Conference 7.286::digital

    We had a presentation on this the other day. Apparently there is
    some variation but basically there are three groups. One is made
    up of those people whose skills the company really needs and who
    can not be replaced easily. Those people can not volunteer.

    The next group is people whose jobs we need but where we can find
    or train people to fill. In some organizations those people can
    volunteer. The third group is people whose jobs are going away.
    Those people can always volunteer.

    As I said there is some variation for different groups. What it is
    for ISB (my group) may be a little different for other groups. You
    should push your management to keep you up to date. I think that not
    all groups have had their plans fully approved.

    With in the transittion plan there are two options. Take the buy out 
    or try to find a new job. Digital will help here but you don't get
    too many chances to turn a job down. 
    
    		Alfred

To answer the base note title from a UK perspective, I was given formal 
notice and told that _some_ employees would be kept in a transition pool 
for upto six months but there was _no_ guarantee that I would make that 
pool. I did not volunteer for redundancy. I did, under the pressure of not 
being guarenteed a place in the pool, agree to receiving an extra 3 months 
pay in exchange for not asking to go into the pool.

IMHO, a true voluntary scheme would have placed me in the pool with an 
option to be made redundant.

Dave.

    
    There seems to be a lot of different sets of rules here.
    
    I tried to volunteer for the last buyout. My manager told
    me he checked with personnel, and that I could not receive it
    because they had to make my job "go away", and that my function 
    was critical. 
    
    I feel I could have been replaced, as there are many people
    who do the same sort of work in transition. As time passed 
    I was COMPLETELY suprised to learn that some other people 
    considered "critical" (same overall organization) had gotten 
    to take the package, another was moved into TMP, however, a 
    little while later there was a job posted in that person's
    department for the same type of job.
    
    I guess the rule is...there are no rules, and some people are more
    equal than others.
    
    Mark
     

    I too tried to volunteer for both the first and current "pkg".  Was
    told that I couldn't for much the same reasons as in .4.  However, I
    am part of an overhead function, my job falls into category 2 in
    Alfred's note, needed, but others can, or could be trained to do it.
    The frustrating part is that due to a set of personal circumstances, I
    would welcome the "pkg"; while others may live in dread of being
    offered!...and I know for a FACT of other idividuals who volunteerd
    and were allowed to "take the pkg".  I can only come to the conclusion
    that its the old story, "not what you know, but WHO you know".  Get
    access to the right "ear" and you probably could volunteer.
    
    Carol

    I too have tried for the last two passes to volunteer but to no
    avail.  The following is a memo I wrote in Q4 but was too chicken
    to post, today I fear not!  These are of course only my own
    observations and opinions!!
    
The true intention of the transition program, as stated by John Sims in his 
state of the company address was to "provide choice, assistance and support
consistent with Digital's long standing core values.  These are the values
of honesty, trust, openness, innovation and respect."  These program
objectives were put in place to ensure that the "spirit" of Digital's
downsizing effort was accomplished while maintaining the integrity of
Digital's commitment to it's most valuable asset - it's people.

These are commendable goals - but the reality of transition implementation
is vastly different.  Middle management in this corporation has not embraced
the "spirit and intent" of transition.  In their world, it's still a "people
are power" mentality - maintain headcount and present the image of compliance
by re-defining the work of your business.

This mentality does nothing to address the bigger problems that Digital faces
in the nineties.  This ensures the bloat will still be there in Q4.

It is my understanding, that back in early Q2 Fy90, management was charged
with going off to take a 'real' look at the work of their organizations with
the intent to remove redundancies and streamline operations.  This was to
make us more flexible and adaptable to the rapidly changing technologies.  A
lofty premise to be sure, but one that management in DEC is unable to truely
implement.

The old ways die hard - headcount is still used to justify the necessity of
organizations and not the work of the organization.  When organizations have
re-structured and the work remains unchanged - only the numbers of managers
in proportion to the worker bees is now one for every two - something is
wrong - and the transition program isn't going to succeed.

How many times can a re-structure/re-organization take place before the work
is so diluted it has become meaningless?  All to justify headcount.

