Conference 7.286::digital

    I think promotion by testing is a good idea.  The alternative can
    degenerate into promotion as a favor to boot-lickers, or for time in
    grade.  I would like to see the whole company eventually move to
    promotion by testing, with standardized tests for each position.
    
    Tests need not be of the "multiple guess" variety, or even written.
    For example, a sales person might be presented with a scenario using
    actors so that his ability to deal with people in various situations
    can be judged.  Part of a Customer Services person's exam should be
    based on his ability to handle irate simulated customers.
    
    I have been taught that the Chinese civil service system was excellent,
    and that this was because they used competitive examinations for
    promotion.  I think the U.S. Civil Service system also does this,
    though I don't know how effective it is.
        John Sauter

	Would the Postal Service be a good example of possible results? :>)

    In a previous incarnation as a trainer, I learned that testing is
    appropriate for specific, factual-type of knowledge. When it comes to
    intangibles, for example "how to be a good manager", testing is not
    generally pertinent.  Of course, learning/perceptual styles vary
    widely; someone who learns best by diving in and experiencing may not
    do well at all on a written test.
    
    Lynn

    
      Lot's of groups are starting something similar.  In Customer 
    Services,  the CDP program (Career Development Progam) just recently
    put in place, is required for any engineer seeking promotion. It's
    a formal training/mentor program taylored to the individual depending
    on the level + area of expertize.
    

	... "board" grilling and an assesment of skills by an independent
contractor using actors and set senarios, right?  The assesment is early-on,
the board later, if I recall my CS counterparts' conversations.

	The entire US Field org is going to a standard set of courses and an
assesment center evaluation for management candidates.  CS is doing formally
what goes on informally (if at all!) in Sales and EIS with the mentoring
concept.  They also kept the traditional "board" review.

    Field Service has used the "board" method of testing for many years,
    and as far as I know still does.
    A FS support engineer was / is required to show considerable knowledge of a
    CPU and an I/O system hardware for T7 and with more emphasis on the 
    software side for T8 and for both for T9 (Principle). (or new codes)
    A FS Unit manager was/is required to be qualified by a board and the
    same applied / applies to District manager.
    Note the board only qualified the person - it was not an automatic
    promotion. The person still had to find an open position for the
    appropriate level and interview for it.
    I attended several, both as candidate and sponsor. With the exception
    of one part of one board the boards were fair, good humoured, and realistic.
    
    As an example, I was asked who I would hire. My answer, a 30 year old,
    married- because they needed a job and would be likely to stay, caused
    considerable upset and a counselling session.
    I think it should be introduced for ALL promotions above a mid engineer
    level.  

    re: .6
    
    I think it should be used not only for promotions but also for new
    hires.  I would find it valuable to know, before choosing who to
    interview, what the applicants scored on Digital's test for promotion
    to the position they are seeking.
        John Sauter

    So where exactly does "pay for performance" come into this (if at all)?
    
    Does that mean that a Sales Rep who can sell 3x as much as the next one
    shouldn't get promoted because he/she can't pass some test?  What is
    really important in this situation -- selling more or passing a test
    (I bet I can guess KO's answer).
    
    Did you ever think that maybe "promotion boards" are just an easy way
    out for managers?  Is it harder to send you thru a "board", or is it
    harder to try and keep track of a person's actual performance?
    
    Just something to think about.
    
    GaryB
    

    It depends on how it's implemented, and I'm not convinced there's an
    optimal way to do it.  For example, some organizations have implemented
    CDP as described in earlier replies; ie, the "candidate" goes before a
    "board", but the board consists of a few of his/her peers, 1 or 2 of
    the position being sought, at least 1 manager, and 1 or 2 people of
    equal/higher position from another group.  The candidate cannot even go
    before this board until there is a defined position open.
    
    If the person passes this "board exam", it's not an automatic
    promotion; it then goes before the group management to decide whether
    or not to actually promote, which can easily (mind you, I didn't say it
    *does*) be as subjectively laden with favoritism as it was before.
    
    Jon

         Testing may produce a objective measure of knowledge, skill,
         etc.  This can be used as a part of the qualification for
         advancement.

         Periodic evaluations should also play a part.

         A review board can be used also.


         The US military (Navy I'm familiar with) have such systems,
         they are well documented.

