Conference 7.286::digital

    Re .0
    
    Congratulations on trying to let the highest level of decision makers
    know what is happening down in the trenches.
    
    A comment:
    
    What's the betting that the outcome of this memo will be a policy that
    further restricts the passing of information around the network. I've
    already seen this memo a couple of times but it is interesting to note
    that it was immediately censored from this notesfile the first time it
    was posted because it violated the "No mail messages authored by others
    in a notesfile policy".
    
    And let us not forget that this policy was put into place after some
    previous memos on TFSO/COD planning were circulated. My own bet is if
    more thought had been given to the reorgs that started 3 years ago
    we wouldn't be in this sorry state now. If a system was in place to
    allow better information flow that bypassed the information benders
    the company would be able to make sounder decisions and get decent
    feedback quickly. But NO, each new policy tries to clamp down on
    information flow so that poor decisions can continue to be made
    behind closed doors.
    
    It is interesting to note that two very poor decisions (1, Elimination
    of reimbursement for inter-plant travel and 2, Biweekly paychecks) were
    rescinded before they had a chance to do any real damage. I think a
    large part of that was due to the airing these issues got in this
    notesfile as well as through circulated mail messages.
    
    Good decisions stand on their own merit, no matter how much they are
    scrutinized. Bad decisions only stand if they are kept in the dark.
    
    Dave

    
    
    	re .0
    
    	Did you get any assurances that "the process" would be widely
    	communicated ?
    
    					Mike
    					----

     re .0
    
    	Congratulations for having the courage to articulate (rather well I
    might add) the state of the company as seen from down below. I would
    like to think that something positive will occur as a result of your
    actions, but having attempted myself to deal with some of the folks you
    addressed in your memo on another issue, I remain skeptical. As
    inconceivable as it may seem that this could be considered a
    "non-problem", unless they hear the same message directly from
    literally hundreds of other employees then it's conceivable that they could
    believe this to be an isolated problem. I sure hope that someone will
    wake up before it's too late (if it isn't already). I'm afraid the only
    way to fix things will be for Ken to shake the company to it's roots
    and then rebuild it from scratch. Perhaps that's what NMS is going to
    do.
    
    /ray.
    

Re: .1

I want to respond to Dave's comments about the earlier version of Dick
Joseph's memo being "censored" (as he puts it.)

We (the DIGITAL moderators) removed the earlier version of the memo, posted
by someone else, for the following reasons:

	1.  It was not clear that the poster had the author's permission
	    to post the note; corporate policy on this is quite clear.

	2.  The poster had removed mail forwarding headers and part of the
	    original message text before posting the note, making it
	    unclear as to just whom had received the memo.

We asked the poster if he had permission, and he said "no".  I later was
contact by Dick Joseph who said that he wanted the memo entered.  I
replied that we'd be delighted for him to do so, and asked that he clarify
what actions had been taken and who had seen the message, to which he
readily agreed.  So here it is.

In my personal view, the policy prohibiting  posting memos written by others 
without the author's permission is a good one.  Context is often important,
and the author may find that their message, stripped from context and
broadcast to those the author never intended, may have serious and negative
effects to the author.

The moderators wish to encourage the flow of information, but not to the
extent of possible harm to individual employees or Digital as a corporation.

We don't ask much - only that you get permission before posting someone else's
message in the notesfile, and that you retain all identifying information.
(I recall several years ago someone taking a memo I had written describing
a presentation about several unannounced products, and submitting it to
a corporate-wide MAIL distribution list, but not before removing my name and
substituting their own!  It's incidents like this that the policy is 
intended to prevent.)

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write any of us -
use SHOW MODERATOR to see the current list including MAIL addresses. 

				Steve

    Given upper "management's" single-minded, almost maniacal obsession
    with short term profit at any cost, I don't expect any improvement.
    
    We would know that K.O. and company were truly concerned if the manager
    who allowed that horrible incident cited in .0 to happen was summarily
    fired, without severance support.  Anybody wanna bet on whether that
    will happen?
    