Being a "victim" of this management style has left me feeling like a ping-pong
ball.  In the past two years I have had 4 immediate manager changes involving
2 managers with the job content changing only once.  

Through my eleven years at Digital I would have to say that overall nothing
really changes - we are still unable to face reality, let go of the tree
and be innovative when it's needed.  The sad part of all of this - is that
morale is at the lowest I have ever experienced, frustration at the highest.
The people doing the work know how to fix much of what is wrong today - but
are powerless, treated as pawns or worse yet victims.  Their insight into
re-structuring work is never sought.  Decision making continues to be done
in a vacuum and not closest to the work - where the expertise exists.  In
many cases people at the bottom of the organization are treated as children
not the adults they are.  In a sense, we all manage a business - "the business
of our lives" and we make valid "business decisions" everyday, yet at work
we are treated as children who can't be trusted to "do the right thing".

This is a sad commentary on Digital today but it is also - reality!

     re. -1
    
    VERY well said.....
    
    Mark

    re -2 ... VERY, VERY well said, and sadly true.

    Bravo .6!  Another thought...what about the pool of people already and
    yet to be in transition?  Those who may be desperately seeking another
    job whithin DEC...there must be hundreds or more who could move into a
    position like mine and start off running!  Is the "pkg" option to find
    another job valid under the circumstance being discussed?  Or is it
    just "lip service" to make the whole transition process appear to be in
    the best interest of "Digital's most important assett", the people?
    Don't like feeling so negatively...I blame it on the times...really the
    first time in 10 yrs that I've felt negative in regard to the company.
    

    re .6
                                              
    Certainly, there are many who would agree with you.  
    
    I don't disagree about the mis-management issue, I've seen it happen to
    friends (but luckily, not to me in the past ten years).
    
    ...about empowerment
    
    I read a very interesting commentary in the Michigan Alumnus magazine
    yesterday.  The writer has the opinion that "empowerment" doesn't
    really express the most desirable goal.  She noted the common
    (Germanic) root of the words "freedom" and "friendship" and made the
    point that "freedom" of the individual was more helpful than
    "empowerment".
    
    I think I agree.  Empowerment suggests a redistribution of existing
    power, probably not a likely occurence.  Freedom, on the other hand, I
    can exercise without any preconditions (consequences, yes).
    
    My experience in DEC has been that I have more intellectual freedom and
    see more intellectual honesty here than in the years I spent in
    universities, both as student and professor.  I encourage you to
    exercise your personal freedom, even beyond writing in notes
    conferences.
    
    This morning, I established a notes conference suggestion box for
    Caribbean Operations Manufacturing without asking "permission" from
    anyone.  Sure, I consulted some folks, but the decision was mine.  I
    sent out mail messages to everyone with a mail account inviting them to
    participate.  I committed my boss, two co-workers, and myself to find
    implementors for the ideas submitted.  I was able to do this because I
    knew it was in the best interests of the operations and because I trust
    the people I work with and know our abilities.
    
    Bottom line, we are free to make decisions (and accept the
    consequences), free-er than in any other enterprise I know of.  Let us
    use that freedom.
    
    (apologies for the sermon)
    
    Dick

    re .6 ... Amen, brothers and sisters!!
    
    A few observations from this corner.
    
    I have been with Digital 17 years. I have seen a sad deterioation of
    management quality in recent years. When I hear about managers that
    only show up for work 2 or 3 days a week, this is a serious problem.
    
    We appear to have lost our "esprit de corps". I used to see a lot of
    Digital pride. Now its just a job. I also lay this at management's
    doorstep. 
    
    People are bored. I believe that is because they have been doing the
    same job too long. Everyone needs to change jobs after a few years. You
    get "stale" in one job after a few years. It seems to be an unwritten
    law that you should only change jobs if it is a promotion.
    
    
    The buyout. If people are so unhappy, or whatever, that they WANT to
    volunteer for the buyout, then let them go. I don't believe Digital
    needs anyone that wants to leave that badly.  At least, their reasons
    for wanting to leave should be heard and addressed if possible. If we
    want to keep some of these people bad enough, we should be able to
    resolve their problem(s).                                  

