Conference 7.286::digital

	The thing that got me thinking about this was something I have
    noticed a good deal in this conference (as well as in other places),
    and that is the seemingly constant parlaying between the progressive
    forces for improvement and change, versus the conservative forces for
    calm and stability.

	It is hard to say which is worse for morale: someone who constantly
    complains about current conditions, or someone who constantly complains
    about those who complain about current conditions.  Of course, these
    are two extremes mentioned here, but they represent an interesting
    dichotomy of forces within the corporate struggle for survival.

				    -davo

.0> The interesting thing to consider is, first of all, whether such a
.0> military metaphore is even appropriate in what is actually a fairly
.0> peaceful period in human history...
    
    "Appropriate"?  It's not only appropriate, but, ESSENTIAL.
    
    IBM had a very SLOW start in the computer business...believe it or not.
    
    How did the "make it"?  I quote from "Who's Afraid of Big Blue?" by
    Regis McKenna:
    
    IBM recovered from it's slow loss (quoting Watson, Jr.):
    
    		"because we had enough cash to carry the cost of
    		engineering, research, and production.  Second,
    		we had a sales force whose knowledge of the market
    		enabled us to tailor our machines very closely
    		to the needs.  FINALLY, AND, MOST IMPORTANT, WE
    		HAD GOOD COMPANY MORALE.  Everyone realized that
    		this was a challenge to our leadership.  We had to
    		respond with everything we had - and we did"
    
    It's getting EXTREMELY difficult for me to maintain my "morale", but,
    I'm NOT going to give up...yet...
    
    Jerry

re: .2,
    
>    It's getting EXTREMELY difficult for me to maintain my "morale", but,
>    I'm NOT going to give up...yet...

	Ok, so the trick then is to maintain morale, while at the same time,
    continuing to identify the problems and issues that are currently acting
    as obstacles from one's particular vantage point.

	I suppose a metaphore which could be applied would be to imagine
    that DEC has just launched a major "D-DAY" styled invasion on the market
    (DECworld 90, DECville, DEC Down Under, etc.), armed with all of the
    latest in technology (VAX 9000, VAX 4000, DECmcc, and other such armaments),
    yet, despite our massive invasion, we seem to be pinned-down at the
    beach and are seemingly unable to break through the enemy defenses.
    To make matters worse, many of the supply lines are being cut off from
    the rear guard due to a fear of spreading ourselves too thin in what
    some might consider is an unwinnable battle due to continuing reports
    of high casualties and losses.

	It would seem that what is desperately needed is a break-through
    of some sort: a key victory that could act as a turning point in the
    battle.  Something that could spark a wildfire of renewed morale among
    the troops.  In order for such a victory to occur however, many sacrifices
    must be made and fast.  Determining exactly what those sacrifices are,
    and who is going to make them is no easy task.  Many options have been
    considered, but no easy answers have yet been determined.  The time
    is running out as many lie wounded on the beach and others grow hungry
    and begin to lose patience...

    
      To continue from .3;
    
      This non-commissioned officer advises that the officer corps
    report to the front-lines in order to access first hand the course
    of the battle, the condition of the troops, and the objectives to
    be taken.  Then assume direct command and personally lead the attack.
    
      No battle, even an economic one, can properly be directed in 
    staterooms 100 miles from the front with third and forth hand
    information.

    The problem is that we landed on two beach fronts.  The casualtities
    are a result of our own troops firing on each other in an attempt
    to secure each others beach head.
    
    Moral would drastically improve if we knew which beach we were landing
    on, who we were supposed to fight, what the final objective is,
    and could manage to do this in a coordinated manner so that the
    first casualtity wea  a result of enemy conflict and not internal
    political battles.
    
    -kevin
    
    

    re .4 and .5.  You both are very correct.  
    
    One of the shortcommings of the "DEC Philosophy" of individualism and
    doing the right thing is that we, as a company, are not properly focused
    on the mission.  When I was in the military, it was clear to us that
    the success of the mission called for teamwork among all the players.
    We all had to be focused on the goal, and do our part to achieve that
    goal.
    
    I get the impression that a lot of managers and technical people have
    lost sight of our true mission, to secure and retain customers.
    
    We cannot fulfill our mission by, for example, telling a customer
    
                           a. Your problem will be fixed in the next
                              release.
                       
                           b. We will not commit to that next release.
    
    I feel these examples of answers given to customers must erode
    our customers confidence in our ability to help them solve their  
     business problems and help them achieve their goals. If their 
    confidence in us is questionable, they will be more careful in
    how they pass on to us any continued business in the form of
    scarce budget dollars.
    
    Both A and B are told to customers every day.  In a time of increasing
    competition for fewer and fewer customer budget dollars, we have to
    show an ability to be the best because that is what our customers want,
    to be the best.
    
    If I didn't think we could do it, I would not be here and complaining
    so much.  
         Note - Before I started complaining so rudely, I tried for two
         years to try to get some things changed.  What fired me up was
         management telling me that I was right, but things would never
         be changed.   I heard "Our hands are tied" once too often.                  
                                                       

    
                      Most of the troops are well trained
    
                      Highly motivated
    
                      Ready to do the job..........
    
                      The question is.....
    
                      Who will define our mission and
    
                      L E A D   the troops in Battle?
    
    

    REF:        <<< Note 1148.7 by NBOIS2::BLUNK "Bruce P. Blunk NBO" >>>
    
        REF:      >><<   Who will define our mission and
    
                         L E A D   the troops in Battle? >>
    
    Perhaps we could lead ourselves if power were decentralized to all us
    empowered employees, allowing us then to decide what needs to be done,
    and changed, to achieve greater success, which would include having the
    say of who leads, and continues to lead, each and every given group.
    

    What will help my morale most and what will help yours are not
    necessarily the same.   I have a couple of firm beliefs (and many
    more opinions).
    
    1. It is next to impossible to communicate effectively to a very large
    audience via "mass media".  Too much of the effectiveness depends on
    the receiver who may be in any unpredictable mood when the message
    arrives. 
    
    2. Most of us can be most effective when we focus our efforts on what
    is closest to home.  Only in the arena where I know the details can I
    feel confident that my action and recommendations are appropriate. 
    
    3. Not everyone is limited by 1. and 2. in the same way.  There are
    great communicators who are able to move the critical mass  in a single
    direction and great visionaries who can perceive and affect macro level
    trends.  (but I'm not one)
    
    4. My credo is well expressed by the dialog reproduced below:
    
    







People are unreasonable, illogical, self-centered.

   LOVE THEM ANYWAY.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish motives.

   DO GOOD ANYWAY.

The good you do will be forgotten tomorrow.

   DO IT ANYWAY.

Honesty and frankness will make you vulnerable.

   BE HONEST AND FRANK ANYWAY.

People favor the underdog, but they chum up to the top dog.

   FIGHT FOR THE UNDERDOG ANYWAY.

What you spend years building can be destroyed overnight.

   BUILD ANYWAY.

Give the world the best you have and chances are you will get kicked in the
teeth.

   GIVE IT ANYWAY.

 

[quoted from E. T. Guerney in materials for Complex Systems Development
course, 18-20 Jul 1990]
    

RE: .8

Decentralization and empowerment can only work if there is agreement amongst
the troops about the Company's overall goals and directions.  One of the
biggest problems we face, particularly from the viewpoint of Engineering, is
that we have NO well-articulated long-term goal of where we want the Company to
go and no strategy on how to get there.  Instead, we have a power struggle
between lots of smaller, narrowly-focused groups fighting each other and
all pulling in different directions.  One of the big reasons for our success
in the early and mid-1980s was that we had a clearly articulated overall
strategy (VAX/VMS) and everybody could relate their own small piece of the
world to that.  Today we're not getting anywhere mainly because we don't know
where we're trying to go.

--PSW

    I've written on this before.  A team in Digital is like a team composed
    entirely of second basemen.  Or to use the military analogy of this
    note, we've got a general in charge of the motor pool, a general in
    charge of the infantrymen, and a general in charge of ammunition.
    
    Every Digital battle starts with generals negotiating and directing
    colonels, who in turn negotiate and direct the majors, and so on.  In
    peace time, there's plenty of time and there's no one shooting at you,
    and this works, sort of.
    
    So who's gonna declare war and let the lieutenants form teams that have
    a chance of winning battles?

    I thought the direction/goal of every company was to be profitable and
    satisfy its customers ,to introduce new products and keep up/set the
    pace in its own niche. DEC seems to do some of these things but is
    unwilling to bite the bullet where it needs too. 
    
    The corporate philosophy will eventually change either due to, Economic
    pressure, change in leadership. 
    
    Something will give soon,
    Mike 
    

    	Well, if this doesn't generate some drastic change, I don't know
    what will. The problem is that the company usually doesn't react and
    change quickly enough. Five years ago it was pretty obvious we'd be in
    the predicament if we failed to restructure our business more towards
    software (and open software for that matter). However, we did what we
    always do: wait until it whacks us in the head and then react to it. I
    see the changes, but they're not nearly enough. It might take a few
    more whacks in the head before everyone understands the seriousness of
    the situation we're in.
    	If we're having turf battles (and I know we are - I worked in
    Workstation Engineering for seven years), it's because we don't have a
    clear vision and we STILL have overlapping charters. The latter can be
    attributed to many factors...too many people...middle managers more
    concerned with their own little empires than the long-term best
    interest of the company, innocent confusion, etc.
    	We need the tough decisions now. We need to act now. We should see
    evidence of tough decisions at the top and then see them filter down.
    These should be consistent with a clearly articulated vision of where
    we're going in the next 5-10 years. How much money would we like to see
    the company make 5 years from now? How much of that will be from
    software sales? from hardware? from service, etc.? In the software
    world, what percentages will be from VMS, U*ix, MSDOS/OS2, layered
    products, generic business/technical software targetted at all
    (including non-DEC) platforms? What are we doing right now to be where
    we want to be in five years? Not enough if you ask me.

