be addressed. There are occasions when employees are aware of problems in the management structure other than with their direct manager -- either laterally or upwardly. This approach will not address those situations and another scheme needs to be developed to address them. Results you expect your idea to produce, or results your idea has already produced. Please be as specific and quantitative as possible. Employees know their manager best. Problems in organizations can easily by hidden by a manager and not be dealt with. In addition, good managers are not always recognized by their management. Having employee feedback on file can often help a good, but unrewarded manager. Resolved, employees are free to concentrate on doing their jobs. With better staff/manager interaction, the company will directly benefit. Lower turnover should result. Employee satisfaction should improve, as measured by whatever survey mechanism is employed by the company.
1108.83	one manager already gets employee reviews	JULIET::GRANT_GA	Live free or WISH you had.	`Tue Jul 03 1990 22:40`	13
	I agree wholeheartedly with -.1. Measure our managers on how well they manage, not how easy they are to manage. Bill Keating, one of my all-time heroes at DEC, ALREADY DOES THIS! On his own, because HE WANTS TO KNOW. Would be willing to bet that the turnover in SDT is one of the lowest around. You can go levels down in the organization and still find a fierce and proud loyalty to Bill. Why? He cares, he has vision that he communicates to his group and he is a good manager. And he wants to know if he is doing anything wrong so he can fix it. He listens. g.
1108.84	"Sad delusion of thinking you are irreplaceable"	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Fri Jul 06 1990 06:33`	76
	The following article is about psychotherapists who assume their own usefulness and rightness, without any justification. I wonder if the syndrome described could be widespread anywhere else? (It gave me a bad time wondering how much of it applies to me, until I realized that the fact I was admitting such doubts was evidence that I was still reasonably open-minded) /Tom <London "Times", 3rd July 1990> SAD DELUSION OF THINKING YOU ARE IRREPLACEABLE ---------------------------------------------- By Pearce Wright Science Editor Thousands of high-flyers in the financial and business worlds are suffering from "really useful syndrome", a senior clinical psychologist has found. They have fallen into a state of mind which he calls "assumed usefulness". The main symptom is unwarranted self-confidence. There is no obvious cure. Paul Whitby, senior clinical psychologist at Tonna Hospital, West Glamorgan, has pinpointed other symptoms, including high self-esteem and a behaviour apttern of persistent activity and enthusiasm, fostered by the occasional and random reward of a good profit, which arrives independently of the person's efforts. The dominating emotional state of people suffering the condition is their conviction that what they are doing is really useful. Dr Whitby says the phenomenon of unwarranted self-confidence is not restricted to people in commerce. The implications could be even more serious when it afflicted those working in other fields. He explains his ideas in the latest issue of the "Psychologist", the monthly bulletin of the British Psychological Society, published today. His article carries a warning for other psychotherapists. He suggests that they and other physicians who tend to blame patients for the failure of therapies are probably suffering the "assumed usefulness" syndrome themselves. Dr Whitby says that where a depressed patient thinks "I am responsible for all bad things and failures" a mistakenly self-confident therapist has a frame of mind that believes "I am responsible for all good things, improvements and cures". Whereas depressed people are likely to see any performance which falls short of perfection as abject failure, the self-confident psychotherapist may see any performance which falls short of complete failure as satisfactory. Dr Whitby suggests that his idea of assumed usefulness can be employed to analyse the thoughts and behaviour of psychotherapists in the type of study that has mostly been applied to examining the condition of their patients suffering personality disorders and neuroses. He has conceived the notion in an effort to resolve a controversy over the effectiveness of psychotherapy. He says: "Without a twinge of embarrassment nurses, doctors, psychologists, social workers and others describe themselves as psychotherapists." Yet, judged on any objective criteria of the available research, the psychotherapies were not even moderately successful. "If psychotherapy is so ineffective then sensible people would not practise it, but they do." Rather than depend on the subjective reports of patients in unravelling the benefits of psychotherapy, Dr Whitby's approach puts the therapists on the couch. That should reveal which of them suffers "the assumed usefulness syndrome of dogmatism, sense of mission, scorn for non-believers and an unwarranted faith in their own interventions." He says: "Unless these effects are overcome, psychotherapy will continue to be a field of antagonistic cults riven with disagreement which rarely rsie above the level of Swift's Big-Endians versus Little-Endians."
