Conference 7.286::digital

1167.0. "A comedy, in three acts, ..." by CSG001::MAKSIN (Joe Maksin 291-0378 PDM1-2/H4) Fri Aug 24 1990 12:35

Are early career failures good?  Too much success, too soon, and
for reasons not known can be dangerous?  Where do improvements
come from and more importantly, why?    

When going into battle, with battle-hardened veterans is where you
want to be??? 

For some changes in the rules for Digital's decision making for
substantive improvements, how about:

a) Decentralize operations (get as close to customers and their
   problems, at all levels, at all times, as absolutely possible
   -- go a couple miles in their shoes), and

b) Formalize accountability (your commitment is your bond, backed
   up with resources, for results -- more with less is plus
   (exercised creativity, innovation, etc.), neutral signals doubt,
   and less with more is a BIG negative, and

c) Centralize control (checks and balances for progress toward goals,
   timely explanatory (i.e., why?) comments on revisions, ..., and
   tracking of trends and histories, zero-based budgets, and very
   long-memory and visible track records).  Quick "red flags" in
   reaction to missed milestones to change status quo thinking, i.e.,
   if this group did not meet their commitment last time or the time
   prior, what is the confidence level of success this time --
   notwithstanding Six Sigma??

d) Set very high standards and emotive goals -- trust in people,
   stretch them in thought and action to accomplish objectives.
   
Than:

d) Openly reward successful delivery of committed to or greater than
   results (viz., the on time, within budget, and stated specification
   stuff)  Awards for doing one's job is, as Herzberg said, "jumping
   for jelly beans,"

e) And/or openly admit error(s) in decision making and judgment,
   constructively ascribe blame (i.e., mistakes are a very important
   learning tool), and quickly initiate corrective action.  [IT IS
   MANAGEMENTS' RESPONSIBILITY/OBLIGATION TO ENSURE BIG MISTAKES
   ARE NOT MADE AND THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL DECISIONS.]

   Quite often good judgment comes only from bad experiences -- let
   people make mistakes, just don't crucify them when they do!  Only
   exception to this rule is managers -- drawn and quartered is fine
   because of the good example it sets for accountability balanced
   against rewards/punishment for results.  Let people decide which
   managers are which, wild ducks or lame turkeys, and

f) then get on with it -- with a real "can do" spirit.

IMHO: 

Management's primary role is in creating an environment where the people
feel they have at least a 50-50 chance in achieving their goals -- the
genuine recognition for achieving their goals is brillant management.

Goals accomplished through teamwork, mixing less experienced with old
grizzlys, buoyant with cynical types, ..., is like seeing a beautiful
flower result from the planting a simple seed.  It is truly a marvelous
and wonderous thing.  Manager's and employees work WITH each other, they
both work FOR and have ALLIANCE to their firm, and their value/gift is in
moving that firm ahead alone the dimensions established and resourced by
the firm's executives and BOD.

As Gibbon describes, when the Hittites were in the suburbs of Rome and
the Emperor faced certain death, the Emperor finally understood he and the
Roman consulars had promoted too many of the wrong people and few of the
right people.  Weeds have a way of exploding if not constantly pruning.
While many of the Roman Senate and people had tried many times and in many
ways to highlight threats, needs for competence, ..., those with battle
experience had been shunted aside for those more "connected" or "in favor."
Now was not the time to train a new army, now was the time to die -- and
the Roman Empire did just that.

History repeats because the lessons of the past are not really felt --
it can not happen to us.  What do you think -- the poll tax, Iraq, S&L
crisis, Massachusetts' debt rating, ..., Wang, Data General, IBM, ...? 

    History repeats itself.  IMHO, each successive generation only knows
    the facts (at least some) of the generations before it.  The feelings
    of mistakes are not passed on.  For example, the forces is the mid-east
    now are aware of Vietnam, are aware of the fact that battle is painful,
    but will not know how battle actually "feels" until they themselves
    experience it.  
    
    Those of us under 40 do not know how it felt to grow up in the
    depression or how it felt to be in Britian 50 years ago today.
    
    BTW, weren't the Hittites a civilization who lived in mesopotania
    around 2000 B.C., well before Rome fell?  Maybe I have my "facts"
    wrong here.

I think it was the Goths who sacked Rome. They quickly got tired of it,
possibly due to Rome's infamous traffic congestion, and left.

Rome muddled along for another century, however, but power moved to the Byzantine 
due to the lower property rates. It was receding empire, however, and never 
regained its reknown for administration and engineering. All this transitioned 
eastward to Constantinople. A non-secular primacy took power in Rome with time.
After a false start in selling indulgences, which spawned competition, 
it finally settled into a market niche which it has occupied for some time now.