    When headquarters talks about empowering, I think they are referring to
    allowing field people (sales) to make business decisions without having
    to get sign-off from headquarters.  For example, the ability to
    contract a third party to do work on a project without having to get a
    vp from hq to sign.  They mean empower...i.e. give authority to sign
    contracts, etc.  It goes along with p&l responsibility.

    With regards to .6 , "pools" and power....
    
    I am also convinced that todays excess manpower problem is due to
    the fact that many mangers's perceived value is directly related
    to the # of people they manage.
    Not only that, it never has been easy to get "slots". So, once
    you got a "slot" filled, you'd stick to it forever.
    To a point where artificial work was created to justify it.
    Over time, the fact that the work created, was originally
    unnecessary, was forgotten, and even worse, became necessary
    because of interdepence on other artificial work.....
    
    A solution to this (somewaht emerging from today's "redundancy"
    pools) could be taking people management versus task (project)
    management a little further.
    It must be viable, otherwise how could we have been able to
    absorb that much extra work for the various DECworlds's and
    DECcille's.
    
    I could imagine that task (project) Managers do not have to
    worry about long-term people development and "usage".
    They just concentrate on their business, request from the
    "pools" what they need, and return the people when they
    no longer need them.
    
    The resource managers in turn, concentrate on the people
    and should be measured on their individual development and
    overall pool "utilization".
    
    I understand that such a system beeing abused can have
    very negative impact on our "most valuable asset".
    Therfore, as one example, I would insist on resource managers
    beeing primarily judged on the progress of his/her people's
    value and second only on the "pool" utilization.
    
    There might also be problems with team-spirit, human communications
    depending on duration of assignements, but nothing is really that
    new. Project/resource management exists since ages. Home country
    mangement for intl relocatees as well, etc etc..
    
    What do you think ?  
    /fred                                               

	re .14:

	Fred's ideas here strike me as identical to what I was trying to
	say in 1189.44. Only, as usual, I took a lot longer.

	Maybe my notes reflect a typical Digital shortcoming: "gold plating".

	The common thread lies in the idea that the answer to "deadwood"
	or parts of the organization whose usefulness has passed, has to
	start with making this a truly "people oriented" company. In the
	sense that we begin by assessing customer needs and employee
	abilities INDIVIDUAL BY INDIVIDUAL.

	Almost all of our problems can be traced, directly or indirectly,
	to the slow and subtle dehumanization of the organization. People
	are being treated as interchangeable cogs in a machine, and this is
	fundamentally unsound - in the limit, insane - thinking.

	/Tom

    re .-2,.-1
    
    agreed.  I will forego my tempation to wax eloquent.
    
    Dick

>    A co-worker here did exactly what you did - about 3 years ago.  He
>    *did* get permission.  He actually set up a Field Service Marketing
>    conference.  Not only did the conference eventually get shut down by a
>    very high level manager, this co-worker was placed in a job unrelated
>    to his skill set/experience which ended up as a 2 level demotion.  And
>    so goes our "personal freedom".
    
>    You see, all of the managers who gave "permission" hadn't checked out
>    their empowered status with their boss' boss' boss.  And when the big
>    boss said "I don't like this marketing thing.  We don't do marketing in
>    the field," the next 3 levels of management essentially punished this
>    individual for embarrassing them.
 
    		Somewhere in that chain something was missing,
    		someone with a capability for outrage, indignation
    		at injustice.  My first instinct (as a bystander, 
    		not a participant) would be to publish "just the
    		facts" to high heaven and wait for some fallout.
    
>    So I applaud you, your political skills, and your ability to bring
>    about consensus.  But it still seems that one must be a candidate
>    acceptable to the rulers in order to gain empowered status and exercise
>    your personal freedom.
    
		Thanks, Steve.  Yes, I am "acceptable" to the rulers,
    		at least when I'm not stepping on their personal toes.
    		I've cultivated the fearless maverick reputation over
    		the years.  I'm known for being as subtle as a brick and
    		capable of cutting repartee.  I'm also known as
    		non-paroochial.  Once I was directed to take off my
    		"corporate hat" and "play (local) ball".  That manager is
    		gone and I'm still here.
    