    
    The system is the problem and management owns the system.  Why would
    management change a system that protects self-serving interests of some
    managers who put personal ambition and gain ahead of both the
    corporation as well as the employees of their groups?
    
    Visions, dreams, missions and corporate goals must be top down driven
    and every manager owns this responsibility and the responsibility to
    lead.
    
    Ownership of how to accomplish the above, however, should be in the
    hands of those doing the work and those closest to the customers.  This
    means the authority to incur change to achieve more effectively
    visions, dreams, missions and corporate goals should be decentralized
    where each group, from the bottom moving upward, owns as a team, group
    responsibility and authority to improve processes to attain higher
    levels of effectiveness and efficiency, and authority as a group to
    drive change accordingly, and authority to define group leadership to
    support efforts and change.
    
    The culture of Digital nurtures only individual competitiveness with
    pay for performance going to those climbing the corporate management
    ladder.  Teamwork to build a better and more successful Digital is not
    real and will not be real until all employees work with one another as
    partners who truly accept, and truly have, a sense of ownership in
    determining how Digital works as a company to create products and
    services that satisfy customer needs and wants.  What exists now is the
    typically American "division" between those who manage and those who do
    the work, with the authority on changing anything and on defining the
    responsibilities of leadership residing only with those with manager
    after their names.
    
    If Digital is to survive and prosper, the traditional American culture
    of regarding employees as a commodity "to be managed" must be scrapped
    in favor of real empowerment where all employees truly are regarded as
    partners in building a more successful company, with all self-managed,
    with full authority over the work, and group change, and group
    leadership, from the bottom up, with reward shared among all, and not
    just by an elite few who successfully "work" the current system of
    rewarding those select upwardly mobile managers with bigger salaries
    and stock options.
    
    An organization where everyone is constantly pitted against one another
    to attain personal success cannot last in the long run over one where
    all employees are true partners in a organization that works in unison,
    harmony and cooperation to build a dream, greater than what is.
    
    To sing along blindly that the "sun 'll come out tomorrow, bet your
    bottom dollar" may not suffice this time around and the only sun we may
    be seeing in the computer information technology industry may be the
    rising sun from Japan.
    
    The Digital "system" should change and the best pivotal change is to
    flip the company upside down with decentralized full responsibility with
    full authority.  Ken Olsen determines the dream, the mission, the
    corporate goals; those doing the work and those meeting with customers
    determine the how, the changes, and the leadership required to get it,
    with the function of managers becoming obsolete.  All overnight.
    
    For further understanding, read OUT OF THE CRISIS by Dr. Deming and
    THRIVING ON CHAOS by Tom Peters, and then Digital's own reports on
    their Japan Study Mission.
    

	The first order of business is to determine exactly who or what are
    the allies, and who or what are the enemies in this "war".  I think it
    is easy to fall into the nationalistic crusade of wanting to win against
    Japan or Europe, but the important thing to remember is that DEC is an
    international corporation with offices and plants around the world.
    Therefore, our "corporate alliance" refers to a group of people from 
    all nationalities (including especially those from such high-tech
    centers as Japan and Europe).

	So exactly who and/or what is our enemy?  Obviously, competitors
    come to mind, but many times there is a fine line between a competitor
    and a 3rd party vendor (or a "cooperative business partner" or whatever).
    Especially in these days of standards consortiums (X Windows, OSF, OSI,
    etc.), it becomes extremely difficult to know who to fight against.  
    This confusion only increases the likelihood of casualties due to what
    is commonly referred to as "friendly fire" in a wartime situation; as
    trigger-happy people become frustrated and end-up in turf wars instead.

				    -davo

    "we have met the enemy and they is us" 
    
    (I promise, this is my last military quote)
    
    I feel the only entity we have to be better than is ourselves.
    
    Apathy and complacency, along with empire building, are our true
    enemies.
    
    The japanese are doing great, more power to them.
    
    Europe (all of it) will do great, more power to them too, they deserve
    it.
    
    We must do great also.  
    
    Although perfection is not achieveable, it is something that must be
    constantly strived for.

    My favorite military quotation has some relevance to this discussion,
    I believe:
    
    "It is an old man's war, but a young man's fight."
    
    John H.

re: .19,
    
>    "It is an old man's war, but a young man's fight."

	Possibly, but I'm a ripe young 32 years old (the same age as DEC),
    and I feel just as much a part of this "war" as the next guy.

re: .18,

	While I basically agree with what you are saying, I still feel that
    you might be missing my point about DEC being an international 
    corporation.  Many people seem to feel that the fact that Japan or
    Europe are doing well means that DEC won't be doing well (since DEC
    is a US-based corporation).  But, isn't comparing DEC to Japan or
    Europe a little like comparing apples and oranges?  After all, over
    the past few years, DEC has done well precisely *because* Europe was
    doing well (as opposed to DEC doing well in spite of Europe doing well).
    In any case, while national politics do play a factor in corporate war,
    I feel that nationalism can do far more to destroy a successful corporate
    alliance than build one.

	Also, when it comes to modern corporate battlegrounds, many
    of the age-old military cliches fall short.  Viewing the economic war
    from the eyes of local politicians is much different than it is from
    the eyes of the modern warriors and chieftans (i.e. the employees and
    executives of *international* corporations).  While the daily battles
    are similar to war in many ways, the battle-lines are entirely different.
    Without a clear mission, it isn't too hard for this modern battle to
    become one huge free-for-all resulting in much of the in-fighting that
    has already been discussed.

				    -davo

p.s.	Of course, we could always just throw down our economic weapons
    and have one big massive inter-corporate love-in (which I sometimes
    think is already happening in the OSF consortium).

    There is also another saying from the military that holds true these
    days. SNAFU, situation normal, all F___ed up.  
    
    I see many things wrong, not the least of which is that people are no
    longer willing to take risks.  Years ago you took risks. If you failed
    you studied the project to see what went wrong, and you went on with
    your life.  Now the general feeling is that if you take a risk, and it
    doesn't work out, you may well find yourself looking at drawing
    unemployment.  I know that there are those that will say this isn't
    true.  To them I say pull your head out of the sand.  The name of the
    game these days is CYA and don't make waves.  Every time one of our
    VP's says that Digital must pare down the workforce to become more
    competitive people get VERY nervous.  Who's head will be on the
    chopping block next?  If they need to cut the workforce, fine.  That's
    a common business practice.  But do the cutting quickly.  Once the cuts
    have been made re-assure the remaining company population that their
    jobs are secure.  Do what ever is necessary to keep morale high and do
    not keep people wondering if they will have a job next week.

    RE:.21

>    Every time one of our
>    VP's says that Digital must pare down the workforce to become more
>    competitive people get VERY nervous.  Who's head will be on the
>    chopping block next?

    This is a very well know situation. It is called survivor syndrome.  People
    spend more time sitting around waiting to see who will be cut next and
    little time actually working because the next cut could be them.


>    If they need to cut the workforce, fine.  That's
>    a common business practice.  But do the cutting quickly.  Once the cuts
>    have been made re-assure the remaining company population that their
>    jobs are secure.  Do what ever is necessary to keep morale high and do
>    not keep people wondering if they will have a job next week.

    Yes, this would be the way to the job correctly.  One of the biggest
    disappointments I have had was to hear that a VP said that the cuts are not
    finished.  I would suggest that one quick deep cut is much better than 2,
    3, or more little cuts.  Yes, there could be mistakes made in a big cut but
    afterwards everyone can again focus on the job at hand.  With little cuts
    everyone waits for the next one to occur.  I have seen both types of cuts
    done at other companies (and was one of those cut in a big reduction) and I
    can tell you that the companies were better off after a big cut.

    FWIW,
    Lee G.

    
>    I see many things wrong, not the least of which is that people are no
>    longer willing to take risks.  

Unfortunately, the form I see this taking more and more is that people are
trying to cover up the mistakes they have made.  If you cover up a mistake,
nobody (you or anyone else) can learn from it.  So it gets repeated, over and
over.

WE CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP REPEATING MISTAKES!!

If we keep shooting messengers (the ones with the guts to stand up and say
"This isn't working"), we are going to lose the war...

Kevin

Has anyone noticed the shift in the dominant metaphor in business competition?
At some opint during th 1980's, we appear to have shifted from a sports
metaphor to a military one.  This has some potentially appalling implications.

For instance, two opposing athletic teams have a common interest in maintaining
the viability of the game, whereas it is common knowledge that 2 opposing
armies often leave the terrain they've fought over totally uninhabitable.

Sportsmen tend to enjoy the competition; soldiers rarely do.

Sportsmen are out to win; an army is out to destroy the enemy.

Think about it...


-dave

re: .24,

> Sportsmen tend to enjoy the competition; soldiers rarely do.

> Sportsmen are out to win; an army is out to destroy the enemy.

> Think about it...