    ....and the death spiral continues.

    On the subjects of :
    1. Leadership - the qualities most of us are looking for are found in
    the direction and honesty in the way we are dealt with. Managers who
    hide behind what's flowing downhill are not leaders.
    
    2. Management - the dozen or so "managers" at the top have been giving
    us the tough guy act for the past 2-3 years, but no real management,
    the middle managers have for many years seeked higher level by building
    larger and larger organizations - pushing themselves upward, there is
    the problem.
    
    3. Too Big - not really the problem, too many irons in the fire is more
    of a problem as I see it. Too many products, all trying to compete in
    many different markets.
    
    4. C.O.D. (and other programs) - we tried to have successful people
    move from what made them successful into field jobs closer to
    customers, without teaching them what that meant and without changing
    our field organization. It's like measuring engineers on units sold,
    when they are concerned about 'units working'. The oter problem with
    COD is that the commitments to the employees that moved to the field
    were forgotten, a common field sales attribute. Everyone I know in this
    program was told "18 months training and OJT before going on budget",
    that's BS.
    
    5. "The Package" was/is not administered the same across the company.
    That is understandable where foreign countries are concerned, but not
    equally across the USA is a BIG problem. It has become "Jobs for
    friends" and "I don't know nuthin". 
    
    Now is a good time for a take over because Digital is no longer
    different, it is just like the other big corporate machines - too bad!
    
    Jim 

    Re -1, Amen to your comment about field commitments being forgotten.
    
    I am a survivor of the ill-fated Target Sales Force.  We were also
    given promises, some even in writing, which were then abandoned in
    their entirety.  When our "management" was challenged we were told
    "things change".
    
    A lot of these clowns are still around screwing things up.
    

    I heard the head of Coca-Cola interviewed yesterday on public radio.
    He said something very profound that he apparently has identified as a
    problem that upper-level managers of today tend to have.  He said that
    when you make a decision you have to remember that you are really
    making two decisions.  By illustration, when you get up in the morning
    and decide on a tie to wear, you are also deciding to continue to wear
    the tie for the rest of the day.  Similarly, competent managers that
    make decisions are also deciding on commitment to those decisions.
    Our management did not apparently recognize the dual-nature of such 
    decisions with regard to, for example, COD.  But, as the head of
    Coca-Cola points out, it is a common problem with upper-level
    management.
    
    Steve

    re: .8
    
    Steve,
          that's an excellent point. All too often, outwith TFSO/COD etc.,
    in digital a lot of effort goes into developing policies which may
    or may not be well thought out. Bottom line is that these policies
    are all to often ignored by management (or even UNKNOWN to management)
    in part or in whole.
    
          Further, digital seems to have a prediliction with freedom of
    choice. By this I mean that there are no standards when it comes to
    implementing products/projects within digital. What I mean by this
    is in Manf. why do we have MAXCIM, PIOS, IMPCON, MANMAN, DMS, 
    Internally developed databases ?? - and that's just in Europe!
    
          I guess it comes as no surprise to me that implementing TFSO
    in it's various manifestations was going to be non-standard across
    the U.S. and that the disgraceful treatment of the COD people was
    inevitable given the lack of forward vision by management, on the
    one hand and the gullible loyalty of employees on the other.
    
          In some respects digital hasn't changed much at all - organised
    chaos, minus any dignity.
    
    Don H.
    

    I want to congratulate Mr. Joseph for a beautifully written piece
    on the agony of layoffs badly planned.  (It's rather long, but I
    was absorbed by it.)
    
    How could you expect Digital to manage its first-ever layoffs well? 
    Doing them well is apparently a corporate skill, one which Digital
    thankfully never practiced before.  That tales of horror and barbarism
    should be told is not surprising.  I submit that things could have been
    even worse: at another computer corporation, it is said, the employees
    rioted, and the local police had to be called.  A document outlining
    Digital's "layoff style," if you will, is a grimly good idea.
    