    		My point is that while no one can take away your feedom - they
    		can indeed modify the consequences.  But if the act itself
    		is worthwhile, then that compensates for a lot of the s**t
    		you get later.
    
    
>    Let's just make sure that the consequences of making decisions reflect
>    the soundness of the business issues rather than the arbitrariness of
>    the people sitting in judgment.
    
		Can't be done.  We have to take the bad with the good.
    		I'd love to be able to promise you that the "powers that 
    		be" are going to be sensible and humane.  But I won't 
    		lie.  We have to do what we think is right, knowing 
    		that someone who has a bigger office may be enraged.
    		I don't care.  Just look at some of the notes about what
    		it takes to fire someone who is NOT doing his/her job.
    		Those who act in good conscience have nothing to fear but
    		their fear.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick    

    re.15
    Tom,
    Agree, another example for this (HUMAN to HUMAN) can be found
    in customer services (where I live).
    
    We receive "customer's calls", but very often don't care about
    the customer. It's the machine we want to fix.
    In most cases, this is O.K:
    Happy machine = Happy customer.
    However, we should always have in mind that machines don't order
    new equipment nor do they pay our salaries...
    /fred

    We'll be served with the food we ordered in a restaurant. However,
    whether or not we enjoyed our dinner has a lot to do with how we were 
    served.  Taking out the HUMAN factor, there is usually not much left.
    
    Machine ok does not always equal customer ok. I agree with .-1
    
    GF
    
    

    Re the voluntary issue again....just heard from a 100% impeccable
    source that in Glorioiso's world they are accepting volunteers.
    Decisions must be made by noon on Thursday.

>                     <<< Note 1214.20 by COOKIE::LENNARD >>>
>
>    Re the voluntary issue again....just heard from a 100% impeccable
>    source that in Glorioiso's world they are accepting volunteers.
>    Decisions must be made by noon on Thursday.

	Which Glorioso? What part of his world?
	If EIS PSS and all of it, then out here in the field we
	probably won't even officially hear about this by noon
	Thursday.  This is great rumor fodder(sp).

    re: -1
    
    This is not for EIS or PSS.  (Bob Glorioso is HPS)

    RE: .21,.22 Bob Glorioso runs ISB (used to be called High Performance
    Systems and Clusters or HPS. Most people in that organization were
    briefed on the ISB buy out plan a week ago. If you haven't heard
    about it it probably means you were on vacation lat week or you are
    not part of ISB.
    
    		Alfred (deep in ISB)

    RE .20
    
    Does this mean everyone in ISB is eligible to volunteer, regardless
    of job code?  Isn't that an Engineering org.?

    RE: .24 No not everyone can volunteer. Some people in jobs that
    are concidered to be critical and/or whose skills are not easily
    replaced can not volunteer. 
    
    			Alfred

    Can someone just post the policy??
    
    There have been rumors about this for more than a week, but no one has
    come up with any definitive.  I used to work in HPS years ago; I guess
    I'm glad that a lot of us were "redeployed" ("outplaced", etc.) then; I
    wouldn't want to be looking for a job right now!
    
    /Charlotte

    I don't think a "policy" has been written regarding this.

    I believe that information regarding all aspects of "transition" are
    distributed to the affected employees through their managers.

    If you are an employee unaffected by transition, then you don't have a
    need to know regarding the details.  The Boston Globe and the Wall
    Street Journal are your resource.

    I'm describing what I believe the practice to be, not defending it.

    I don't read either the "Glob" or the WSJ, but maybe someone who does
    will find the time to type in any pertinent articles?
    
    /Charlotte (hoping she has "no need to know"!!)

    RE: .26 Pat is completely correct. There isn't a common company wide
    policy on this. The information I posted is very solid and is not
    a rumor. (I don't believe in posting rumors.) The information in ISB
    is being directly communicated by all managers to their groups. Other
    people may have a need to know what their group is doing and should ask
    their managers. They don't really need to know what every other group
    in the company is doing.
    