	Ok, let's shelve the "war" metaphore for a momment then; think of
    a corporate world in which corporations agree to periodically meet
    for "Olympic Competition" despite the fact that they are at odds with
    one another.  SPEC is an example of such Olympic Competition (for
    comparing Un*x machine performance).  I would say however, that such
    Olympic Competitions are currently the exception to the rule, and the
    traditional competitions that have occurred typically consist of teams
    who arrive to the sports event each clad in protective padding of their
    own unique design, each carrying unique sports gear, and each with an
    entirely different set of rules on how to win the game; in short, a rumble.

	The problem is that DEC has been playing games in a corporate
    world which is many times very much at war.  We serve tennis balls
    and the competition returns our serve with shot-puts.  We run for a
    touchdown, and half-way there we get impalled by a javellin.  We can
    call foul all we want, but there isn't always a referee to intervene for
    us.  The problem is that there are no set rules, no set playing fields,
    and nothing to separate one game from the next.  The only real rule in
    this olympic competition is survival, and DEC has yet to prove that we
    can win this game.

	To summarize, you are probably right that sports would make for
    a better metaphore, but at the same time, we shouldn't be deluded
    into thinking that other corporations are always going to play by
    the [same] rules, if they agree to play at all.  We should strive to
    carry out our business in the spirit of olympic competition, and at
    times, we might even be able to celebrate peace with our inter-corporate
    rivals, but deep down, we should always be prepared for corporate war.

				    -davo

    After the 1st half the opposition left.  4 plays later Digital scored.
    

Re:  .9

       	Thank you.

Re:  .15

	Amen.  We seem inclined to make this kind of mistake often.  As
	the problems (read "engineering") get increasingly complex, the
	management of people and the technology gets exponentially more
	complex, and the number of people (I believe we are into calling
	human beings we don't know well "resources," which makes it easier
	to think of them as expendable and interchangeable) the number of
	resources with the requisite skills to do the job become scarcer,
	and take longer to develop.  (And when you think of people as "re-
	sources," it's easy to tell 'em -- or worse, make 'em figure it out
	on their own -- "There ain't no training for you.  You gotta figure
	it out on your own, on your own time, if necessary.")

Re:  .21 and 1147.28

	Wouldn't you like knowing that you were one of the final cuts, one
	of the last folks offered "the package?"  Wouldn't you find it 
	easy to believe that you were not as easy to cut -- that you were
	not as "redundant," and "unnecessary" as those first offered "the
	package?"  And wouldn't it just stick in your craw that even though
	not as obviously not contributing to the company as the people who
	were first offered severance, that the "package" offered to you
	was not as "sweet?"  Wouldn't this leave a sweet taste in YOUR mouth
	as you went out the door?

Re:  .15 again, .24 and others about the sports vs. war metaphor

	One anology to war is certainly fair:  When the "generals" screw
	up -- despite the heart-rending thought that they may have irrepar-
	ably harmed their careers, a tragedy beyond dimensions to their
	own egos -- it is generally the troops who pay the biggest penalties.
	(I wonder how many who take "the package" unenthusiastically will
	be thinking THAT as they go out the door.)

Re:  .23 and others

	As Mr. Davis, that "Escapee from New Hampshire" now out there in the
	southwest somewhere has noted here and elsewhere, Digital has become
	a Puzzle Palace, with political intrigues seemingly behind every
	decision.

	My personal opinion, however, is that the talk about lack of risk-
	taking can be unfair.  It seems to me that responsibilities have
	been so narrow in order to develop such (absurdly narrow?) metrics
	that no one can accomplish ANYTHING significant without significant
	buyin from other groups, all trapped in their own narrow metrics.
	This is a structural thing, again in my opinion, that can only be
	fixed by the folks at the top.  Who get paid to hunt out problems
	like this and fix them while they are small.

	I suspect that this kind of narrow, metrics focus also lends itself
	to management covering up mistakes, and trying to move on to promo-
	tions before any accountability is possible.  (Rationalization:  "If
	I can't really accomplish anything here, the reason is that I'm not
	high enough, and if I just get a little higher, THEN I'll be able to
	accomplish something...."  And so it goes.)

	And when you are CONSTANTLY reorging -- giving the illusion of solving
	problems? -- creating new management positions/responsibilities....
	You know of anyone who got a glowing recommendation from a supervisor
	for a new job because that present supervisor/manager just wanted to
	get RID of that somebody?  This, while the real worker bees are too
	busy doing the job to notice they ain't gettin' anywhere?  (Do "re-
	sources" have "morale," or only people?)

	And, of course, eventually bad metrics will squeeze out the good
	managers, and a critical mass of bad ones -- who pick lieutenants
	for all the wrong reasons -- are in control.  And they will develop
	new, narrow metrics that they can manipulate to make it look like
	whatever is wrong CAN'T be their fault.

Re:  all

	At least we can talk about these things (yes, endlessly it seems)
	publicly....It helps to know there are others discussing these
	issues in a place like this notesfile.  My thanks to all contribu-
	tors -- for myself and on behalf of any who read and hesitate to
	add their own 2 cents worth.  It reminds me that others can see the
	same things.

While I think the sports and war metaphors have been somewhat accurate,
it reflects poorly on our male-dominated culture. I for one have always been
repulsed by sports-related metaphors in meetings as I have no interest in 
sports. I see it as a way for some managers to motivate all the people who 
are into sports (usually other guys). 

Military metaphors are even worse. It implies a seriousness and even 
desperation level ("our survival is at stake") that enables people to justify
heartless decisions. It also makes business-matters seem to be more important
than anything else. In how many wars do soldiers have a choice to leave the 
army? Is brutal competition to the death the kind of spirit that we want
guiding our daily actions? This kind of thinking leads people to suicide and 
crazy behaviour outside the office.

How about cooperation? a family metaphor? something positive instead of blood
and death?

erik goetze

re: .28

>How about cooperation? a family metaphor? something positive instead of blood
>and death?

re: .11

>       ... In the past two years I have been, more than once, ordered
>   not to cooperate with or ask for help from other organizations
>   because of 'turf wars'.  This is sick.

Well, there you have it.

I will be the first to admit to reading books like "The Art of War" -- they're
certainly interesting reading and make points to ponder. And discussing them
certainly makes for chic, if not engaging, cocktail conversation. For example,
two samurai, facing each other, poised, long swords raised. You watch your
opponent, he watches you. At the moment your opponent wavers or flinches from
holding up the weight of his sword, you strike. At the moment your opponent
attacks -- at the moment he commits himself to a particular path -- you strike,
even swifter, where he has exposed himself.

The problem, though, is that "war" is a state of mind. You're "at war", or "at
peace."

What's the Pentagon's double-talk for peace? "Permanent pre-hostility."
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^
[Actually, the greatest double-talk accomplishment of all time was when the
Pentagon got itself renamed from the "DEPARTMENT OF WAR" to the "DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE" -- but that's a topic for SOAPBOX ;-)]

Someone who looks at the workplace as a caldron of confrontation... well, what
_THEY_ see is what _YOU_ get.

I agree. Let's go for nurturing!! I'm not saying we all need to become flower
children and go communal, but it's a lot more fun than being samurai.


/Peters

    Re: .28 & .29:
    
    How about treating your employees like adult volunteers?  Suppose you
    had to depend on rewards other than money to attract people to help?
                              
    I came across such a list, and adapted many of the items to working at
    Digital.
    
    For example:
    
    o Provide substantive and appropriate training.
    
    o Acknowledge and accommodate personal needs and problems.
    
    o Be pleasant
    
    o Respect their wishes
    
    o Take time to explain assignments fully
    
    o Give them challenging work
    
    o Foster development of self-confidence
    
    o Respect sensitivities
    
    o Enable to grow on the job
    
    o Enable to grow out of the job
    
    o Broadcast accomplishments
    
    o Provide a pleasant work environment
    
    o Enlist their help in training others
    
    o Talk time to talk to them
    
    o Shelter them from hostile or negative influences
    
    o Invite their suggestions and contributions to policy formulation
    
    o Carefully match worker with job
    
    o Publicly praise them
    
    o Supply with useful tools in good working condition
    
    o Encourage social interaction (informal get-togethers)
    
    o Accept their individuality
    
    o Facilitate personal growth
    
    o Distinquish between the group and individuals in the group
    
    o Ensure safe working conditions
    
    o Adequately orientate 
    
    o Have a positive attitude

>    How about treating your employees like adult volunteers?  Suppose you
>    had to depend on rewards other than money to attract people to help?

	I think everyone with the desire to be a really good manager should
	try and manage a group of adult volunteers for a year. I just finished
	two years as the Chairman of a (private) school board. With no money
	at all to offer the other members of the board I relied heavily on
	the kinds of thing that made up the list in .30. In the process I
	became convinced that the good managers do not have to rely on the
	"big stick" approach to get things done. 

			Alfred

	All this talk of corporate peace and nurturing confuses me a little.
    Anyone who has been following the recent Iraqui invasion of Kuwait may
    recall the use of the term "battle-hardened" Iraqui troops.  I guess
    that despite my somewhat idealistic and peace-loving background, that
    I too have become somewhat "battle-hardened" after my six and a half 
    years here at DEC.

	Do I enjoy this corporate war?  Of course not!  Do I wish to survive
    in this feudalistic corporate environment?  You're damn right I wish to
    survive!  I try my best to change the way things are, to build virtual
    teams, to encourage intra-corporate entrepeneurialism, to create a
    free market of on-line information, but when I come face to face with
    the enemy in this ongoing corporate war and it is a case of kill or be
    killed, well, need I say more...

