Conference 7.286::digital

re Note 1247.0 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     What does it mean to "know Digital's organization"?
    
>     My guess is that one has been in a job before when one was required to
>     know who did what, who said they did what but didn't do it, who didn't
>     say they did what but did it anyway.

        I would agree that this is probably a euphemism for having
        connections and the skill and inclination to work within the
        Byzantine system, i.e., "a political animal."

        Bob

    Perhaps it means familiarity with how the organization works...
    
    Like...a minimum of 6 phone calls to find the person who can REALLy
    help you...
    
    Like...calling a product manager to find that they changed jobs 6
    months ago, and no one updated the latest list....
    
    Like...knowing that it's standard procedure for new hires to read 
    manuals and other miscellaneous forms of documentation for their first
    three months...because everyone else is too busy to properly orient
    them/tell them what needs doing...
    
    Like....
    

    The response so far has been what I thought it would be: one of the
    most highly valued skills at Digital is the ability to ignore the
    formal organizational structure, processes, and nominal responsibility
    to get at individuals who will say "yes".

    re .3

>   The response so far has been what I thought it would be: one of the
>   most highly valued skills at Digital is the ability to ignore the
>   formal organizational structure, processes, and nominal responsibility
>   to get at individuals who will say "yes".

    I think you are being a bit harsh. However, what I feel is the more
    appropriate observation, ..."to get at individuals who 'might be able to
    answer your question'" makes an even less sanguine statement about our
    corporate future.

    We've discussed the "hunter" mentality before.

    /Petes

We are in one of the most complex industries known. We cant do it all ourselves.
Isnt the intent of "Knowing Digital" simply to enlist support towards
our individual objectives. That very often requires more than putting a 
question to someone. Yes, the proper someone first must be found. We all need
good navigating skills.  But, another skill is equally as important:
We need to convince them that they should assist us in a teamwork role towards 
a common goal. Knowing the individuals who can (are capable) and knowing 
how to motivate them to assist is "Knowing Digital". This is a repetitive 
learning experience.

    The original reference to "knowing Digital" is so vague that many
    managers (who don't know Digital) would interpret it literally, pass up
    some likely candidates, and hire someone who has a somewhat different
    set of skills that that envisioned by the job profile writer.  
    
    On the other hand, if a manager does "know Digital", he/she will not be
    very dependent on written job descriptions during the interview and
    selection process.
    
    
    IMHO,
    
    Dick

    Although "knowing Digital" means a lot of things, depending on the
    context, in an interviewing situation I think it means AT LEAST the
    following:
    
    1. Through around the latest organizational acronyms, like EIS, NAS,
    etc.
    
    2. Drop as many names as possible in connection with their group,
    product, etc.  (it helps is your attitude appears that you have coffee
    with each of them at least once a week!)
    
    3. Have at the tip of your mind the name of every VP and their
    associated organization.
    
    4. Address developing products by their code names (also existing
    products by their old code names like "Aquarius," "Nautilus," etc.)
    
    This may sound sarcastic but it's not - that's the way it is in the
    vast majority of interviewing situations.  Even though I know this, I
    haven't been able to bring myself to do it - for me it verges on lying. 
    If I could drop a few scruples, I'd probably be more successful at
    interviewing in Digital myself!  But if you want to improve your
    success to be greater than mine, you could give it a try.

    But why are the skills in 1247.7 important?  It seems to me that it
    gives the speaker a heightened sense of self-importance rather than
    demonstrating a useful competence.

        A person who  truly "Knows Digital" knows that it is an amorphous
        entity with very few  absolutes.    
        
        A person who "Knows Digital" understands what resources they need
        to accomplish a particular task and realizes that any  number  of
        groups or organizations within the Corporation can be enlisted to
        get the job done.  
        
        A  person  who  "Knows  Digital"  knows  how  to track down those
        resources  and  enlist  them, perhaps  inventing  non-traditional
        interconnects between functions and organizations. 
        