         Generally... you must pass the test (low gate), you are then
         competing with your peers on test score + evaluation marks. 
         A board is the final hurdle for high level positions.

         Richard.

    re .10
    
    The USN does use tests for promotions, but the *big difference* is that
    EVERYBODY starts at the bottom, enlisted and officers and they work
    their way up one rank at a time.  No one comes in and says I served in
    (X countries Navy) there for I should be a Captain.  
    
    Some questions come to mind.
    
    -Do we need our managers permission to take a promotion test?
    -Does a manager have to take the person with the highest score and if
     not what justification does he have to go through to get the person he    
     wants.  Also what explaination is given to all those that scored
     higher than the selected person.
    -Should all scored be revealed?  If not, are we just told we didn't
     make the cut?
    -If I can pass a test two or three levels above where I am do I get
     promoted?
    -Is there a time in grade requirement?  In the military there is.
    -How do you handle a new hire?  Do they get the highest level passed?
    -How many times can we re-take a test?
    
    These are rhetorical questions!!!!!!
    
    Tests may reveal a lot about an individual.  I think it would be very
    difficult to design accurate tests that would delineate between levels.
    Tests could be used for a minimum knowledge level.  I can already see
    the "black market copies".
    
    I would rather be evaluated on my actual track record and if I thought
    I was not getting a fair shake, take it upstairs.
    
    For those of us that have been here for some years look how long it
    took to get JEC job descriptions.  May be they could make tests to rate
    us 1 to 5 on a PA.
    
    As much as we may not like management subjectivity I think it is the
    only way that will work.  Civil service is not the answer.
    
    I vote no. :-)
             
    I think promotions should be based on actual observed performance.

    re .11, as I understand it where it's implemented:
    
>    -Do we need our managers permission to take a promotion test?
    
    Yes, your manager acts almost as a 'sponsor'.
    
>    -Does a manager have to take the person with the highest score and if
>     not what justification does he have to go through to get the person he    
>     wants.  Also what explaination is given to all those that scored
>     higher than the selected person.
    
    There is no 'highest score'.  It's basically pass/fail, and in either
    case, the 'candidate' and manager are notified of the area(s) in which
    the board felt more work/expertise/knowledge was needed.
    
>    -Should all scored be revealed?  If not, are we just told we didn't
>     make the cut?
    
    See above.
    
>    -If I can pass a test two or three levels above where I am do I get
>     promoted?
    
    No, you can only 'test' for the next level up.
    
>    -Is there a time in grade requirement?  In the military there is.
    
    Yes; time in grade depends on your level; lower levels have less time
    in grade required, higher levels have higher requirements.
    
>    -How do you handle a new hire?  Do they get the highest level passed?
    
    Not yet determined as far as I'm aware.
    
>    -How many times can we re-take a test?
    
    As many as required to pass, I think.  There was talk about having a
    minimum time between tests if one fails; 6 months comes to mind, but I
    don't know what the final outcome of that decision was.
    
    Jon

    I see absolutely no reason why someone should obtain a manager's
    "permission" to take such a test.
    
    I can see plenty of potential abuses of such a rule.
    
    Down side wins, bad rule.
    
    Ray

Rather than a testing "system", what is needed is incorporating a section
into the standard Performance Review for "Skills Demonstrated".  The mode
of demonstration could be either by on-the-job performance or by submitting
standard test scores.  What this could reveal is:

	1.  underutilized individuals (i.e., people who have skills that
		they are not using on their current job but that are
		considered to be valuable to the company)
	2.  transferrable skills for "accelerated training" candidates
		(e.g., i'm a TOPS-20 system programming heavy, my skill
		in this regard is no longer needed by Digital, but the
		likelihood of my being able to be quickly trained as a
		VMS system programming heavy should be high)
	3.  skills that are not needed, hence indicating that i should
		consider a career shift and training on skills that are
		in fact needed

My guesstimate is that a Performance Review should be based 50% on
Performance Vs. Goals/Duties, 30% on Job Content Value (are my duties
actually valued by Digital), and 20% on Demonstrated Skills.

								paul

Re .8:

	While a sales rep. who sells 3x as much as the next one is valuable,
    there are other factors, like how much risk he exposes the company to in
    the process, that count as well.  Where there are objective criteria that
    are important to assessing someones ability to do a job, they should be
    used.  If the objective assesment shows a significant weakness, it is 
    likely to help both the individual and the company if that weakness can
    be strengthened.

