Conference 7.286::digital

1516.0. "The test of character" by QUARK::MODERATOR () Mon Jul 01 1991 16:16

    The following topic has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






I'm a sales rep that recently found out my slot will "not be funded" next
year.  I'm over 100% budget, made all of my goalsheet gates, and was
recently rated a solid "3" performer.

My boss has "hinted" but refused to confirm or substantiate that I will
be "let go" on July 8th.  He claims he doesn't know who is on the list
or what the package contains because he doesn't want to know.  Other
manager's have acknowledged they know but won't divulge the details.

A couple of weeks ago, my boss told me that I could pursue jobs else where
in the company, and that if I had something in the pipe by July 8th I would
be allowed to pursue it.  I sent out a couple of dozen resumes and cover
letters.  Those who expressed interested told me to wait until after July
8th - that they wouldn't make any decisions until them.

This last Friday, my boss told me that "he had misunderstood". Now,
I had to have an offer by Monday July 8th - or I wouldn't be allowed
to pursue any of the interviews I had set up for after the 8th.

Everyone who I come into contact with seems to have a fatalistic attitude
about this whole thing.  Their tone and attitude sound like I've been
written off - too bad, but what do I expect?

     I am appalled at two attitudes:
     
     1) The "in crowd" versus the "out crowd"
     
     	 I understand that it is imperative to justify one's own
     	 survival in a random world by creating "cause": seeing
     	 in one's self "merit" or "worth" that justifies why
     	 they are not selected.
     
     	 But, that requires the "in crowd" to very subtly believe
     	 that the corollary applies to those selected: that they
     	 were somehow "deserving". The "in crowd" actually
     	 changes their belief about the victim to rationalize
     	 this need to see "cause" and "justice" in a random
     	 world.
     
     More significantly, I am appalled by the low moral conduct 
     of people - especially the managers running this process.
     
     2) The "Nuremberg defense" and the "they" philosophy
     
     	 There is no Digital, there is no "they". There are only
     	 real people who by real acts of commission or omission
     	 impact those around them.
     
     	 My boss - xxx - chose NOT to take action to
     	 negotiate another position within the district on my
     	 behalf.  He chose NOT to learn who is on the list to
     	 be fired and he chose NOT to be informed about what
     	 are the terms of "the package".  He made all of these
     	 choices knowing they disadvantage me, because he wanted
     	 to minimize his role in my exodus.
     
     	 There is NO defense for acting in an immoral manner. The
     	 world rejected that argument at the Nazi war crimes
     	 trial in Nuremberg and later the "Mai Lai" trial.  To
     	 allow an abusive and harmful process to continue because
     	 "they" say so, or because your "boss orders you to" or
     	 because "it's the rules, I don't make them" is morally
     	 reprehensible AND destructive of the company and it's
     	 future success.
     
     Of course it's easy to say and even believe these things - 
     until one is forced to act upon them.  But, then character 
     is only demonstrated under trial.  My boss, DM, etc. have all
     failed the test of character.

    Re .0
    
    The only thing you don't say but it seems pretty obvious to me is that:
    
    	- Your boss volunteered you for the hit list
    
    No wonder he isn't being very helpful in keeping you around. To do so
    would imply that he had made a wrong decision.
    
    The question is why did he volunteer you and not somebody else. There
    is either a legitimate reason and he is being a real sleazebag in not
    being honest with you. Or maybe he just doesn't like you or you're not
    one of his in crowd. In either case I don't think much of his actions.
    
    I'm not questioning a companies right to lay people off but in my view
    a manager should be brutally honest about why somebody is picked for a
    layoff. None of this crap about; well I'm not sure whether you are on
    the list. That is a sign of weak management. Maybe you're better off
    not working for him afterall.
    
    Dave

    There is also the possibility that the manager is being directed by
    higher authority(s) not to divulge any information.
    
    Information in this notes file and from conversations with other DECies
    leads me to the conclusion that this process is not being implemented
    in the same way in different organizations/geographies.
    
    Peter Dillard

Yes, it is being implemented differently geographies.  But what's most
striking is the differences in employee treatment even within the same cost
center.  Case in point:  On the day our group's "resizing" decision was
announced, our cost center manager had his secretary send a "see your direct
supervisor for details" message, then left to go golfing.  Not "golf" as a
metaphor, but with clubs in hand.  There's been a lot of golfing-on-DEC-time
lately.  By the "haves."  Many of whom, interestingly, are recent recipients
of brand new Chevy Lumina Plan A cars.  

It's possible I'd be less crabby about being out of work by close of business
on July 8th if I thought the cost-cutting would honestly build a more healthy
Digital.  Possibly, not.  But the flagrant combination of austerity & waste
we're seeing in Landover doesn't look much like "leaner and meaner."  Lots of
brand new RISC hardware is arriving and one guy who works under the "home" plan
keeps whining about when his new laptop will arrive.  Geez.

BTW--my direct supervisor is a four-star guy who is honestly trying to help
those who work for him, but his hands are mostly tied by the golfers, who won't
let him say or do much.