				    -davo

p.s.	Who is in charge of the peace talks anyway?  ;^)

    Well, you can do one of two things when confronted: attack back, or
    just decide "I'm not dealing with this a__hole."

    That's what managers are for. ;-)

    /Peters

re: Battle-hardened...
Many armed forces find that troops who are extremely battle-hardened have
a difficult time adjusting to life after discharge. Is this what we have to
look forward to at retirement?

In my lengthy experiences with "corporate motivators", I've come to question
the need for any such thing. Provide quality management (awright, leadership), 
good offices, fine equipment, unmatched benefits, work that isn't demeaning,
and the employees will be motivated. The corporate motivators I've seen
spend untold hours building some of the most incredible language in order
to get people to work harder. Language by itself may work briefly, but
without any positive actions behind it, productivity soon returns to what
it was.

Or are we talking about how to apply the right "spin" on the decisions to 
let people go? Well I don't think there is a "spin" that will mask the
truth. Letting people go is painful. Any use of metaphors like wars or sports
tends to put distance between the action and the emotions. If that's what
we need, then there are plenty of distancing mechanisms for us to use.

who needs the truth? we live in the age of advertising.

erik

re: .33,

	Correct (assuming your manager is on your side).

	Also, I should point out that I was speaking strictly in terms of
    the original "war" metaphore here (no need to worry about this nut).
    In this case, "corporate survival" could mean anything from healthy
    career growth to maintaining one's job.

re: .34,

> In my lengthy experiences with "corporate motivators", I've come to question
> the need for any such thing. Provide quality management (awright, leadership), 
> good offices, fine equipment, unmatched benefits, work that isn't demeaning,
> and the employees will be motivated. 

	True, but you are being idealistic.  Such working conditions
    are somewhat rare, so what do you tell those who do not currently
    experience such working conditions?

> Or are we talking about how to apply the right "spin" on the decisions to 
> let people go? Well I don't think there is a "spin" that will mask the
> truth. Letting people go is painful. Any use of metaphors like wars or sports
> tends to put distance between the action and the emotions. If that's what
> we need, then there are plenty of distancing mechanisms for us to use.

> who needs the truth? we live in the age of advertising.

	Truth?  When was the last time you entered a truthful note about
    either a corporate strategy or an internal personnel decision in a semi-
    public notesfile such as this?  How long did it last before being deleted?
    This is where metaphores can be useful.  After all, we live in the age
    of the metaphore; it all began with Ronald Reagan and his cowboy metaphores.

	Actually, I began this note to explore ways to improve corporate 
    morale at DEC in terms of the "corporate war" (if you will) against the
    competition, but it has rapidly evolved into a somewhat introspective
    look at other, perhaps even more divisive enemies of the corporation
    (i.e itself).
				    -davo

>>	True, but you are being idealistic.  Such working conditions
>>    are somewhat rare, so what do you tell those who do not currently
>>    experience such working conditions?

OK, I am being idealistic. I still believe you can find a more ideal job than
most people settle for. But it requires work. I suspect most people value
the security factors of a job more than the "this is not work, its play!" 
kind of feeling.

I'll provide an example of motivational techniques that de-motivated me. A
person trying to get everyone in the account team to sign up for maxiumum
effort says "We've all got to drink the Kool-Aid." meaning buy into a Jim
Jones kind of surrender to the project. Aside from the negative associations,
there was no positive motivational carrots other than success for Digital.
I like Digital to succeed as much as the next person, but when someone asks
for extra effort, they oughta be ready to provide extra benefits. Furthermore
these carrots should be things that the project team desires, as opposed to 
what the motivator thinks is a good reward. For instance, apparently it is
accepted at some levels that the SWS excellence awards are a strong motivating
factor. Is it really true that us cogs in the corporate machine want to
spend five days hanging out with all the same folks we've been seeing day
after day of intense project/proposal/demo work? On a cruise? Where we can't
avoid 1000 other digits? I'm not in agreement on that one.

Speaking for myself, war is not a believable metaphor. The reason I say this is
that I don't we are that much different value-wise from your competitors. Sure
this one uses more shoddy advertising practises, or that one may cut prices
to an unbelievable level, but we tend to believe in science, education, the 
benefits of family life, the free market, etc. The way political leadership 
of a  country rallies its population to extra effort usually requires making 
the enemy seem like scum that's deserving of death. For instance the US's 
dubious record in WWII of putting Japanese-American citizens in camps. 
Well I don't  think our economic competitors are hate-able. They're just 
people like you or me.

erik g.

re: .36,

> OK, I am being idealistic. I still believe you can find a more ideal job than
> most people settle for. But it requires work.

	It can and does happen!  After a long and drawn out battle, I too
    will soon be starting such an ideal job.  There were times that I almost
    gave up trying (especially since it sometimes seems that everything is
    stacked against you in your search for such a job).  In any case, there
    are many people out there who are not in such a job now, nor will they
    be eligible to look for one for some time to come due to their two-year
    committment to their present group.  What do you tell these people?

> Well I don't  think our economic competitors are hate-able. They're just 
> people like you or me.

	Do you play chess?  Have you ever stopped to think what it is that
    the chess-board is simulating?  Medieval warfare of course.  Does this
    fact mean that you have to hate your opponent in chess?  Of course not.
    This is the sort of warfare I had been thinking of when I first thought
    of this war metaphore.  I guess I was mostly reminiscing about my
    adolescent love of such war games as chess when I dreamed-up this
    corporate war analogy.  I personally don't see much difference between
    such indoor war-gaming and most outdoor sports either.  I never thought
    about the emotional consquences that such a metaphore would dredge up
    in those perhaps more intimately involved in actual warfare.
	
	Maybe you're right; maybe war is an inappropriate metaphore for
    corporate competition since it is too easy to take the metaphore
    literally.  Perhaps a better metaphore would be that of a game which
    better epitomizes the sort of corporate free market competition we
    deal with.  What game might work best?  Monopoly (TM) is too specific
    to hotel management and real estate.  Is there a game which is more
    closely alligned to our industry?  The Peter Prinicple (TM) game also
    comes to mind, but this game is specific to intra-corporate career
    building, etc.  Maybe it's time to invent such a game?  Call it
    "Corporate Competition" or some such thing...hmmm...

				    -davo

    Actually, chess is an excellent metaphor for corporate strategizing.
    
    Unfortunately, the similarity breaks down when you realize that the
    object of chess is to capture (and eliminate) your competition, while
    the object of business is to increase profitability and return on
    equity by simply doing better than your competition -- not eliminating
    them (which would be an illegal corporate goal anyway).
    
    -DM-

While composing previous replies, ...
I thought of the earlier "mode" of warfare too, in which your opponent was
given the dignity and respect worthy of true warriors and gentlemen. However
these days when you mention things related to war, I think many people are 
going to think of the all-out, total war that has come to dominate world
conflicts since the age of Napoleon (conscription and all). This kind of total
war (even on a smaller scale, such as Iran-Iraq) has quite rightly a very bad 
image since it frequently devolves into barbaric practices {massacres, gas
attacks, fire-bombing...etc.}. One exception to this I think was the War
for the {Falklands|Malvinas(sp?)}. By and large I think the warfare metaphor 
runs a risk of turning off {some of} the people you want to motivate.

I too have spent my time behind the symbolic pieces on various boardgames.
If we were in a country/culture where chess was more commonplace, the language
of chess might work. 

Actually the aspect of Digital that I find comparable to some form of
international conflict/relations is diplomacy, because if I were to consider
myself a diplomat for Digital in a foriegn country, I might find the kind of
infrequent contact with competing diplomats that I find as a sales support
person. (i.e., I rarely if ever see or hear about HP|IBM|Sun|whomever's 
salespeople when dealing with a customer). Furthermore I have to maintain
a degree or three of tact when dealing with the foriegn country (customer).
When I am on their soil (site), I have to learn the mores of the local
population to successfully deal with them. etc. etc.

erik g.

re: .38,

	Chess is a very good game because it forces one to think far in
    advance of their opponent.  I forget where it was that I was reading
    this (maybe in here?), but some company (I think it was a brokerage 
    firm) was recently advertising for good chess players as they felt
    that such skills were valuable to analyzing the market and making the
    right long-term investments, etc.  The only problem with chess is that
    it is limited to one-on-one play, whereas most business situations
    involve many people (each with their own hidden agendas).

re: .39,

	I almost mentioned Diplomacy (TM) before, but I wasn't sure that
    anyone would be familiar enough with the game.  This game is better
    suited in the sense that it involves multiple players (exactly seven
    players for a full game), and as you mentioned, it involves the sorts
    of interpersonal interaction necessary to polish one's negotiating skills.
    The drawback to this game for me is that it falls short of being 
    interesting unless you have exactly seven people, and furthermore,
    there is little chance involved in the game; the deals are strictly
    cut and dried.

	Again, Diplomacy is also strictly a war game set in 1902-1920 in
    Europe, with two different types of pieces: armies and navies.  The
    object of the game is to have your nation take over Europe.  There is
    another such game which has similar rules to those of Diplomacy (TM), 
    except it also incorporates some additional complexity (famines, plagues,
    assasins, money, independent garrisons, etc.); the game is called
    Machiavelli (TM) and is centered in and around 16th century Italy.
    This again is based on the traditionally nationalistic sort of war
    involving the expansion of geographic boundaries, however.