Re others:

	There are potentials for abuse in any system.  When CDP was presented
    to me some time ago, I was worried about exactly those problems.  Testing 
    will neither help nor hurt that part of that problem by itself.  The 
    review that will go with implementing a testing/formal review system, 
    while not a cure all, is more likely to reduce the problem than make it 
    worse.  
	When the new program is presented to you, there is some chance that
    it will be by someone outside of your normal chain of command.  If that is 
    the case, there is also a good chance that that person is empowered to 
    check things out and make recomendations.  Talk to that person.  If done 
    carefully, it could get you out of a real tough situation.  (If done badly, 
    it can get you into an even tougher situation...)

    some people are good at testing.....
    
    some people are good at doing......
    
    some people are good at both.....
    
    some people are good at neither.....
    
    IMHO, testing might be of value in the larger context of overall
    performance measurement, but is certainly not the MAJOR factor.  I'm
    somewhat suspicious of testing as people get to know exactly what
    they will be tested on & how to max the test; also the administration
    usually leaves a lot to be desired, what with our constant people
    churning & strategy shifts.
    
    Mark
    

    If the methodology of testing can't be equally applied to the remote
    employee in Missoula, Mt as well as the engineer in the CSC the the 
    system is BAD!!
    

    As a sales support consultant I in the field, I fully expect to have to
    go in from of a peer review board whenever it seems appropriate for me
    or management to move toward my promotion.  A test would be refreshing,
    because at least that's something relatively objective.
    
    karl

Let me tell you what I have seen in my eleven+ years working for Digital:

1.  I have seen people get promoted, who did not earn a promotion,
    by comparing their performance against the job descriptions
    involved, and/or by evaluation and consensus of their peers.

2.  I have seen people NOT get promoted, who did indeed earn a promotion,
    by comparing their performance against the job descriptions
    involved, and/or by evaluation and consensus of their peers.

3.  I have seen people get unearned promotions only because they whined
    and nagged their supervisor until they got what they wanted.

4.  I have seen people get unearned promotions only because of their
    friendly personal relationship with the supervisor.

5.  I have seen people get unearned promotions, who knew they were
    unearned, and then subsequently bragged to their peers about how
    they had ripped off "the system".

6.  I have seen people get unearned promotions only because of their
    personal relationship with higher-level individual contributors
    in their field, who persuaded the supervisor involved to promote
    the person.

7.  I have seen people get unearned promotions only because they had
    spent a long time at their current level.

8.  I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because their supervisor had been unable to get a promotion to
    the level in question while the supervisor had been an individual
    contributor.

9.  I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because their supervisor had come from a different field and didn't
    understand the job descriptions in the employee's field, wouldn't
    bother to learn them, and the manager refused appeal.

10. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because the supervisor had come from another company and didn't
    understand Digital's job descriptions and promotion policies.

11. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because the supervisor had been at the level in question while they
    were an individual contributor, and was sure that no one in their
    group was as good as they were.

12. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because they had been improperly and incorrectly "black-listed"
    by another supervisor in the organization.

13. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because they had been through three reorgs in three years, getting
    a new supervisor each year, each of whom wiped the slate clean and
    made their employees start over in their career plans.

14. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because the supervisor refused to use the job descriptions as a
    basis for promotion, saying that they did things in their own way.

15. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because the supervisor would not use the employee's deliverables
    and performance over the previous 1-2 years as evidence of performance
    at the next level.

16. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because challenging assignments to make them even more promotable
    were taken away from them and given to "political favorites" within
    the group.

17. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because they were either "political outcasts", didn't pal up to
    the supervisor as much as others in the group, or similar situations
    of simply not being "liked" by the supervisor.

18. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because there were already "too many" people at the higher level
    in the group.

19. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because the supervisor could only promote a certain number or
    percentage of their people into a certain level per year, and
    some deserving people are left behind year after year.

20. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    even after exceeding expectations on all of the tasks which were
    previously established as the supervisor as being "necessary and
    sufficient" for promotion to the next level.

21. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because the supervisor refused to consider corrective action for
    past inequities even when they were acknowledged by the supervisor.

22. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    who were by all measures outperforming everyone in the group who
    were already at the next level.

23. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because the supervisor was an expert as creating "revisionist
    history", changing the events and sequence of events so as to
    support their decision.

24. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because they were not given a promised challenging assignment
    when it came up because they were on vacation and the supervisor
    seized the opportunity to give it to a "more favored employee" instead.

25. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    even though they had performed at a significantly higher level on
    an assignment than the supervisor had done when the supervisor had
    the same assignment (and had been promoted for it!).

26. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because their current challenging assignments were taken away from
    them by management as retribution for declining other "good soldier"
    but otherwise worthless assignments.

27. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    because they are intentionally kept in the same dead-end assignment
    or project year after year.

28. I have seen people who had earned promotions NOT get a promotion
    even though their project leader had written substantial review
    input supporting the employee's performance at the next level,
    and the review input was ignored because the supervisor admittedly
    didn't "like" the employee's personality.

29. I have seen people endure year after year of the same kinds of
    inequities as described above, in some cases many different varieties
    of the same ones simultaneously.

30. I have seen people, discouraged and demoralized, give up and "drop
    out" of the "system", working at far less than their potential at
    their current level, but finally beaten and unwilling to chase the
    carrot yet again.

31. I have seen people leave their chosen career specialty, at which they
    were successful and helping Digital to be successful, because of
    these constant career setbacks.

32. I have seen entire previously-successful groups decimated by massive
    attrition due to these failures of management, with the subsequent
    ripple-effect impact on their organizations and on Digital as a whole.


There's more, but that's enough for now.


Is this good for Digital?


I am indeed for some form of testing.  I believe that the current
"arbitrary and capricious" situation, where promotions and non-promotions
are left to the whim of the individual supervisor who (in my experience)
is not held accountable for the subsequent trail of human debris,
is at least partially responsible for the current condition of this
corporation and for high-tech corporations as a whole.

Like others have proposed in this topic, I would combine testing with a
peer review board, a minimum time-in-level requirement, and a firm list of
quantifiable and confirmable accomplishments that MUST be completed prior
to being qualified for the next level.  And once the testing, peer review
board, and accomplishment list all qualified/disqualified someone for
promotion, the process should make it pretty damned difficult, if not
impossible, for the whim of the supervisor to override it either way.

Let's get some discipline, formal process, and accountability into this
situation before it's too late... if it's not already too late.

Chris

    
    Testing for promotion is a good idea but, if a test is of the
    Traditional kind..........it's objective will be false.
    
    

    Testing is quite a good idea, but how can we make sure that everybody
    will be examined in same way. I mean in different countries, in
    different languages etc.
    
    Everyone is expert in some areas, how can we estimate their expertise
    to other employees, who don't do same jobs, because there is no need to
    have two exactly same kind of employees in one place.
    
    By the way I don't believe in paper tests, when someone is tested for
    managerial skills. Also if someone is in technical way very good in his
    work, I don't believe he is very good in managerial way. He or she can
    be but in most cases he isn't.

re .1
    
>    I have been taught that the Chinese civil service system was excellent,
>    and that this was because they used competitive examinations for
>    promotion.  

FWIW Department: I believe that the core of the Chinese Imperial Civil Service
exams involved writing poetry on a selected topic in a particular classic
verse style.  The system worked because it guaranteed that the only applicants
who could advance were mandarins with a formal, classic education.  The old boy
network with a vengeance! 

Larry

And how, pray tell, do we pay for the immense Corporate Career Testing 
department that will grow up to administer this idiocy?  Uniformly
designed and administered tests, applicable to hundreds of job descriptions
simply beg for a massive Digital-style matrix-managed cross-functional
BUREAUCRACY!

Besides, even if you pass the test, you're manager still has the option
to promote or not.  And do you really think there won't be some way to 
promote a "key resource" whose specialized skill set leaves him unable to 
pass some cockamamy test but who is still either highly valuabler to the 
company (or who is the boss's favorite yea-sayer)?



Also, if you truly believe that first-line management is that screwed up; 
that promotional policy is totally unfair; that neither management nor
your peers can be trusted to judge fairly the quality of your work; why
do you still work here?

This isn't a "Digital - Love it or leave it!" note.  It's really honest
request for information.  Why would any capable, sane individual continue to 
work in that sort of an organization?  If I felt that way about my immediate 
management, I'd be long gone!