        A person who "Knows Digital" understands that the innovative path
        is lined with many people who will tell you why something _won't_
        work  or  _can't_  be  done and fewer people who will support you
        directly  with  a  YES --- but this person also knows that unless
        they are  directly  confronted  with  a  "NO",  the  path  is not
        blocked!
        
        A person who  "Knows  Digital"  understands that every person who
        can potentially supply them  with  support  or  a  service  was a
        personal  agenda.  This includes  everyone  from  assemblers  and
        techs up through Vice Presidents.  If you cannot show how you can
        facilitate their  agenda, you cannot motivate them to provide you
        with the support  or  service  you need to fulfill _your_ agenda!
        This person understands that agendas may be technical, financial,
        political, or personal. 
        
        What makes "Knowing Digital" different than "Knowing Raytheon" or
        "Knowing  IBM?"  The  fact  that there are fewer  _absolutes_  at
        Digital --- more ways to get things done.  A creative, innovative
        person  has  the  opportunity  to  florish within Digital if they
        appreciate how to make the Corporation's resources work for them!
        
        Have a GREAT one!
        
        John

    Back in 1982 when I joined Digital the following two lists were part of
    the corporate orientation package I received. I hope it's still valid

                
                Some helpful "rules of the road" for DEC

    Use your knowledge, not your authority

    Deal directly with conflicts

    Be a self-starter who looks for problems and works hard

    Treat people informally

    Be responsible

    Be yourself

    Be a team player

    Be a risk taker

    Be ready to change your priorities

    Assume more responsibility than is assigned

    Don't mismanage ressources

    Don't distort or misuse information

    Don't be autocratic

    Don't listen to your boss, if he's wrong

    Don't equivocate ("waffle")

    Don't be afraid to ask for help

    Learn to live ambiguity


                 Some of the more important norms at DEC

    Hard work/long hours

    A positive attitude

    There is a strong results orientation in the company

    There is focus on cost consciousness - efficiency, lack of sufficient
    manpower, a "do everything with nothing" attitude

    There is freedom in hours, dress, etc., if you produce results

    There is a norm supporting "do it yourself if the system won't"

    Direct contact is better than going through the organizational chain

    There are norms against standardization

    There are norms of acceptable morality

    There is a norm supporting risk-taking

    There is a norm favouring "try it" learning and a "work the problem"
    orientation

    Differences in management style are accepted

    The individual is responsible and accountable

    There is a norm favouring openness

    Whether that's knowing Digital I don't know, but I'm still here and
    enjoying it. I think it is also reflected in the basic rule I was given
    by a senior manager: "Don't do anything you wouldn't like to tell me
    about!".

    Outlaw

    I have a line in my resume that talks about "knowing how to get things
    done in the Digital environment."  I think that's what is meant.

    RE: -1
    
    I concur. Or, put another way:  I have been in some assignments or been
    a manager where it was important to be able to "come to the party with
    a network". The more contacts you had in the right places, the more
    valuable you might be ... it meant you could call people and "get
    things done."
    
    /se
    

    What does all this mean to someone, new to Digital, who's been told
    that it's not WHO you know but WHAT you know, or that there's no "old
    boy" network at Digital...
    
    You can't have have an organization that's being fine-tuned for success
    in the 90's by top management being undermined by an informal power
    structure, or can you?

    re: .13
    
    I think there's a difference, Pat, depending on the job to be done. In
    some cases, I've hired people solely on what they knew. In such cases,
    who they knew (or how big their network was) was immaterial to the
    hiring decison.
    
    In other cases, I hired people on what they knew PLUS the linkages they
    had developed over several years at DEC. 
    
    In NO cases did I ever hire anyone SOLELY on their network, and I hope
    that wasn't the impression I left. It could play a major role in their
    getting the job, but they had to know something on top of that.
    
