Conference 7.286::digital

The following reply is from a (different) member of the community who wishes
to remain anonymous.



	One mistake that you made was not turning down the work for
	the other groups. Never mind that it was the right thing to
	do for Digital. It appears to be unofficial policy that anything
	you do for any group other then your own must be punished. It
	happened to me to. No amount of "ataboy" letters will prevent
	this punishment either. In fact they seem to draw more punishment.
	In this case your boss was probably upset that you didn't turn it
	down. You would have made them the bad guy and they'd rather get
	what they want with someone else getting to look like they were
	not a team player.
 
	Your second mistake was staying after one bad review. I've done
	that as well and will not again. What appears to happen is that
	many managers will not "see" any improvement over time. Perception
	is there and they will not let reality interfere. A 2 may rate a
	1 some day and a 3 may move to a 2 but it's not going to happen
	often. In fact I doubt it happens without external pressure. A
	customer demanding that someone be kept happy or a higher level
	manager with a clear perception stepping in. These things happen
	but in general many managers seem to prefer to rate people low and
	take the credit themselves. 
 
	No advice but to find a new job. (What I'm doing now.) Personnel
	will take your managers word and side everytime unless you have
	things in writing or witnesses. Find a new place and start over.

    re: .-1  Outside Work ...
    
    Not all managers will downcheck you for accepting assignments that
    are above and beyond the call of duty.  I know one that won't:  but
    unfortunately he doesn't work for Digital anymore ...
    
    The only way outside assignments usually pay off to the employee is
    if it opens up a new career opportunity outside the current area.
    The real payoff is a new permanent assignment, hopefully working
    for someone who *will* appreciate your talents a litte more.
    
    re: .0 and "forcasting" ...
    
    I believe that the current practice of forecasting is completely
    and totally wrong, especially now that Digital has extended the pay
    cycle to two years.  I have yet to receive two P/A's from the same
    manager in a row; the only saving grace for me is that all of these
    managers worked in the same district and did talk to each other on
    occasion.  Given the length of time involved, an indifferent manager
    can set you back *years* worth of wages.
    
    One proposal that comes to mind (I have yet to try this, so no
    guarantees):  When coming into a new group, try writing up a
    "forecasted" P/A, with rating attached.  Use it as a checklist
    against your performance during the year, and drag it out at the
    end.  Depending upon how much your boss hates doing P/A's ( I have
    never met *one* who does!) maybe he will just sign it with no
    quibbling.  Maybe.  Of course, this does not help in the case
    of management turnover, but the real issue is to:
    
    ACT FIRST!  If you wait until the end-of-eternity P/A to make your
    case, you are fighting a hopeless cause.
    
    All of this is in lieu of simply finding a good manager to work for,
    who works to nurture and compensate his employees.  Judging from the
    other notes in this conference, accomplishing this task should rate
    a "1" all by itself.
    
    Regards.
    

Boy, can I relate to this one!  (But I had better do so anonymously...)

A very similar thing happened to me.  After several years of "2" ratings, when
my performance review came up this year last December, I discovered to my
horror that I had been forecast for a "3" for this year, and hence was not
scheduled for a salary review for more than a year (26 months after my last
raise, in other words).  The performance review itself read pretty much as it
alwasy had: several areas way above expected, several other things I do
competently, and a couple of things I need to work on (and have been - though of
course things that don't come naturally to you are likely both to be your weak
points and to be hard to work on).

As the lowest-paid individual in my job code (last promotion three years
earlier), and a long-time DEC employee, when my boss went over the review
with me, I informed him/her that the bottom line was unacceptable to me and
that therefore I was giving notice that I would be looking for another position
within the company, effective immediately.  I had a couple of days between when
I got my copy of this review and the meeting to discuss it, so I had already
turned up some leads and had a couple of interviews already scheduled.  My
boss was somewhat surprised, I think - apparently I was expected to simply
grin and bear it (which I had done several times over the many years I've worked
here, which is probably why I am the lowest paid person in my rather senior
job code).

Now, one of the interviews I had set up was with one of our "customer" groups.
I would really enjoy working in that group, which is a very dynamic
environment and very interesting work with a very talented group of people,
but I knew there was little chance that they would actually hire me because my
background, although quite extensive and varied, does not match their needs
very well.  But, if they had offered me a job, I would have immediately taken
it (it would be a privilege to work with them!).  Well, one thing I had thought
might happen after that did, almost immediately.  The person who interviewed
me immediately set up a lunch-time meeting with my boss, the same day in fact,
and told my boss in no uncertain terms that I was far more valuable to them
in my current job than I would be working directly for them, or disappearing
entirely, and that the customer group hoped my boss would "do something".