	What would be useful is "something completely different"; something
    in which the gains are no longer measured in terms of the expansion of
    geographical borders, but in the increase of something slightly less
    tangible (market share).  Something that combined the diplomatic features
    of Diplomacy (TM) and Machiavelli (TM), together with the strategic
    thinking of chess, with the element of chance provided by a set of dice.
    All of this on a playing board representing the ever-changing market.
    
				    -davo

	I visited the local hobby shop in Marlboro on the way home 
    yesterday ("The Spare Time Shop") in search of a game which depicts
    corporate competition when I came upon the infamous GURPS Cyberpunk
    sourcebook (TM).  The cover of the sourcebook has an iluminati (eye in
    the pyramid) symbol with the inscription "The book that was siezed
    by the U.S. Secret Service!" (see note #1139.29 for the introduction
    by Steve Jackson).  Naturally, I was curious, having followed this
    case somewhat, so I purchased the book ($16.95).  It's entertaining
    reading and the illustrations remind me of some of my high school days.
    It's a little like a combination of National Lampoon magazine and
    National Rifle Association literature of the future.

	For those unfamiliar with such role-playing genre games, the
    sourcebook is used by the Game Master (or "GM") as a guide to creating
    their own "world" for the game players characters (or "PC"s).  If I
    were to act as GM for this GURPS Cyberpunk (TM) game, I would probably
    also want to get ahold of the basic GURPS (TM) book (which is used as
    the standard book to create characters for this, as well as any of the
    hundreds of other Steve Jackson GURPS games).  I would have probably
    purchased the GURPS book as well, but they were sold out.

	To my surprise, the GURPS Cyberpunk (TM) game itself involves some
    of what I was looking for in the way of a simulated corporate game (well,
    maybe a futuristic cyberpunk version of corporate life anyway).  Out
    of the hundreds and hundreds of games currently for sale at The Spare
    Time Shop (twice as many as there were last time I was there), this
    game was the closest thing I could find to a game which simulates the
    sort of corporate competition I was looking for.

	The next best thing were the usual assortment of stock & bond 
    trading games such as Acquire (TM) (which I already have), Stocks &
    Bonds (TM), Maxi Bour$e (TM), Roll Out (TM), etc., along with the game
    called Kremlin (TM) which is a satirical game depicting life in the Soviet
    Union (recommended by the store clerk as being the closest thing he had
    to corporate life ;^), but nothing else which really simulates corporate
    life as we know it.  Looks like a market need if I've ever seen one,
    guess I've got my entrepeneurial work cut out for me!

				   -davo

p.s.	In the meantime, if anyone is interested in playing a game of GURPS
	Cyberpunk (TM), let me know...

   I still have not found one mention of a metaphor that likens what DIGITAL's
   objectives ought to be - essentially a long-term partnership building
   with customers. IMHO, Sports and War set very short horizons and encourage
   brain-dead Wall street mentalities that cannot look beyond a quarter. 
   Wars over half-a-mip advantage or religious wars over which operating system
   can do interprocess communication better ignore the fundamental idea behind
   this business - which is - can our company help the customer improve his
   bottom-line and be around 10 years from now still helping him the same way
   with whatever it takes - hardware, software and support. I know that if I am
   a customer and this small obscure company helps me do my business better,
   I know that I wouldn't give a S..T about MIPS or O/S or standards. By the 
   very fact that this small company cares about my business more than it does
   about irrelevant things, I would have the confidence that it would be around
   10 years from now.

   If you want an example of real long-term thinking, go no further than
   Ted Turner and CNN. Why do you think he is losing millions of dollars
   in Goodwill games every time?. I can already guess who's going to
   dominate the cable industry in Europe and Soviet Union 10 years from now.

   If only we can take our buzzwords like "Business Partnerships" and
   "Total Solutions" more seriously, there wouldn't be a war or a sports
   event. There wouldn't be an opponent.

   Nari

    

re: .42,

>   I still have not found one mention of a metaphor that likens what DIGITAL's
>   objectives ought to be - essentially a long-term partnership building
>   with customers. 

	Right, but a partnership is based on mutual success, and success
    in a free market system is based on such things as market share and
    profit, which insure such long-term existence.
    
>   IMHO, Sports and War set very short horizons and encourage
>   brain-dead Wall street mentalities that cannot look beyond a quarter. 

	Short-term thinking alone is inadequate.  Whether sports and war
    "encourage brain-dead Wall street mentalities" or not remains to be seen.
    
>   Wars over half-a-mip advantage or religious wars over which operating system
>   can do interprocess communication better ignore the fundamental idea behind
>   this business - which is - can our company help the customer improve his
>   bottom-line and be around 10 years from now still helping him the same way
>   with whatever it takes - hardware, software and support. 

	Right, but mip, cpu, ipc, etc. wars do not necessarily have the same
    goals as the sort of war I was referring to (which is the competitive war
    for market share).  Now just because the term "war" sounds bad, it doesn't
    have to be bad.  For example, the "war on poverty" wasn't a bad war.  This
    is also a "war on poverty", except this time the poverty you are fighting
    is generally your own poverty.  You, as an employee working in the free
    market system, you are fighting a war against your own poverty.  It is
    a constant battle in which you typically make alliances with employers
    and/or customers (for free-lancers) for personal income.  This company
    in turn makes alliances with other companies for corporate income as well.
    Everything depends upon a complex intertwining network of such alliances.
    These alliances are nothing more than the business partnerships you
    mentioned.  Whether they are long-term or short-term, is another issue,
    but generally speaking, long-term relationships are more rewarding.

	As in any competition or war, there are both allies and enemies.
    Unlike war however, the enemy in economic survival is not always someone
    else, and can many times be one's own self.  In such a war, enemies can
    include everything from a lack of motivation to an ineffective business
    decision, neither of which necessarily involve anyone else.  But do not
    be deceived, there are also enemies in human form as well.  Business
    partnerships are not always permanent either.  Then again, due to the
    forgiving nature of humanity, broken alliances can be mended as well.
    The art of such alliance-mending is known as Diplomacy.  In any case,
    while it is important to be familiarized with one's human enemies and
    allies, the real enemy is poverty.  If the method we choose to fight
    a war on poverty is to collect in a huge international corporation and
    take pride in our collective ability to provide customer satisfaction,
    then more power to us!

>   I know that if I am
>   a customer and this small obscure company helps me do my business better,
>   I know that I wouldn't give a S..T about MIPS or O/S or standards. By the 
>   very fact that this small company cares about my business more than it does
>   about irrelevant things, I would have the confidence that it would be around
>   10 years from now.

	You would hope it would anyway.  As your company's "ally" company,
    you would want this small obscure company to succeed as well.

>   If you want an example of real long-term thinking, go no further than
>   Ted Turner and CNN. Why do you think he is losing millions of dollars
>   in Goodwill games every time?. I can already guess who's going to
>   dominate the cable industry in Europe and Soviet Union 10 years from now.

	Maybe so...then again, we [DEC] should be competing for a piece
    of the burgeoning new markets in Eastern Europe and Asia as well...  ;^)

>   If only we can take our buzzwords like "Business Partnerships" and
>   "Total Solutions" more seriously, there wouldn't be a war or a sports
>   event. There wouldn't be an opponent.

	The war and sports metaphores are imperfect, and it is true
    that the "Business Partnerships" and "Total Solutions" buzzwords
    are an important part of ecomonic success, but then again, these
    buzzwords do not really constitute metaphores, either.  To place
    these buzzwords into the war metaphore, you might translate the
    term "Business Partnerships" to "alliances" and the term "Total
    Solutions" to "battle-plans" (or perhaps even long-term "campaigns")
    in the mutual war against poverty.

	It would be nice if there were no such thing as poverty, yet
    in the free market system, it is reality.  Now, in utopia, there
    would be no poverty, and perhaps even no opponents (at least not
    unless someone's idea of utopia required having an opponent ;^),
    but until we get there, we are stuck with the struggle against the
    opponents involved in economic survival (whatever form they might be).
    In this economic struggle, we are each either unsuccessful and/or
    unemployed (defeated or KIA), employed but currently unsuccessful
    (captured or MIA), gainfully employed (winning the battle), or
    successfully retired (at peace).

	We at DEC have enjoyed the peace of success off and on for many
    years, but the enemy (poverty) is currently blitzkrieging our economic
    defenses.  We must act quickly to fend off this enemy if we expect to
    survive ecomonically.  That's all this metaphorical "call to arms" is
    intended to acheive.  BATTLE STATIONS!!!

				-davo

    I believe that .42 was saying that increased market share should be
    considered a result of our "doing it right", rather than the objective.
    I have to agree. We should concentrate on making our customers winners,
    rather than making our competition losers. If we do the former better
    than the competition, the latter will follow as a matter of course,
    IMHO.
    
    - Larry.

 >>>I believe that .42 was saying that increased market share should be
    considered a result of our "doing it right", rather than the objective.
    I have to agree. We should concentrate on making our customers winners,
    rather than making our competition losers. If we do the former better
    than the competition, the latter will follow as a matter of course,
 >>>IMHO.