    /se
    

    RE: .13 I think there is a difference too. "Who you know" implies,
    in the rest of the world, that your job is a favor to someone. At
    DEC it doesn't mean that (generally), it means you possess some
    specialized information (ie. names of people who know things).
    Generally, in my experience, people in your network help you because
    it helps Digital and not necessarily with the expectation of a quid
    pro quo. This is a difference from the more traditional "who you
    know".

    An other thing that fits under "knowing Digital" is knowing ones
    way around less formal means of information gathering. Notes, VTX,
    mailinglists, and other "unusual" and poorly documented sources of
    information.

    		Alfred

Re 9

Well said!

When  we  use the phrase "knowing Digital" within the context  we  have  talked
about here, I think we are talking about knowing how to  get things done within
Digital.  Digital, as any other organization, exists within - not in spite of -
a  bureaucracy.  

Although "bureaucracy"  is often called a "dirty word", I think that is just an
excuse for laziness.    How  many  times have we heard failure (late shipments,
overruns) blamed on the Phase Review Process, or on overzealous Product Safety,
or on unnecessarily tough DEC-STDs,  or  on resource contentions, or on someone
not returning phone calls, etc, etc, etc.? or on just plain DEC bureaucracy?

What  about  the  many  success stories (on time, on budget, no waivers,  happy
customers)?   Were they successful in spite of the bureaucracy?  Obviously not,
since a bureaucracy  is  the environment we work in and not an adversary.  When
you have someone in  your  organization  who  "gets things done", it usually is
because he is able to  USE  the bureaucracy to his advantage.  That means fully
knowing WHAT you need to do  to  get the work done - including the "paperwork".
It also helps knowing who to call for answers/advice/leverage/etc.  Often, that
ability is referred to as using the "good old boy network" (GOBNET).  

And yet there are new hires who can "get things done" who obviously do not know
the GOBNET.  How do they do it?   Attitude, mostly.  They do not waste time and
$$ fighting the system and whining about how hard it  is  to  get  things done;
they accept it as the environment within which they need to  work  and  they go
get the job done.

When I interview a prospective Project/Product/Program manager I want  to  know
how much he knows about moving around a bureaucracy.   Clearly,  if he has been
successful in Digital, he likely knows HOW to make the bureaucracy/GOBNET  work
FOR him.  It is only marginally relavent that he knows the  names of the people
who presently sit at the desks.

FWIW

Dave

	re .13:

>>>    You can't have have an organization that's being fine-tuned for success
>>>    in the 90's by top management being undermined by an informal power
>>>    structure, or can you?

	I appreciate your irony, Pat. Nicely put.

	The sad fact is that, as far as I can see (limited), our successes
	mainly flow from the "informal power structure", and our failures
	from the "top management fine tuning". In other words, attempts
	to fix our problems by top-down reorganization are seriously
	counterproductive and harmful - in most cases. They often start
	by "rationalizing" and "standardizing" - and the first real action
	taken will be to get rid of the mavericks, with their skunkwork
	type groups, who are the engines of our prosperity.

	A couple of reservations:

	- I would talk about the "informal cooperation network" rather than
	  "informal power structure". This is because, although it does
	  get things done, it isn't focussed on and obsessed by power
	  for its own sake. It's focussed on - getting things done.
	  Moreover, it isn't a structure, it's more amorphous than that.

	  It seems to me that a lot of the "structure" in our business
	  comes from middle managers trying to tackle problems on the level
	  that they best understand - the organization chart. They don't
	  realize (or else don't care) that shuffling managers and people
	  around is likely to be either neutral or actively harmful.

	- I don't think really top management does attempt fine tuning.
	  That's middle management (i.e. anything below VP, and including
	  some VPs). Those are the people who are playing corporate
	  Monopoly, and failing to understand that, no matter how many
	  hotels they collect, it doesn't help the business.

	/Tom

	Carolyn McMahon's anecdote in 1069.15 is directly relevant to
	this business of top-down management reorganization.