I wasn't really trying to "bribe" my boss, whom I have a great deal of respect
for.  It was sort of a chance I had to take.  If the customer organization had
offered me a job, that would have been great.  But I really did not expect them
to, and knew that they might well do what they did.  Yes, it feels a little
slimey!

Anyhow, the upshot of this was that my boss researched the salaries of my peers
and discovered that I was correct (I had already done my homework on this).
So, an exception memo was pushed through, and I am now scheduled for a salary
review in August, five months earlier than the original schedule, although
still a very long time since the last raise I got.  Part of the justification
memo stated that my contributions were way out of proportion to what I am paid.
I did not get to read the whole thing because it contained a bunch of 
confidential statitics about salaries in our organization.

Anyhow, we'll see what happens in two months.  In the meantime, my family has
had to tighten up our collective belts, as expenses we can't control have
continued to go up.  I'm not expecting much of a raise, no matter what
happens - certainly not enough to bring my pay up to the level of my
contributions (as stated in the exception request).  But if the bottom line
comes out to be 0%, I will be forced to follow through and actually transfer
out of my current job.  I really don't want to do that, unless the customer
group will hire me, because the work here is really interesting.  I have to
live with the risk of being forced to follow-through - if your hand is forced 
and you have to do one of these kind of distasteful string-pulling exercises,
your credibility vanishes instantly if you don't follow through at the end.
I hate it, but I'm glad I did it, anyhow - I am tired of being the doormat,
and I am having trouble getting by on the doormat's salary.

Good luck to you in your situation!

As the author of the base note, I wanted to add some more information
as well as ask another question.  When I joined <group> originally, I
was coming from <different_kind_of_group> where I was a <level>,
but since <group> didn't have <level>, the choice was to offer me
<level-1> or <level+1>.  They offered <level+1>.  Since that moved
the salary scale up by about 7-8%, the hiring manager said this would
be accounted for in the first salary review.  Yea, I know, "get it
in writing", but I didn't, and my first salary review in <group>
resulted in a 4.something% raise, not even enough to make up for the
difference in the levels.

Regarding the suggestion earlier of "leave <group> after the first
bad PA", would that really have been appropriate?  I mean, at that
point, I had only been with <group> for a couple of months.  

A good friend suggested that since I got zero satisfaction from going
to the Personnel consultant (and not even a good answer to the out-
standing WHY question), perhaps I should consider employing ODP and
start climbing the *Personnel* ladder.  Without going into an ODP
rathole (there are several of those in this conference already), what
does anybody think of that suggestion?  As far being a CLD (Career
Limiting Decision) in terms of my current group, I don't know if that
counts for much, as I've already made a decision (and informed my
current manager) that I'm going to leave that group.

One of my concerns in wanting to pursue this (other than the obvious
fact that it just doesn't seem right in my perspective) is that when
I do go to another group, might the hiring manager look at things and
say to him/herself:

"Hmm, solid 3 ratings in last 2 PA's, but currently on a 30+ month
salary review.  Something must be amiss here."

and thereby dismiss me as a candidate for a position that I would
be more than qualified for?  Is paranoia starting to creep into this,
or do I have valid concerns?

Thanks for the inputs.

    I think one bad review/salary rating can be explained to any incoming
    manager. If you have antecedants of several of them, then that is a
    different story.  There are jobs/managers/situations that for one
    reason or the other, just don't work out.  As long as you only have one
    of these types, no one should question it, and if they do, then its
    very explainable.

        Some thoughts on the foregoing...

        - Being a manager at digital is really not a very good job.
          Try it.  From the outside, it looks like the center of
          power, but from the inside there is not much freedom. If
          you want freedom, stay an I.C.

	- Since about '83, money has become more important
          than people.  Isn't that also about the time we stopped
          making big profits?  What a coincidence...

        - I was a manager when the money started getting tighter,
          and I eventually realized that the salary planning game is
          THE most important game for a manager to play. The health of
          the group depends more on  this than on anything else.  That
          manager in .0 who wouldn't play the game shouldn't be a
          manager.  

        - As a manager, the stakes are high because it's people's
          lives and their families that depend on you.  You can't put
          your own attitude ahead of that.

        - The performance rating system and the salary planning
          system are a poor joke.  They were designed for, and
          worked better in, an environment where there was
          long job tenure of managers and IC's alike; where the GROWTH 
          of available money kept pace with inflation; and where
          people are considered to be more important than money.  