-dave

    "few hours with strangers should not decide about your future life"
    was one of my friends comment on boards and tests.

    The new TCD ( in Europe, Technical career development) focus rather
    on developing skills then testing. This was also goal of now abandoned
    boards, but the board event psyhodrama took over the show very often.
    Bad thing about it is that it's not bound in time and requires lots of
    different peoples' time. With recent focus on short term we have less
    time to do long term time consuming coaching.

    Passing tests on a very well defined subject is fine as a part of
    an evaluation. But it would be crazy if it was the only or even
    important part of evaluation. What really counts in our jobs is 
    ability to learn fast and getting things done. 

    					wlodek

    Testing?
    
    The real test is when the customer buys!
    
    Those that fail the test are the ones who take profits away from the
    company!  Ceiling fixtures, (OVERHEAD) take profits away.
    
    Testing is a smoke screen, to cover the non-doers.  

    I realy think that this is a great idea. Just think of the whole new
    department that could be set up.
    	1. VP in charge
    	2. 12 world regional managers
    	3. 144 local area managers
    	4. 288 local admin people
    	5. 576 local test writers
    	6. 576 local test scorers
    	7. 576 local test review boards
    	8. National appeals review committee
    	9. Worldwide appeals review committee
    
    Yes we really need this now!!!! Testing of people will really solve
    all of our future needs. Take experience, dedication, salesmanship,
    customer care, honesty, integrity, and hard work, throw all of this 
    out in the trash can and base our future success on test scores?????
    Somebody better get a wake up call. The days of doing the right thing
    seem to gone forever, replaced by rocket scientists who can't put their
    shoes on the right feet. Why do all the ivory tower people seem to be 
    always sitting on their assetts.
    	
    	My 2 1/2 cents worth
    	
    	John

    Testing?
    
    Some people may test
    brilliantly, but may not be able 
    to empty a boot filled with pi$$,
    even if the directions were written on the soles.
    
    Get real, experience is the best teacher, the test is,
    can you bring in the bucks for the corporation?
    
    I suggest, instead of tests, make peopel carry a number. 
    1-What they save the company.
    0r
    2-What they bring in thats profitable.
    
    Remember, a company has two-2 real functions:
    	Make things
    	    and
    	Sell things
    
    All other operations are fluff!
	
    The ability to be profitable is everybodies job, testing will not
    identify profits, it will only generate expenses.
    
    Therefore:  Save some money or make some!  Pick one and do it well!

re: .-1,.-2

Gawd, why does any suggestion for change always bring out the worst-case
scenario doomsayers?

Testing should NOT be the sole determinant for performance measurements
or promotions.  It should be an OPTION for the employee to demonstrate
competence in skills that they are not given the opportunity to demonstrate
as part of their assigned work.  There are folks at lower SRI levels who
have decent skills, but their management buries them in dead-end work where
they never have the chance to demonstrate those skills.  Give them a way
out of this!  Skills are valuable to the company, but the company can
hardly be expected to take advantage of them if it doesn't know they're
there due to bad local management practices.  (And, on the other, you
can't be expected to believe every computer operator who says "I'm a C
programmer!" because they wrote a "hello, world" program once.)

It seems to me that any time a suggestion to do something different gets
introduced here, we bury it under a torrent of knee-jerk negative reaction:
it's always "that won't work!", rather than "there might be some variation
of this idea that would be workable--let's brainstorm what that might be".

								paul

    re: .25,.27
    
    Indeed, the point is, what is your contribution? 
    
    According to recent discussions with US Sales Support, CONSULTANT I
    and CONSULTANT II people still have their best shot at a promotion if
    they create the opportunity for themselves by developing multi-million
    dollar business. Field slots for CONSULTANT III are not created unless
    there is a BUSINESS NEED for the position. 
    
    How better to get promoted than to create the position yourself?  
    
    RE: testing
    
    Tests have been proven to only measure your ability to take tests.
    
    The discussion about Testing has been going on for two decades - how
    many of you have gotten your CDP (Certificate of Data Processing) or
    CCP (Certificate of Computer Programming)? And how has it helped?