	I'm also reminded of the episode of the British TV series
	"Yes, Prime Minister" which featured a National Health Service
	hospital which had, for union reasons, admitted no patients
	since being opened a year before. The administrators and
	civil servants who ran the hospital saw no problem: on the
	contrary, it was the best-run and most efficient hospital
	in the service. Patients get in the way, and cause a great
	deal of trouble. Things run infinitely more smoothly without
	them.

	Or else take the character "Maverick" in "Top Gun". He lives
	up to his name - he breaks rules, is insubordinate, impulsive,
	But he is the best, and he gets results. As his great rival,
	Iceman, tells him at the end of the movie: "You're still
	dangerous! But you can be my wingman any time!"

	Time and again, we see that these mavericks, direct action
	oriented people, get real results by slicing through rules
	and bureaucracy, or by ignoring it altogether. When middle
	management have a reorganisation, these are the first people
	to be fired. The gun is already aimed right between their eyes -
	it just needs the ammunition and a squeeze on the trigger.

	RIP - UK Design Win Group (among others)

	/Tom

    There are some jobs at Digital where you really don't need to know
    anything about Digital. Take for instance, one of the sales people hired a
    couple of years ago in our (unnamed) state capitol. He was hired
    because he knew people in the governor's office, the speaker of the
    house, and other good old boys. He was taught about VAXes and how to
    get things done at Digital after the fact. 
    
    However, in a job where you really need to bring all of the corporate
    resources to attend to a customer problem, it really helps to "know
    Digital", who does what, where they are, and how soon you can expect
    them to respond. Our field managers should all "know Digital". 

This note is long, so address it accordingly.

I couldn't let this opportunity go by without addressing the Noble Norms in 
1247.10.  Just like any other living thing, a "culture" evolves.  There are 
evolutions leading to survival, and those leading to extinction.  Although the 
paths to survival may be unclear, history and common sense can help us identify 
roads to extinction.

I've taken 1247.10 and lined each item up with "danger symptoms" to the left of 
the original text(:) - just to show how good and noble "rules" can evolve into 
destructive and counter-productive actions ... if we let them.  Personally, I 
believe in the Noble Norms of 1247.10 - enough to take sometimes severe risks to 
uphold them.

Perhaps some of the following is tongue-in-cheek ... and then, perhaps not.


                SOME HELPFUL "RULES OF THE ROAD" FOR DEC:
                       Symptoms of the Road to Extinction

    USE YOUR KNOWLEDGE, NOT YOUR AUTHORITY: As long as your knowledge doesn't 
conflict with authority.

    DEAL DIRECTLY WITH CONFLICTS: Except relative to conflicts with people - 
there go behind there backs whenever possible.

    BE A SELF-STARTER WHO LOOKS FOR PROBLEMS AND WORKS HARD: Never expect anyone 
else to "see the light," pitch in and really help.

    TREAT PEOPLE INFORMALLY: Unless they have any rank what-so-ever.  Then be 
prepared to travel through months-worth of subordinates and secretaries 
screening their bosses.

    BE RESPONSIBLE: For the failures.  Let someone else claim responsibility for 
the successes.

    BE YOURSELF: As long as you're a middle-aged "WASPM" - otherwise, be 
nothing.

    BE A TEAM PLAYER: ... which means capitulate to others (especially when 
their "in" and wrong).

    BE A RISK TAKER: ... however, be prepared to be labled a trouble-maker

    BE READY TO CHANGE YOUR PRIORITIES: ... Have no standards

    ASSUME MORE RESPONSIBILITY THAN IS ASSIGNED: Expect no real acknowledgement 
of having done so.

    DON'T MISMANAGE RESOURCES: But pretend you used some.

    DON'T DISTORT OR MISUSE INFORMATION: Unless the truth is politically 
dangerous

    DON'T BE AUTOCRATIC: Have many autocracies instead of only one.