        - The amount of money available to distribute as raises each
          year is totally inadequate.  The Comp messages about 'pay
          for performance', are not worth the oxygen consumed in 
          uttering them.  This meager amount must be stretched to
          cover everything from male/female pay equalization to
          promotions to adjustments-to-minimum to, oh lets not
          forget, actual raises based on performance.  So good people
          go underpaid, become demotivated, and leave -- either for
          another group or out of the company.  

    re .4 from anonymous basenoter
    
    If you came into a job at a new job level, the requirement is that they
    have 3 or 6 months to bring you up to minimum for the new level. It's
    not clear from .4 whether they did that for you -- if not, you clearly
    have a policy issue to pursue.
    

re .7

Sorry I wasn't clear.  When I entered the position, moving up one
level in the process, the salary range difference between my old level
and the new one was 7-8% higher.  My first salary increase didn't
even match that level difference, but I was still within the salary
range for the new level, albeit at a lower "percentage within level".

    
    
    	re ::CROWLEY  
    
    	You said that in a time 'before' that people were more 
    	important than money.  I would venture that 'our' MGMT 
    	philosophy has changed to exploit the people to work 
    	harder and thus, add value but, enjoy fewer benefits.  
    
    	Ever tried to break the DL vs. IL barrier?  
    
    	Or the Clean Room vs. Technician level?  
    
    	I have.
    
    
    							Kelly
    

    Ref. base note.
    
    Most of the replies are worth considering; but it really is up to you
    to decide what to do.  Your action will be judged by others including
    future supervisors, based on their perceptions.  Random events and
    chance will probably be signficant players in the future of most of us. 
    Reasonable managers know this.
    
    My advice is do what seems to fit your values.  If being "smart" or
    getting even doesn't feel right,  don't do it....even if you can
    rationalize and justify it.  If you believe an important principle is
    involved, clarify it in your own mind and pursue it.  Don't sell
    principles for a few per-cent.
    
    Think about it as a lesson.  One day seminars cost $200-400 and often
    provide little value.  Here you had an opportunity to really understand
    how a complex system can sometimes work.  And you didn't have to pay
    too much for it.  These real lessons can be priceless.  
    
    You have the opportunity; you know the situation better than any of us 
    who would offer advice.
    
    All the best & good luck.
    
    
    

Preparing all of my documentation for my second meeting with Personnel
today has been a sobering experience; ie, reconfirming in written form
all of the facts presented in the base note.  Several points I'd like to
make here regarding the whole issue:

* In talking with one of the groups that I had interviewed with, the
  comment was made "I thought you told me that your next salary review
  was scheduled for <30 months since last one>".  I confirmed that that
  was my understanding.  I was told that according to the Personnel
  salary plan, it was several months longer than that.  Huh?!?!?  The
  person then realized that they had already said more than what they
  should have and would not elaborate further.  So now are we talking
  about a *36* month salary review???

* In reviewing my last PA, it's interesting to note that the reviewer
  referenced my contribution/efforts to the $50M sale no less than THREE
  times in the earlier paragraphs of the PA where it talks about my
  positive contributions.  Then of course one last time in the final
  paragraph where I am downgraded a full point for that effort.

* The large sale mentioned above was recently discussed in an article
  in one of the computer trade rags, where the current estimated revenue
  to Digital for this thing exceeds $100M.  Digital marketing people are
  forecasting that if the project goes smoothly to completion, the revenue
  to Digital over the next 5 years will be close to $600M.  Should I
  apologize for my efforts here??

* The PA makes reference to my "job plan".  Huh?  I know we're *supposed*
  to have one, but I haven't seen one for me in years.

* The date of my last PA (as printed on the hardcopy of it) is about 4
  or 5 months prior to the first time I'd ever seen it.  And it was not
  discussed with me at all during the preparation of it.  (I didn't even
  know it was being done).

Re ICESK8::KLEINBERGER
.5>    I think one bad review/salary rating can be explained to any incoming
.5>    manager. If you have antecedants of several of them, then that is a
.5>    different story.  There are jobs/managers/situations that for one
.5>    reason or the other, just don't work out.  As long as you only have one
.5>    of these types, no one should question it, and if they do, then its
.5>    very explainable.

Can I assume that you are a manager?  If so, then I congratulate you on
a healthy attitude.  However, it doesn't seem to be the prevalent attitude
amongst managers.  Out of 3 offers I've gotten (verbal) from different
groups, 2 of the 3 are "holding up" the written confirmation of the
offer, pending a "viable explanation from me" as to why I haven't received
a salary review for so long, thinking something may be amiss here.

Re AKOV13::POPE
.10>    Most of the replies are worth considering; but it really is up to you
.10>    to decide what to do.  Your action will be judged by others including
.10>    future supervisors, based on their perceptions.  Random events and
.10>    chance will probably be signficant players in the future of most of us. 