1108.85	Apologies to "The Times"	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Fri Jul 06 1990 06:43`	6
	re .84: My apologies to "The Times". The typos in .84 are mine, not theirs. It was transcribed in haste. /Tom
1108.86	Measure the right result	LABC::MCCLUSKY		`Fri Jul 06 1990 13:23`	24
	re: .82 What a fantastic waste of time and effort. Good managers know what people reporting to their direct reports think of them and their managers. They see the results of the team's efforts and they adjust to increase their success. Managers should be measured on their management skills and the end result. Isn't it interesting that I have not heard a serious criticizm of John Wooden as the coach (manager) of the UCLA basketball team. I am not aware of a single player that has said John was a bad coach (manager), or of players that left the University to play somewhere for a coach (manager) that thought more of his people or had better people skills. It is interesting that if you measured John Wooden on the end result, you would necessarily rank him as the BEST COACH OF ALL TIME!!!! His end results are unparalleled in college basketball. Cut out the bureaucracy and carefully define what you want from a manager in terms of the end result to the organization. Measure his performance against that goal. Know about his people and how they see things. They will let you know. Usually incompetent managers are hidden by another incompetent manager. Daryl
1108.87	all are not good	ATLACT::GIBSON_D		`Fri Jul 06 1990 15:31`	26
	re .86 >LABC::MCCLUSKY -< Measure the right result >- > re: .82 > What a fantastic waste of time and effort. Good managers know what > people reporting to their direct reports think of them and their > managers. They see the results of the team's efforts and they > adjust to increase their success. .82 is not referring to good managers. .82 refers to all managers. Good managers MAY know the things you refer to. All managers do not, nor do they adjust to increase the success of the team before themselves. > Cut out the bureaucracy and carefully define what you want from a > manager in terms of the end result to the organization. Measure his > performance against that goal. Know about his people and how they see > things. They will let you know. Usually incompetent managers are > hidden by another incompetent manager. It appears to me that is exactly what .82 is trying to do. You should reread it. It is not a waste of time or effort. (BTW, I'm not the writer nor do I know the writer.) I do think he/she proposed an under-defined solution. However, it's a step in the right direction and often simple steps are the most effective.
1108.88	Total reliance on peer networking == eventual doom	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Tue Jul 10 1990 12:49`	72
	re: last several There's a lot of administratium that goes along with management, but I think that's a symptom of the real issue. Who's the best "single contributor?" Someone who is: self-starting, self-motivated... Someone who builds their own support network, finds all the answers they need to do their job. Someone who can survive on their own wits. So, what does management do for this person? At the risk of repeating myself: Who's the best "nmanager?" Someone who is: self-starting, self-motivated... Someone who builds their own support network, finds all the resources they need to do their job. Someone who can survive on their own wits. So, what do higher layers of management do for this person? And just when it seems like we're starting to understand how we work internally, we re-organize. Most people in my geographic area don't even know how our own area is put together or who is responsible for what. I just burned the midnight oil doing a proposal -- only to find out, when I got done, _and through sheer dumb luck_, that someone else in the area had gone through the previous iteration (on a third party co-bid setup) with the previous vendor. The manager involved in the opportunity didn't know about _US_ having done the previous proposal, in our hands, either. ARRGGHHH!!!!! Every time there's an organizational problem to solve, we solve the problem with new acronyms and new groups. So, the network the individual or manager needs to maintain to be effective widens and grows. And the time needed to resolve an issue lengthens. So, what we have is: O ...Hopefully Ken is not contemplating his / \| \ navel, though down at the bottom I / \| \ honestly sometimes can't tell the difference Vision and Purpose / \| \ . . . O --- O ...upper management talking . . . to each other O --- O --- O ... managers networked (throwback . . . to days as an individual) O --- O --- O --- O --- O --- O --- O --- O ... individuals networked How can you run a company effectively when no one relies on communicating up or down to try and communicate or solve problems? Or, when "that's not possible" or "there's no way/no one to do that" is an acceptable answer to a problem that has been escalated? Or when "I followed your instructions, what else do you want me to do?" is an out for somone who was supposed to fix a problem? We need less organizations and more responsibility/accountability. If we all keep working the way we've been working -- be as self-reliant and self-sufficient as possible -- we're dooming ourselves. /Peters
1108.90	re: 88 - looks good to me	SALMON::BLACK	I always run out of time and space to finish ..	`Wed Jul 11 1990 14:18`	10
	Re: .88 Yesssss, you've got it! The point about peer to peer relationships perhaps weakening the up and down flow is very important. Since we can't have complete peer to peer access (too many of us) the up and down flow is essential!