    I am hoping our executive management read these notes, because digital
    can really improve if we institute tests not only for promotion but
    for hiring just like IBM and HP. Mind you these tests are only valid
    when used in a relative mode, i.e. the competence tests are administered
    to a number of candidates, with an offer extended to the candidate
    with the top score. Naturally there are other factors which come
    to mind when making the final selection. These tests need not be of
    specific content, but should focus on generic and hypothetical
    scenarios which portray situations likely to occur on the job.
    This is a very efficient way to remove incompetence from our ranks.
    
    I am all for it!!!!
    
    Franc.
      

Nobody has addressed the equal-opportunity aspect of testing.  If you're
going to have tests, you'd better make provisions for blind, deaf, learning
disabled and non-native-speaking employees.  You'd also better not have
tests with a cultural bias.

    re .30
    
    Yeah, I had to take one of those stupid "programming aptitude
    test" things 14 years ago when I applied for a job with IBM.
    They used to be called "IQ tests" until that got to be a
    dirty concept.
    
    The only thing such tests tell anyone is that they tell the
    would-be employee that he/she ought to have more sense to 
    apply to a company that deals in such mumbo-jumbo.
    
    Wanna know whether I can program?  Well, ask me about programming,
    for pity's sake.  

    The concept of testing brings out the worst in me. I opposed it
    very strongly when I went to some technical training and was
    expected to take a pre- and a post-test. Believe it or
    not, the test results were used to measure the INSTRUCTOR!!
    (Of course, little things like employees without prerequisties
    or who didn't want to learn would be HER fault :-)) For those who
    say, "Give it a chance, don't assume the results will be 
    incorrectly applied", I think people find ingenious ways
    of misusing test scores. 
    
    In short:
    
    o I don't want another metric to meet; another number
      that is substituted for my real value to DEC
    
    o My test is EVERY DAY, EIGHT (nine, ten, eleven...) hours
      a day. I meet my customer's needs and I pass. How do
      you measure that??

    When I wanted to advance from T5 (Field Service) to a Support Engineer
    (T7), I was told to enroll in the Technical Career Development Program. 
    I did so, and sat there for *months* while nothing happened.  
    
    It suddenly occured to me that my career development was going to
    stagnate unless *I* did something about it.  I learned that Digital was
    not going to advance me.  I had to advance myself.  Like many other
    things in life, control over this was in my own hands.  Digital was
    offering me a tool to use (the TCDP and boards) but were not going to
    force them down my throat.
    
    As soon as I realized this, *I* made things happen.  I studied, I
    requested interviews to prepare myself for the board, and I steered my
    own ship.  In Feb, 87 I went to the boards in Houston...and passed with
    flying colors (at least thats what I was told).  
    
    As others have noted, passing the board furnished me with a "license"
    to a specefic job in F.S.  I interviewed and when an opening came up,
    competed with others for the same opportunity.  Passing the board did
    not GET the job... but it opened the door for it.
    
    I say this to point out that we often fall into the trap of sitting
    back and waiting for someone else to "give" us our
    promotions/advancements...when, in fact, a LOT of that is in our own
    hands.
    
    I support the board of review procedure, because it provided me with a
    tool, and incentive, and specific goals, which drove me to improve
    myself, and to make myself noticed by those in a position to help.  
    
    It doesn't "just happen"... we "make it happen".
    
    tony

    RE: 32,33
    
    Don't argue with Success, IBM stock value is twice DEC's!!!
     
    

    Sorry this is late but I've just logged in after a few days absence.
    
    RE: .19
    
    It's funny but I'm sure I don't know you.  Yet after stating everything
    that you have seen regarding promotions, I'm sure that you work in our
    department!
    
    Linda
    

        Re: .35

>    Don't argue with Success, IBM stock value is twice DEC's!!!

        If success is related to the stock price, Digital shouldn't
        worry about productivity.  Instead we should immediately
        institute a 1-for-10 reverse stock split.  That would drive
        the price up tremendously and make us successfully beyond your
        wildest dreams.

        If you are concerned about the total value of outstanding stock,
        IBM is far ahead of Digital and even being massively successful
        in all our endeavors won't let us catch up in the short term.

        					B.J.

    Could the moderator change the title of this to:
    
         "Promotion by Testing"
    
    This might give us a chance to find it in the future with "DIR/TITLE".
    
    Thanks,
    
    - Dave

Re: .38

Done.
		Steve