    DON'T LISTEN TO YOUR BOSS, IF HE'S WRONG: Then cut your throat at review 
time.

    DON'T EQUIVOCATE ("WAFFLE"): Don't take a stand - go with the flow - don't 
make waves - etc.

    DON'T BE AFRAID TO ASK FOR HELP: Or get rejected and even humiliated when 
you ask (or shortly thereafter).

    LEARN TO LIVE AMBIGUITY: Chaos and Brownian movement are called 
"flexibility."


                 SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT NORMS AT DEC

    HARD WORK/LONG HOURS: Fix the same problems over and over and over.

    A POSITIVE ATTITUDE: "The company walks on water"

    THERE IS A STRONG RESULTS ORIENTATION IN THE COMPANY: ... whether the 
results have real quality or utility or not.

    THERE IS FOCUS ON COST CONSCIOUSNESS - EFFICIENCY, LACK OF SUFFICIENT
    MANPOWER, A "DO EVERYTHING WITH NOTHING" ATTITUDE: cut things that get the 
job done and keep us in business ... throw $ money at fluff and "show."

    THERE IS FREEDOM IN HOURS, DRESS, ETC., IF YOU PRODUCE RESULTS: However, 
when you do show up, wear a suit and tie.

    THERE IS A NORM SUPPORTING "DO IT YOURSELF IF THE SYSTEM WON'T": Even if it 
can be done better from the start, try to make silk purses out of sows' ears (or 
atleast SAY you have a silk purse when you're done).

    DIRECT CONTACT IS BETTER THAN GOING THROUGH THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHAIN: BARF!

    THERE ARE NORMS AGAINST STANDARDIZATION: If there's enough chaos, no one can 
identify your faults.

    THERE ARE NORMS OF ACCEPTABLE MORALITY: ... However, ethics have no place.

    THERE IS A NORM SUPPORTING RISK-TAKING: ... Set up others to take the risks 
(those poor suckers!).

    THERE IS A NORM FAVOURING "TRY IT" LEARNING AND A "WORK THE PROBLEM"
    ORIENTATION:  Letting good ideas be smothered by "committees."

    DIFFERENCES IN MANAGEMENT STYLE ARE ACCEPTED: ... including the bad ones.

    THE INDIVIDUAL IS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE: ... mostly when there's a 
buck to be passed.

    THERE IS A NORM FAVOURING OPENNESS: ... so you can set yourself up for the 
kill.

    WHETHER THAT'S KNOWING DIGITAL I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M STILL HERE AND
    ENJOYING IT. I THINK IT IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BASIC RULE I WAS GIVEN
    BY A SENIOR MANAGER: "DON'T DO ANYTHING YOU WOULDN'T LIKE TO TELL ME
    ABOUT!": for all our potential and energy, we spend most of it shooting our 
own company in the head (that's were constructive thinking is done).

    OUTLAW: Darwin
    

    re .17
    
    >                    <<< Note 1247.17 by CSS::DCOX >>>
    > When  we  use the phrase "knowing Digital" within the context  we 
    > have  talked about here, I think we are talking about knowing how to 
    > get things done within Digital.  
    
    I agree heartily.  Further, I think it often takes very little time for
    an individual contributor to learn how to get things done here.  If the
    resources available (boss, colleagues, etc) know it, they can be tapped
    for guidance.
    
    
    re Good Old Boy Network (GABNET)
    
    Yes, it exists here, but at the lower and middle levels, one need not
    be old (seniority-wise) male to join: competence and attitude are all
    that seems to be required.  The GABNET you join might not be the
    crusty, closed-minded, ineffective managers (who don't make that many
    decisions beyond where to have the after-work drink and who to invite)
    but rather the folks who *DO* things.  
    
    If you *DO* things, then the useful folks notice and work with you.  If
    you *TRY* to do things (rather than whine a lot), then they contact you
    when they need help you can provide and they take you seriously when
    you suggest that something isn't going to work.
    
    Lee