    Absolutely!. That's exactly what I meant. If we do the right thing
    and do it totally different from our competitors, we would not have a
    war on our hands for market share. We would be creating an entirely
    new market which is totally ours (atleast for a long time till others
    follow us). I strongly recommend a new book "CNN - How a band of mavericks
    built a network". At a time when the networks underestimated the public's
    need for news round-the-clock ( and even talked down to them with
    brief sound-bites),  Ted Turner saw the emergence of cable
    and the possibility of fulfilling the need with it and CNN. The rest is
    history. The basic idea here is to identify a compelling need and put
    the appropriate technology to use. Similarly we should not be "selling"
    our technologies per se - Networking, MIPS, Client-Server computing etc..
    but use these as very clever tools to deliver very innovative solutions.
    There will always be more competitors competing on the basis of these
    tools (and keep beating us too on the basis of half-a-mip advantage) 
    than those that compete with us in solutions .By providing solutions on the
    other hand, we carve ourselves a new market, one where premium prices
    can be charged and recurring service revenues can be had year after year
    for keeping these solutions running. If one goes back about a 50 years
    and reads the history of IBM, this is exactly what they were doing. 
    Selling rental solutions for different kinds of industries. Everything,
    hardware, software, service etc.. That's the reason they had the market
    all to themselves for so long. They goofed up on keeping up with technology
    and updating their offerrings and underestimated the intelligence of their
    customers just like the networks did of the general public. Think about it!

    Nari

re .43 or so;

davo,

Both the war and sports metaphors put the emphasis in the wrong place.  We need
to concentrate on our customers, not on the competition.  In my 5 years in the 
field, the biggest losses I've seen weren't the result of competitior's actions,
but of OUR not listening to the customer and not responding to the customer's 
needs.

-dave

    REF: <<< Note 1148.45 by STRIKE::KANNAN >>> 
    
    >><< we should not be "selling" our technologies per se - Networking,
    MIPS, Client-Server computing etc.. but use these as very clever tools
    to deliver very innovative solutions.>> << By providing solutions on
    the other hand, we carve ourselves a new market, one where premium
    prices can be charged and recurring service revenues can be had year
    after year for keeping these solutions running.>>
    
    I agree.  And to this end then, Digital should be nurturing
    intrapreneuring via supporting "skunkworks" where ANY EMPLOYEE can
    submit a "vision" of such an innovative solution.  If the employee
    needs help writing a proposal, there would be a skunkworks department
    of consultants to provide guidance and software publishing assistance
    to ensure the idea doesn't get lost in the asinine bureaucracy of
    failing to write the proposal "properly."  In addition, after writing
    it, the author would then not only supply the written copy, but would
    then present "in-person" the vision (just like employees get to do in
    "the east").  The skunkworks committee that provides funding listens,
    and asks questions, and then considers and debates among themselves,
    using the written proposal to refresh their memories of the in-person
    presentation.  If they decide on a GO decision, the next step is for
    the author to write a business/marketing plan, also getting skunkworks
    consulting and publishing assistance.  Process repeats.  If a GO
    decision at this level, the employee gets funding, resources and people
    plus then becomes the new "division manager" who gets "the opportunity"
    to drive it into reality, "flying" accordingly, but with continued
    skunkworks business, operational and marketing consulting support and
    assistance.
    
    We should be building hundreds of such new divisions using our own
    technology tools, growing new markets and building billions of new
    revenue dollars that bring in BIG PROFITS because we're getting premium
    profit margins for premium solutions that satisfy customer wants.
    
    Where is the common sense in the present course of more or less "giving
    away" our tools with big discounts and allowances, making lately nary a
    penny in profit, benefitting little either stockholders or employees.
    

re: last few,

	Please reread my reply #.43 (after all, I spent my entire Thursday
    evening at home composing it when I could have been wrestling around
    with my son), I think if you skim over the first half of the note,
    the real meat is the second half.

	Anyway, I'm not advocating a war against "the competition" per se,
    I am advocating a war against poverty.  The sort of poverty that can
    result from economic failure in a free-market system and the sort of
    poverty that each and every one of us fight on a personal and/or family
    level each day we go to work.  Gaining market share is but one of the
    corporate strategies used in fighting this war on poverty, but it has
    been pointed out that there are other good methods as well ("Business
    Partnerships", "Total Solutions", use of new technology, etc.).

				     -davo

    Watching the Civil War documentary now running on public TV (at least
    in the New England area) I see some interesting parallels to Digital's
    current situation.  At the start of the war, the United States had only
    one obvious candidate for command, Robert E. Lee, and he quickly sided
    with his home state of Virginia against the Union.
    
    Lincoln went through a sucession of generals in frustration and
    despiration, trying to find one that would lead the Union Army
    effectively.  Long before the battle of Gettysburg, it was clear the
    South could never win, but whether the North would ever learn to use
    its considerable assets to advantage was questionable to the end.
    
    When the war was finally over, the character of the United States and
    its people, and the art of warfare itself, was changed forever.
    
    Are these lessons that KO could take to heart?  Do you suppose Ken is
    watching the series?  

    re .49, Stating a connection between Lincoln, the North, the South, 
    The War Between the States, and DIGITAL.
    
    You're really reaching.
    
    Everyone knows that DIGITAL is like Russia after the Revolution and
    before perestroika, stumbling along, and killing dissidents.
    
    Or perhaps it is like Britain just before it lost its overseas colonies
    in WWII, blindly assuming that after the war, it would continue to be a
    world power.
    
    Or maybe it is like Germany was before Bismarck forcibly united it in
    1870, a bunch of independent little kingdoms, which shortly shook the
    world.
    
    Or maybe it is like rock music after the death of Buddy Holly and
    before the advent of the Beatles.
    
    I COULD go on, you know
    
    karl

    "Apocalypse Now" might be more appropriate ..
    
    M
    

    I'll bet George McClellan had the best damn overheads anyone had
    ever seen. I'll bet his business plan was detailed with milestones,
    ROI, ROA, P&L, resource needs, and risk assessments. I'll bet he
    had staff meetings like you read about. He had good press.
    
    I'll bet he had everybody, except Lincoln, snookered into believing
    him competent.

    All Grant did was find the enemy and attack him.
    
    John H.

    
    Without question, McClellan thought he would succeed to the Presidency
    by just "looking good" rather than by truly leading his "employees" to
    achieving stellar results from their efforts.
    
    One would further note the attitude of disdain of the Southern
    plantation owners toward those doing all the work, namely those human
    beings they had enslaved, an act of insanity and inhumanity protected
    under the hypocracy of law and religion.  I laughed when Davis assumed
    dicatorial authority over the Confederacy when they started to lose and
    conscripted all males from 18 to 35 for the army, but exempted those
    plantation owner males with 20 or more slaves.  Some commitment when
    the chips were falling.  Remind anyone of professional bureaucrats?
    
    There is wisdom to be gleaned from the American Civil War.  And one of
    those gems is the inherent truth that all people who do the work are
    entitled to dignity and honor in that work, which means NOT being
    enslaved, nor compelled to sweat shop dangerous working conditions, or
    being treated as a disenfranchised "resource" who seemingly cannot
    think and contribute to change to build a more successful endeavor.
    
    The fundamental issues are still insatiable desire by "some" for power,
    wealth and control, and whether manifested 130 years ago in plantation
    owners or "overseers" or today in bureaucrats who put self-ambition and
    career protection over the success of both the company and their
    people.
    
    Ultimately, there must always be revolution when a few gain at the
    expense of the majority.  As a sidenote, I see the acceleration of
    Stalin's legacy of bureaucracy is crumbling so fast now that statues of
    Lenin are being torn down and tossed aside with even the sacrosanct
    Lenin now being held responsible for the dictatorship and bureaucracy
    that stifled the economic prosperity of a nation for over 70 years. 
    

                            (long note alert)
    
    What other tidbit might we gain in comparing the American 
    Civil War as portrayed in the current TV series to business 
    and Digital?  How about the following.

    The North did not win the war from superior military  "thinking" and
    implementation of that wisdom.  All commanders  appointed by Lincoln
    followed the same approaches to win over  the army of the South.  As a
    consequence, the war was won  essentially by attrition.  The South ran
    out of sufficient numbers of soldiers,  supplies, money and other
    resources before the North.

    The North was superior in resource capability from the start.  
    The North had the heavy industries, money, and a population 
    of about 20 million.  The South had little heavy industry, 
    less cash, less general resources and a population of only 7 
    million (plus the 4 million blacks held in slavery, which, of 
    course, offered little advantage to the South at war with the 
    North).

    Both sides practiced the SAME strategies and tactics.  If you 
    were defending, your soldiers dug trenches, erected cover and 
    breastworks, and stayed put, forcing the other side to come 
    to you.  If you were attacking, tradition called for 
    advancing upon the defenders, bayonets forward, firing as you 
    advanced until you overwhelmed the defenders, either killing 
    all or forcing a retreat or surrender.

    On a one to one exchange, obviously the North had to win.  
    However, the exchange over the course of the war was TWO 
    Northern soldiers dead for every ONE Southern soldier dead.  
    
    Superior leadership by the Northern commanders should have 
    shown less than one to one exchange.  Equal leadership would 
    suggest at least one to one.  A loss of 100% (2 for 1) shows 
    less than equal leadership.  The fact the North won was 
    primarily due to overwhelming force and supplies where even a 
    loss at the rate 2 for 1 still won the war.

    Mary Todd Lincoln was even quoted that she could just as 
    easily command the Northern army if winning was done by JUST 
    throwing masses of human beings at the South, winning at the 
    COST of a loss of 2 for 1.

    So what can be derived from this and how might it enlighten 
    business and be useful for discussion as it applies to 
    Digital?

    Let's reverse engineer.
    Let's ask "WHY" the exchange was 2 for 1.