    The later remark that Digital has "instantly, completely, and perhaps
    irrevocably destroyed its credibility" as a people company is also very
    true.  At another computer maker, it is said, the founder called all
    employees to a meeting in the cafeteria, and assured them he would
    never lay them off.  The company was very much a cult of personality,
    whose founder was revered as is KO here.  The employees believed him. 
    He was forced to eat his words, and perhaps that is what killed him. 
    One who was there has spoken of the shattering impact of the first wave
    of layoffs there for those who had heard the founder speak.  Those of
    us who think of corporate culture know that Digital has changed its
    culture in a significant way.

    Re .10
    	Steve, was that Edison DeCastro from Data General that you were
    referring to? If so, I remember that cafeteria scene well (It's amazing
    how convincing Captain Eddy appeared to be but the truth came out one
    year later!)
    		Cindy

    Nicely put, .10.
    
    I really feel, however, that it is probably time to stop talking
    about a Digital "culture", once and for all.  Anything that ever made
    us different has been swept away by a tidal wave of layoffs.
    

    re: .11
    
    Since DeCastro is still alive, I believe Steve was referring to Dr.
    Wang.
    
    Chris Lane
    

    re: the last few
    
    DeCastro sounds like the name they had on the report.  I thought his
    comments were quite valuable and have taken them to heart.
    
    Steve

    RE 	 If I were manager....
    
    Right you are Dick.  Obviously you possess a rare quality 
    that is missing these days....GUTS.  I've seen enough of this
    "roll-over-and-play-dead" style of management to make me ill.
    
    DO the uncomfortable things. Make the TOUGH decisions.
    STICK your neck out to do the right thing whether 
    or not it will feather your nest or it's it's politically 
    correct.
    
    Then....YOU OWN IT.  You are ACCOUNTABLE. You get the parade
    and glory if it flies.  You get the heat if it fails.
    
    GUTS and ACCOUNTABLITY will turn this company around.
    
    whew...there...I feel better now.
    
    Mark
            
                                               

    RE.  15  Security Gestapo.
    
       The managers request security, or security would not be there......
    
    charlie
    

    re: .17
    
    Or in the case of field offices, security was dictated by management in
    *other* locations...  

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    Reminds me of a story that a reserve army officer told me.  He was told
    by  a staff sargeant on training about what happens if your unit really
    gets into trouble. He said (paraphrasing):

    "All the  perks,  the  officers  mess, the adjutants, the uniforms, the
    careers, the lack of physical work etc etc of an officer is to be payed
    back  now.  You are responsible, it's YOU who must take the lead, stick
    your head up, find a way out of the situation, stand up under fire, and
    LEAD THEM OUT!"

    The moral is if you are getting paid to preform this function, then you
    should  have the (errr) intestinal fortitude to know that these are the
    circumstances your privileges have paid you for.

	   Yes, accountability and guts just about sums it all up.

    RE .19   Thank You!  I hope it is widely distributed.
    
    I also like the idea of an objective party outside    
    of DEC looking at the organizational mess....managers
    with only couple of reports, or none at all etc..
                                                            
    The reason I mention this is that when I had an opportunity
    to discuss this situation with someone at a higher level,
    explaining how more could be done with less, I heard 
    something like "blah blah...need specialized skills..blah blah."
    Bullsh*t.  I have come to the conclusion that there isn't
    anyone internally at any level that could objectively
    look at this.  
    
    We should do it now before somebody buys DEC and does it
    for us.
    
    Mark
    
    

    Someone called to my attention the inapppropriateness of my use
    of the word Gestapo in .15
    
    Having cooled off somewhat I agree, and also wish to apologize
    to anyone whose feelings I may have hurt.  Maybe I thought I
    was in Soapbox.
    
    However, my basic position remains unchanged.....a shameful way
    to handle things.  If I hire you, I'll see you to the door as
    well and probably help you carry your boxes out.