    			Alfred

    In ISB (HPS) those with a software engineering job code (50xx),
    secretaries, and department coordinators are among some which are
    EXCLUDED from being able to volunteer.

For those who can volunteer, is the alternative being attached to a
"transition cost center" and given 3 months to find a new job?  Or
is that subject to organization-specific variation also?
								paul

    RE: .31 Well, the whole thing is subject to organization-specific
    variation. In ISB not everyone who is eligible to volunteer is
    working in a job that is going away. And what you volunteer for
    is going into "transition". Once in transition there are options
    other then the buyout. There is re-training as well as some
    help finding a new job. There are options. Now if they don't
    get enough volunteers then some people may be "volunteered".
    But even if that happens there are still options other then the
    buyout for those people. There is also the possibility that more
    people then they need/want to see go into transition may volunteer.
    In that case there is formula (which I don't remember or have at
    home) for picking who gets accepted.

    			Alfred

    re .29 >There isn't a common company-wide policy
    
    >Other people...don't really need to know what every other group
    >in the company is doing
    
    WADR, Alfred, I must emphatically disagree with the second 
    statement exactly _because_ of the first. A lot of people are
    deeply disturbed because others are telling stories that make
    the process sound very unfair. It seems to me like another
    case of DEC not really being one company anymore.
    
    Dana
    

    
    Well, I just heard a new one.......
    
    Some folks at our site volunteered to go into TMP last go around. 
    These people actually had jobs lined up, but were turned 
    down for being "critical".
    
    This time around (only a few months later) these people
    are considered excess, and missed their opportunities.
    
    If there is a formula to all this, there is also a classic formula,
    a new formula, a sugar-free formula, a caffeine free formula
    etc.
    
    Mark

    Heard a very strange news story this a.m. on the radio, citing
    KO as being disappointed that folks were not coming forward to
    volunteer for separation.  That most people are afraid they will
    be unable to find another job, etc......  
    
    Seems to me they would see a much different response if they really
    announced it was "VOLUNTARY".  They have made no such announcement,
    as I continue to ask the question - daily,weekly..................
    
    How can they complain about the results to their proposal when they
    haven't even made the offer???????????????????
    
    And they wonder why the morale is in the cellar, along with the
    price of stock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    

    re .35 I _couldn't_ volunteer for the _first_ package, now that
    they've reduced the money by half a year's salary, what in
    *hell* do they expect ? Hordes ?

    re .35
    What radio station did you hear that on?
    

    Sorry to say, I was driven to work today (this is not the norm)
    and I have no idea what station was on.  We were talking and just
    caught the tale end of the story.  It wasn't repeated on the 1/2
    hour news.  Sorry.
    
    Have just attended a group meeting, where they told us they still
    do not have a decision on opening up the process for volunteers.
    Their idea of volunteer is:  we select someone for transition and
    they then have the ability to volunteer for the package.  Suppose
    to be a decision by next week.  I'll believe it when I see it!
    They've been playing with this decision for over 9 months already.
    

    
    	Re: .38
    
    	I heard the story and Ken's quote on WRKO this morning.
    
    

    Again, it depends upon whether your group has chosen pure voluntary or
    the management selection process. In the case of the latter, it appears
    that volunteers are not accepted other than those `selected'. 

    Rumor has it that "the next step" is being discussed very seriously now
    by the executive committee (i.e. what to do if the voluntary process
    does not achieve the necessary numbers). I heard a rumor that they had
    a vote on layoffs (yes, they actually used the "L" word) and that the
    executive committee voted 15 to 1 in favor...with KO having the
    dissenting vote. I also heard that there will be one more voluntary
    package (less generous than the first two) offered prior to Christmas
    and then, if necessary, layoffs after Christmas.

    I find it Difficult the buyouts for security and safety personnel are
    happening...only to be replaced by temps and new hires from Want Ads in
    the newspaper.  We are losing our company to temp agencies.  
    
    I thought the transition buyouts were for jobs which are
    eliminated...please correct me if I am wrong.