    The TV series commentator said the reason for this was 
    because technology had surpassed accepted "proven" methods 
    for waging war and those tactics were not modified or others 
    used.  The "new" technology was the invention of the rifled 
    barrel and mini-ball where a huge caliber piece of lead could 
    be accurate to a half mile, which hitting solidly anywhere on 
    the body caused devastating damage; invention of repeating 
    guns; and invention of better canon and cannister shot (a 
    sort of large grenade).

    The antiquated way of winning a battle, however, was STILL to 
    "overwhelm" the defender by bayonet, firing as you ran.  The 
    way to overwhelm was to throw vast numbers of soldiers at the 
    defenders, advancing in nice neat massive rows and groups.  
    Such running groups could not be accurate BOTH running AND 
    firing at the same time.

    The defenders, behind solid cover, standing STILL, with 
    highly accurate rifles, had it made, firing steadily into the 
    advancing mass of human beings.  Hard to miss.  Thus, it is 
    easy to see why the North, doing most of the advancing 
    throughout the war, lost 2 for 1.  It's amazing it wasn't 
    worse (which it was in World War I using the same antiquated 
    approach).

    So, while the North won, it can be argued that a heavy price 
    was needlessly paid.  By who?  The people in the field, who 
    were regarded as expendable cannon fodder by those managing.  
    Specifically the foot soldiers doing all the fighting, and 
    that additional 100% of the Northern army that died, who did 
    not have to die HAD better approaches been used.

    And why were all Union commanders using the same methods?

    Well, who had to think "smart" when there seemed an endless 
    supply of expendable cannon fodder, human beings.  Yes, but 
    why was that?

    Perhaps because all commanders were stuck in a mindset to use 
    the same paradigm, model, for winning battles and war.  And 
    why again?

    Maybe a combination of two factors.  1) All commanders were 
    trained in warfare at the same SINGLE place.  West Point.  
    One "proven" way of how you as a commander were "supposed" to 
    doing things, DRILLED into the students.  Result: EVERYBODY 
    doing things the same EXACT WAY! and, 2)The arrogance of 
    those in power, who being in power, assumed because of "being 
    trained" at THE ONLY "proper" school and because they were 
    now in control MUST therefore know it all, and therefore 
    could do ALL the thinking, soley, with the rest of the team, 
    troops, just doing the work, advancing and killing.  An 
    arrogance that lead to a frozen mindset that refused to go 
    outside the "nine dots" to consider other models, other 
    methods of "working smarter."

    Now let's compare to business and Digital.

    The paradigms of how you run a company and build a successful 
    business are all essentially THE SAME within America, taught 
    by a limited number of business schools using a limited 
    number of business textbooks written by a limited number of 
    professors of business.  Result: most of American managers in 
    American companies doing things the same way in "how" their 
    companies "work" internally and externally in winning 
    customers and business and making money on their people and 
    resources.

    End result: Most American companies wage war against one 
    another (another type of "civil" war) in the exact same 
    methodology, same models, with each attempting to win and 
    retain desired contested "ground" -- read: customers and the 
    revenue those customers represent.

    With most American companies using ONLY the "same" models, no 
    one wins by "thinking" smarter.  Thus, each is eventually 
    reduced to using ATTRITION to win, just like the North did in 
    the American Civil War.

    And who is the cannon fodder being thrown away in this war?

    It is profit margin.  When you can neither win new ground or 
    retain existing ground (customers) by "fighting" smarter, you 
    then throw more cannon fodder out, namely margin, which is 
    translated into offering lower prices, and ever escalating 
    percentages of allowances, discounts, and cash rebates.

    This means whoever has the most cash and margin to give away 
    survives until those with less go bankrupt, with those with 
    less first giving away all the margin with offers of LOW 
    prices in order to win, and finally last ditch efforts by 
    "getting rid" of employees (troops), until eventually there 
    is insufficient people and money to produce and survive.  At 
    some point, many commanders, generals, captains and 
    lieutenants bail out, saving themselves BEFORE the ship 
    sinks, moving to new warring nations (companies) to "offer" 
    their "proven" services.  Sort of like McClellan offering 
    his "proven leadership" to the Democratics in the 1864 
    American election where he became the Democratic candidate 
    for President.

    This has been happening in the United States for the last 
    several years in nearly all industries, including Digital's.

    And if you don't think this is fact within Digital, come to 
    the field and examine the records of all sales of all 
    products and services to all customers and I submit you will 
    find an ever escalating percentage of allowances and 
    discounts that have been given away in order to keep winning 
    battles for customers.

    Digital has now reached the point where margin has dipped 
    below cost.  We're losing money.  If this trend continues, 
    and when the two billion in the bank goes away, we will 
    ultimately go bankrupt.  Before that happens, of course, many 
    of our competitors with less cash and larger losses of margin 
    will go, and have gone, bankrupt first.

    If this locked mindset does not change, leading to working 
    smarter, not longer, exploring new paradigms, who will win in 
    Digital's industry in the long run?  Some gurus have 
    predicted only six MAJOR companies of any consequence in the 
    world in the "computer" industry by the year 2000.

    IBM is likely since their cash reserve and margin will carry 
    them.  Plus some corporate players in Japan are likely since 
    they have gone outside their paradigms already, taking the 
    best ethical and most effective unethical models (like 
    predator price dumping) of the West and have incorporated 
    them into Eastern philosophies and paradigms plus used wacky 
    ideas from such wacky individuals as Dr. Deming, acknowledged 
    by Japan as THE gure who has led Japan to higher levels of 
    excellence and success via Japanese businesses taking 
    methodical statistical approaches to continuous creative 
    change and optimizing the creative intelligence within each 
    and EVERY employee.  In some industries, several major 
    Japanese corporations already now lead the world in profit 
    generation plus patent development on new technology plus 
    translation of said technology into marketable products, and 
    have successfully "captured" entire industries that were 
    invented in the United States.

    Could Digital as a corporation benefit from learning some 
    wisdom from studying the American Civil War?  I think so; but 
    only if the 10,000+ managers "in charge" wish to do so.
    

    Nits on Civil War:
    
    For the North to win, they had to occupy the South, a task requiring
    attack.
    
    For the South to win, they had only to not be occupied, a task
    requiring defense.
    
    Defense is always easier, as you can prepare your ground and
    you know where your enemy is going to be when he attacks.  An
    old rule of thumb is that you don't attack unless you have twice
    as many troops as the defenders.
    
    The South had the better generals, the stronger military tradition,
    the simpler task, stronger popular support and what looked like a
    good chance of foreign support.  It's not surprising that it took
    four years to grind them down.
    
    The Civil War is the first "modern" war, where the real contest is
    between economies, and the winner wins by attrition.  It was the
    failure of Europeans to learn from the Civil War which make World
    War I such a surprise to both sides--they expected a repeat of the
    Franco-Prussian War (quick and cheap).
    
    I think you overestimate the "dumbness" of the commanders--the image
    of misled victims marching with bayonets set against massed fire is
    popular and seems to imply the leaders were callous and incapable of
    learning.  I'm not so sure--the real solution to the problem of
    attacking a prepared position with guns (tanks and aircraft) wasn't
    available until much latter.  What would you order, if you were in
    Grant's position?
    			-John Bishop

    Hopefully someone will figure out from this that fighting Big Blue on
    Big Blue's turf, with Big Blue's model of computing, with Big Blue's
    tactics will on result in baby blue's demise.

    Re: Base note
    My memory is not good, but during some previous economic crisis at DEC,
    the image of war became a real internal political issue. I think it was
    in the mid 70s.
    
    Our external 'enemies' were different then; including companies like
    DG.  IBM was not included because it was argued we were not really in
    contention for the same bit of turf.
    
    In any case, it got all the way to our Executive committee of the time,
    and I think (or was told) it was Ken Olsen who actually decided against
    using the war images.  The proposal was developed over a fairly long
    time by a very well known and respected Ad agency from the Big Apple. 
    It was replete with terms of defense, offense, strategic and tactical
    weapons, fronts, stone-walls, etc.
    
    But, Ken said no.  My understanding of his reasoning was that while
    analogies and metaphors may be useful at times to help understand and
    communicate fundamental elements of an issue, this very power of the
    image can do great harm as well.  If the most important elements of the
    analogy and the situation in question are not very, very similar; and
    if they do not interact in a way that is both understood and similar,
    then using the analogy to make decisions about your real problem is
    likely to be wrong.
    
    And, he said, we are not at war. Our competitors are not our enemies
    to be destroyed. We may have a common past and we may be seeking a
    similar future.  Why not think of our situation as many  people on a
    path.  At points the path narrows and we may jostle one another, but
    our objectives lie in the future and if we spend our energies trying to
    prevent others progress, we aren't really doing ourselves any favors.
    So, our metaphor should be that of a journey. Ours has no known
    destination.  Sometimes the path is rocky, sometimes crowded, sometimes
    bleak and hostile.  We may even find some places where we want to stop;
    but we can't fool ourselves; the objective remains the future.
    
    Now these words are mine;  I have no old memo in my files.  But this
    did happen.  The agency was dismissed....many people were dismayed.  We
    found a new agancy; and a new marketing message ( I think it was "we
    change the way the world thinks".) but there may have been another one
    in between.
    
    I any case, I didn't mean for this to be so long. I hope that reading
    to the end was worth your time.
        

    That sounds like it may have been Ries & Trout, authors of several
    books on marketing.  Thay take a militaristic approach.
    
    Book titles:
    	Positioning: the battle for the mind
    	Marketing warfare
    	Bottom-up marketing
    
    All are very good, btw.
    