That is the primary purpose that I have entered this note into this
conference -- to seek advice as to what to do.  My instincts tell me that
this is "not the right thing" and that I should pursue it; to either get
it corrected (best case), or at a minimum to understand how Digital can
justify a "36" month salary review for an employee who performs at a
solid "3" rating.  (That's assuming that the "3" for the last 2 PA's are
accurate, which I still don't believe, but even a "3" says that the person
is doing his/her job, right?)

.10>    Reasonable managers know this.

Does this then indicate that the 2 out of 3 managers (67%) who are holding
up their offers pending MY explanation of why this is the case are not
reasonable managers?
    
.10>    My advice is do what seems to fit your values.  If being "smart" or
.10>    getting even doesn't feel right,  don't do it....even if you can
.10>    rationalize and justify it.  If you believe an important principle is
.10>    involved, clarify it in your own mind and pursue it.  Don't sell
.10>    principles for a few per-cent.

My values tell me this isn't right; one of the things I'm looking for here
is either confirmation that my values are screwed up, or if it does indeed
appear that something is rotten in southern NH.  No, I don't want to "get
even" or "burn any bridges"; that's clearly non-productive for all parties
involved, and "revenge" in almost any case just doesn't feel right to me.
    
.10>    Think about it as a lesson.  One day seminars cost $200-400 and often
.10>    provide little value.  Here you had an opportunity to really understand
.10>    how a complex system can sometimes work.  And you didn't have to pay
.10>    too much for it.  These real lessons can be priceless.  

Here's where I think you may have lost your credibility.  In 5 years from
now, the loss I am currently feeling due to lack of salary review(s) will
clearly exceed the $200-$400 you mention, even given the paltry single-
digit percentage raises that almost everyone is seeing these days.  Oh
yes, I have learned some lessons from the experience, but the price for
those lessons seems to be exceedingly high, especially when it comes down
to the [in]ability of putting bread on the table at home.
    
The entire experience has had a negative side effect as well; ie, my
self-image has gone downhill, and the unanswered question of "WHY" frequently
makes it difficult for me to concentrate.  

Or perhaps this is one of the ways that Digital is trying to encourage
attrition, by letting a [seeminly] unfair situation remain uncorrected 
until the problem just goes away by itself?  Perhaps the next $600M sale
will have an OEM's name or another vendor's name attached to it in the
computer trade rags.

Re: .4 -< Reply from anonymous author of base note >-

< One of my concerns in wanting to pursue this (other than the obvious
< fact that it just doesn't seem right in my perspective) is that when
< I do go to another group, might the hiring manager look at things and
< say to him/herself:

< "Hmm, solid 3 ratings in last 2 PA's, but currently on a 30+ month
< salary review.  Something must be amiss here."

Yes, "they" do that!  Which raises two questions for me:

	(1) Does this match "Do the right thing"?  I think not.

	(2) How does a prospective hiring manager know the forecast?  One
	possibility is from the current manager during the reference check. 
	However, in at least once instance, methinks someone in *Personnel* 
	was releasing privileged information to non-privileged people. 

Sally

.12> How does a prospective hiring manager know the forecast?  One
.12> possibility is from the current manager during the reference check. 
.12> However, in at least once instance, methinks someone in *Personnel* 
.12> was releasing privileged information to non-privileged people. 

    From my perspective, it *appears* that when a hiring manager (NOT the
    Personnel recruiter) is considering an employee for hire, s/he goes
    thru the Personnel organization to perform "background checks".  I've
    gotten several requests from Personnel reps in the hiring organizations
    to request that I contact my PSA and allow them access to my 
    Personnel records, which of course I have no problem with, if this
    is the way things are done. (?)

    Now I don't know if it is the hiring manager or the Personnel folks
    who "raise the red flag", but I know definitely in at least one case
    where it was the Personnel folks who came back to the hiring manager
    saying "might be a problem here, 30+ month salary review cycle, better
    reconsider this candidate".

    I know of no practical way of altering the past.
    Although you have been treated less than fairly, and I wish (as much as
    you do) that the management processes we have could go back and make
    amends for all the injustices committed, I don't think it is possible. 
    
    Without knowing the managers involved (and you had your share) it is
    not easy to know what and why things turned out the way they did.  I
    assume it was due to ignorance, lack or experience, mistakes,
    mis-understanding...not necessarily on your part...rather than some
    personal or process-specific intention.
    
    I did not mean to diminish the cumulative effect of salary increases.
    My point was that some experiences are really priceless.  Let me ask
    you, if this hadn't happened to you, would you have believed it
    possible? 
    
    Regards,