1108.91	Three simple sentences to better management.	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Fri Jul 13 1990 17:30`	25
	On the lighter side, here's a quote from that great football coach, Bear Bryant, that I recently came across: "I'm just a plowhand from Arkansas, but I have learned how to hold a team together. How to lift some men up, how to calm down others, until finally they've got one heartbeat together, a team. There's just three things I'd ever say: If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, then we did it. If anything goes real good, then you did it. That's all it takes to get people to win football games for you." I think every manager should have these words over their desk. Works for me! /Peters
1108.92	Should have thought of this sooner ;-)	SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Mon Jul 16 1990 13:08`	27
	re .88 (my own) Having elsewhere introduced a new acronym, YAP, for "Yet Another Process", I can now properly refine my diagram of inter-personal networking: > O ...Hopefully Ken is not contemplating his > / \| \ navel, though down at the bottom I > / \| \ honestly sometimes can't tell the difference > Vision and Purpose > / \| \ > . . . > > O --- O ...upper management >>YAPPING<< > . . . with each other > > O --- O --- O ... managers networked (throwback > . . . to days as an individual) > > O --- O --- O --- O --- O --- O --- O --- O ... individuals networked Sorry, I just couldn't resist! ;-) /Peters
1108.93	"Trading Up" - one woman's experience in a bank	COUNT0::WELSH	Tom Welsh, UK ITACT CASE Consultant	`Tue Jul 17 1990 06:45`	101
	I bought the book "Trading Up" at a bookstall and found it excellent - as an insight into the "Wall Street" world of financial trading, as an inside view of a major bank, and last but not least, as a literate description of incompetent management throttling the best efforts of a brilliant, energetic, self-motivated employee. (Whether it all happened exactly as described is neither here nor there - although it sounds too lurid to be fiction). Here are the two passages (towards the end of the book) which rang dozens of bells with me. Try reading through them, and see how many similarities you can find with episodes in your life at Digital. (Incidentally, one thing this book does is to show how much worse it can be in other companies!) Having thought about these passages quite a bit, I have come to the conclusion that there is one underlying syndrome: managers who have settled into a mindset which is overwhelmingly selfish. They are not out to do their best for the company, or to do their best for themselves by doing their best for the company. They are out to do their best for themselves, plain and simple. And anybody else in the same space is seen as potential competition, and hence as an enemy. /Tom --0-- "'Nancy,' said John Anderson, 'I'm afraid I have some bad news'. 'What is it?' I asked, bracing myself. 'William Hambrecht absolutely refuses to raise Sam's salary by the necessary $10,000. He says your back office can survive perfectly well without him.' 'How would he know?' I asked sharply. 'He's never even been in my back office.' 'He says that no one is irreplaceable. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.' ..... 'Look,' said John with a grin, 'if it makes you feel any better, William has absolutely guaranteed the smooth functioning of your back office. He promised me that you wouldn't even notice that Sam was gone.' ..... For the first week that Sam was gone we did not get one single report produced on time. No reports got to London. The reports that we did get were wrong. I don't remember the exact amount of money that we lost that week. I do remember that it was significantly in excess of the $10,000 that it would have cost to keep Sam." --0-- "I wearily opened my mouth to reiterate how important this system was to my operation, how I couldn't trade without it, how it couldn't be put off another day, another hour, another minute. I looked from one blank face to another. Slowly, I closed my mouth. I'm the