    Somewhere in a DEC library are video tapes of their proposals to DEC.
    Among them were that we change the name of the company to "DEC".  In
    "Marketing Warfare" they use DEC as an example of mistakes, how we
    "threw away" our advantage in small computers, the mistake of launching
    three similar products at the same time (DECmate, Rainbow, and PRO),
    and so on.

    Personal reaction alert, suitable disclaimers:
    
    Jack Smith's WWII comparison, particularly the mention of all the wrong
    decisions which were apparently lauded simply for being decisions, makes me
    think of a major result of war: death, destruction.
    
    *Not* images I feel translate well to our business, or indeed to anything
    other than wars.  But then, I suppose no other comparison is as
    dramatic.
    
    And, after all, wartime provided us with an acronym which I haven't
    heard used in years, but which may be the most appropriate comparison
    of our current climate to that of WWII - SNAFU.
    
    aq
                                      

    I found this interesting article in Time magazine from about September
    or so of last year. Thought it applied to this whole discussion pretty
    well.
    
    erik g.
    
    
    
The Warrior Culture

by Barbara Ehrenreich

In what we like to think of as "primitive" warrior cultures, the passage to
manhood requires the blooding of a spear, the taking of a scalp or head. 
Among the Masai of eastern Africa, the North American Plains Indians and
dozens of other pretechnological peoples, a man could not marry until he had
demonstrated his capacity to kill in battle. Leadership too in a warrior
culture is typically contingent on military prowess and wrapped in the
mystique of death. In the Solomon Islands a chief's importance could be
reckoned by the number of skulls posted around his door, and it was the duty
of the Aztec kings to nourish the gods with the hearts of human captives.

All warrior peoples have fought for the same high-sounding reasons: honor,
glory or revenge. The nature of their real and perhaps not conscious
motivations is the subject of much debate. Some anthropologists postulate a
murderous instinct, almost unique among living species, in human males. Others
discern a materialistic motive behind every fray: a need for slaves, grazing
land or even human flesh to eat. Still others point to the similarities
between war and other male pastimes--the hunt and outdoor sports--and suggest
that it is boredom, ultimately, that stirs men to fight.

But in a warrior culture it hardly matters which motive is most basic.
Aggressive behavior is rewarded whether or not it is innate to the human
psyche. Shortages of resources are habitually taken as occasions for armed
offensives, rather than for hard thought and innovation. And war, to warrior
people, is of course the highest adventure, the surest antidote to malaise,
the endlessly repeated theme of legend, song, religious myth and personal
quest for meaning. It is how men die and what they find to live for.

"You must understand that Americans are a warrior nation," Senator Daniel
Patrick  Moynihan told a group of Arab leaders in early September, one month
into the Middle East crisis. He said this proudly, and he may, without
thinking through the ugly implications, have told the truth. In many ways, in
outlook and behavior the U.S. has begun to act like a primitive warrior
culture.

We seem to believe that leadership is expressed, in no small part, by a
willingness to cause the death of others. After the U.S. invasion of Panama,
President Bush exulted that no one could call him "timid"; he was at last a
"macho man." The press, in even more primal language, hailed him for
succeeding in an "initiation rite" by demonstrating his "willingness to shed
blood."

For lesser offices too we apply the standards of a warrior culture. Female 
candidates are routinely advised to overcome the handicap of their gender by
talking  "tough." Thus, for example, Dianne Feinstein has embraced capital
punishment, while  Colorado senatorial condidate Josie Heath has found it
necessary to announce that although she is the mother of an 18-year-old son,
she is prepared to vote for war. Male candidates in some of the fall contests
are finding their military records under scutiny. No one expects them, as
elected officials in a civilian government, to pick up a spear or a sling and
fight. But they must state, at least, their willingness to have another human
killed.

More tellingly, we are unnerved by peace and seem to find it boring. When the 
cold war ended, we found no reason to celebrate. Instead we heated up the "war
on drugs."  What should have been a public-health campaign, focused on the
persistent shame of poverty, became a new occasion for martial rhetoric and
muscle flexing.  Months later, when the Berlin Wall fell and communism
collapsed throughout Europe, we Americans did not dance in the streets. What
we did, according to the networks, was change to channel to avoid the news.
Nonviolent revolutions do not uplift us, and the loss of mortal enemies only
seems to leave us empty and bereft.

Our collective fantasies center on mayhem, cruelty and violent death. Loving 
images of the human body--especially of bodies seeking pleasure or expressing
love-- inspire us with the urge to censor, Our preference is for warrior
themes: the lone fighting man, bandoliers across his naked chest, mowing down
lesser men in gusts of automatic-weapon fire. Only a real war seems to revive
our interest in real events. With the Iraqi crisis, the networks report,
ratings for news shows rose again-- even higher than they were for Panama.

And as in any primitive warrior culture, our warrior elite takes pride of
place.  Social crises multiply numbingly--homelessness, illiteracy, epidemic
disease--and  ouir leaders tell us solumnly that nothing can be done. There is
no money. We are  poor, not rich, a debtor nation. Meanwhile, nearly a third of
the federal budget flows, even in moments of peace, to the warriors and
weaponmakers. When those priorities are questioned, some new "crisis"
dutifully arises to serve as another occasion for armed and often unilateral
intervention.

Now, with Operation Desert Shield, our leaders are reduced to begging foriegn 
powers for the means to support our warrior class. It does not seem to occur to
us that the other great northern powers--Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union--
might not have found the stakes so high or the crisis so threatening.
It has not penetrated our imagination that in a world where the powerful,
industrialized nation-states are at last at peace, there might be other weays
to face down a pint-size Third World warrior state than with a massive force
of arms. Nor have we begun to see what an anachronism we are in danger of
becoming: a warrior nation in a world that pines for peace, a high-tech state
with the values of a warrior band.

A leftist might blame "imperialism"; a right-winger would call our problem 
"internationalism." But an anthropologist, taking the long view, might say this
is just what warriors do. Intoxicated by their own drumbeats and war songs,
fascinated by the glint of steel and the prospect of blood, they will go
forth, time and time again, to war.

    
    Re -1
    
    I can see and largely agree with that point of view.
    
    It reminds me of the idea put forward in "The Chalice and the Blade" -
    a book that argues that societies were once built around valuing
    the ability to give life, and equality within social structure (this was 
    around the time of Minoan Crete).
    However, these values were then usurped and in their place came a
    valuing of the ability to bring death, and a heirarchical social
    structure. A system that was the foundation of our current social 
    structure, and a system that is barely disguised when you look for it.
    
    It's interesting to consider how this idea is reflected in the
    structure of companies and the "virtues" of the business world.
    
    Recently, I attended a "call to war" sales meeting. This is a typical
    approach for geeing up the salesforce - a lot of military analogies
    and language were used, and I guess the idea was to appeal to the
    warrior instincts and pride of the (largely male) salesforce.
    We were to go on to our cutomer's sites to do battle with the
    competition.
    
    I don't believe in this. My objective in going on to a customer site
    is not to fight. It is not to focus on the other suppliers. My
    objective is to focus totally on the customer - so effectively that the
    competition will be driven out or, even better, won't get a look in.
    I aim to show that I can care more, listen more, understand better and
    provide vastly superior product and service. My focus is utterly on
    the customer. Of course, it would be silly to ignore the competition,
    but they are not my key motivation for seeing a customer - to pick
    a fight.
    
    While the "warrior call" is still used in business and society, and
    while we still breed/form warriors, our world and our values will
    continue to erode to the point where we will wipe ourselves out -
    the last, ironic "battle", IMO. Everyone will have contributed to
    killing everyone else.
    
    
    
    
    

    With all due respect to Minoan Crete, I seem to recollect an
    entity called the Minotaur - to which human sacrifices were made.
    
    Human nature does not change over the centuries. The warrior group
    may well have been the first human society greater in size than
    the family. Agriculture came much later.
    
    In every civilisation to date , the growth of prosperity was
    accompanied by a downgrading of military ability and subsequent
    defeat by "the barbarians" - less civilised but more competent
    in the military area. Greece Rome and China are examples.
    
    Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is the way we are.
    
    Mike Day
    

As just a reminder to a slow learner, how does this relate to working at 
Digital?  This is why I choose not to follow soapbox.

Matt

    Nice rathole we've got here.
    
    Mike,
    
    The story about the Minotaur is a Greek� legend which tries to make
    sense of the Minoan ritual of bull-dancing.
    
    That claim about the "warrior group" is outdated.  Excavations of
    the *very* ancient cities of Catal H�y�k and Hacilar demonstrate
    that human societies lived for thousands (!) of years before the
    development of warfare.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � Those people whose idea of a good time was to fight for ten years,
    and burn the topless towers of Ilium.

    re .65

    "Is this the face that launched a thousand ships,
     And
    
>   Those people whose idea of a good time was to fight for ten years,
>   and ...burn[ed] the topless towers of Ilium?

     Come sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss!
     Her lips suck forth my soul, see where it flies,
     Oh Helen, give back my soul to me..."

    Or something like that. Marlowe made one of the two definitive
    definitions of beauty in English literature -- Shakespeare's
    "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety..."
    is the other one. But that was romantization.

    Homer took a dimmer view. One of my friends from college studied
    classical literature. He went to Turkey, and stood where Troy itself
    once stood, now but rolling fields next to the sea, and read his Iliad:

    "She, Ruin, is strong and sound on her feet, and therefore
     Far outruns all Prayers, and wins into every country
     To force men astray..."

    I don't think the Trojans and Greeks thought it much fun, either,
    even in those times.

    /Petes