kind of person who feels first and thinks second. Suddenly, I had a feeling. I don't belong here. This truth freed my thought process. It was so instantaneously obvious that I wondered how I had ever felt different. In that moment, for the first time in months, I was able to look at the situation with some semblance of objectivity. Look at them! I thought. They don't care what's happening. They all know what a problem it is by this time. They all know that it's costing the bank money. I'm the only one who cares. Each of them is caught up in his own little fiefdom. They are actually enjoying watching me suffer. They view passive obstruction as a means of increasing power and influence. It's more important to them that they reaffirm their individual superiority than that they do their jobs in the general interest of the bank. I don't, I mused, have anything in common with any of them, do I? It's as if I'm from another planet. I actually believe that they resent me for bringing this problem to their attention and making such a fuss about it. They think I'm just making waves. Look at them! I thought again. Why, they think -- they think -- I stopped. They think I'm the problem!" --0-- <from "Trading Up" by Nancy Goldstone, ISBN 0 330 30312 0>
1108.94	too familiar	ATLACT::GIBSON_D		`Tue Jul 17 1990 11:53`	4
	re .93 Ah gee Nancy, didn't you know "they that propose, must dispose!" How dare you suggest the emperor might need new clothes?
1108.95		SVBEV::VECRUMBA	Do the right thing!	`Tue Jul 17 1990 12:02`	55
	re .93 > ... I'm the only one who cares. Each of them is caught > up in his own little fiefdom. They are actually enjoying watching > me suffer. They view passive obstruction as a means of increasing > power and influence. It's more important to them that they reaffirm > their individual superiority than that they do their jobs in the > general interest of the bank. > > I don't, I mused, have anything in common with any of them, do I? > It's as if I'm from another planet. I actually believe that they > resent me for bringing this problem to their attention and making > such a fuss about it. They think I'm just making waves. > > Look at them! I thought again. Why, they think -- they think -- > > I stopped. > > They think I'm the problem!" At a recent meeting, an outside consultant was doing a presentation on changing corporate culture. [I discussed some of this earlier.] I agreed whole-heartedly with the goodness of what she was espousing, but I asked her for concrete ways we can, right now, start changing our culture (away from the numbers mania). My district manager, who wants to change things, made some comments about "destructive whining" after her presentation was done. Talk about shooting myself in the foot. Of course, I did a follow-up performance shooting my other foot later in a smaller group where I said that SWS is still numbers-driven. That was taken as a personal affront to his efforts to get the district more resources, etc. He put his unit managers on the spot by asking them if numbers were still as important as when I was a manager (working for him and his predecessor). Motherhood and apple pie are nice, but when you start talking about - raising a child - running a bakery you're saying, O.K., let's get on with it, this is what we need to think about, what else do we need to think about? -- whereas you're perceived as throwing up roadblocks inhibiting the osmotic absorption of "the Message." Sometimes I think we need a chapter of CLC (Career Limiting Caring) Anonymous. Though, personally, I don't think I'm going to change behavior that brought me success everywhere else (except here). I've been at this stuff too long, as an individual and manager, to change spots. /Peters
1108.96	REF: NOTE 1108	GRANPA::GSLATE		`Fri Aug 17 1990 14:04`	5
	I THINK WHAT THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO SAY IN THE LENGTHY ARTCLE CAN BE SUMMED UP IN TWO WORDS "YUPPIE MANAGEMENT". NOT JUST DIGITAL IS PRIVILEGED TO HAVE THESE MANAGERS... WE JUST HAVE MORE THEN OUR SHARE. AND YES THEY ARE KILLING THIS COMPANY.