    
    From Digital Today, July 8, 1991. 
    
    "Questions Answered about Downsizing" Yeah, right.
    
    "Q: If I am a borderline performer should I start looking for
     another position?"
    
    "A: Your manager is in a position to advise you on how to improve
     your performance and develop the skills that are needed in today's
     market place."
    
     "Q: Why weren't we given an opportunity to find other jobs in other
      organizations?"
    
     "A: We have made the decision that we would have a common date
      announcement date for each employee and that everyone would have
      equal treatment to look at opportunities outside of the company."
    
     Okay, who wrote this stuff anyway??  Words fail me when I try to
     describe how I feel about this little work of art.
    
    /prc

    Yeh....I can't believe that the editor of Digital Today actually
    agreed to publish that pile of trash.  Until I saw it, I would
    never have believed that Digital actually has its own Ministry of
    Propaganda.  The "unanswer" to the question about voluntary
    departures was a classic....Goebels would have loved it!

RE: .22, .23, .24

Upper management in this company seems to resemble an old-style Communist
Politburo more and more with each passing day.  Regarding the Digital Toady
(misspelling intentional) article, I wish they wouldn't insult my intelligence
with that kind of garbage.  Being laid off means that, for whatever reason,
the powers-that-be in the company feel that they don't need you any more.
Painful to accept, but true.  No amount of whitewash can hide that fact.

--PSW

    re: Digital Today, and other "Rightsizing" messages
    
    I have seen a couple of different "news articles" in the internal
    press, and have gotten a couple of one-page memos in the mail from
    Management.  None of which say much, but then that's to be expected
    since this company hasn't got a clue about how to lay off people.
    Management will learn quick, or they will suffer the consequences
    morale and productivity plummet.  Trying to put a smiley face on
    the situation and dodging the tough questions will work, for those
    people who are good at believing what they *want* to believe.  It
    strikes fear into the hearts of a good many others, because it
    undermines their faith in the competence and integrity of management.
    
    We all know the answers to the really tough questions:  People in
    this company are going to lose their jobs if the company as a whole
    cannot perform well.  If the company continues to perform poorly,
    the layoff process will continue to occur.  Redeploying people into
    other jobs only moves the expense around, it doesn't eliminate it.
    Employees aren't going to get much notice, because it doesn't benefit
    the company any, and since the employees in question aren't going to
    be employees much longer, the company isn't terribly concerned that 
    it will cause negative feelings.  Besides, that's really what the
    severance pay is for, your salary to go and look for another job.
    
    Tough answers, but these are tough times, and our managers should
    be tough enough to tell us about it straight.
    
    Geoff Unland
    

    Geoff:
    
    Your point has been accepted by many people....people will go if
    the company isn't performing well.  However, months ago I read an
    article on LiveWire that clearly stated performance ratings AND
    budgets would be major factors in the decision.
    
    I have just witnessed sales reps....2 performers.....some 200%
    of budget walked to the door....and others who weren't even remotely
    close to budget still here.  If some of the reps still here haven't
    booked any business in almost 2 years, why should we assume they
    will acquire the skills now?  This is what scares the bejeebers out
    of me!!
    
    Sometimes I feel as if I've just been transported into a bad episode
    of MASH :-(
    
    Karen
    

    re: .-1  "who got laid off, and why ..."
    
    One of the most unsettling things about the way DEC is doing this 
    layoff is that the evaluation criteria used is a secret process 
    (at least to me).  I, too, know of people who got laid off who had 
    met or exceeded their goalsheets.  I don't doubt that management 
    had some reason for picking those people, but they haven't shared 
    them with anyone I know.  If nothing else can be said of unions, 
    consider this:  Companies that have employee unions have to defend
    their selections fairly rigorously.  That means the process used
    to select employees is known, and an individual employee can usually
    find out exactly where they stand in the rankings simply by asking.
    It doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the criteria used, but it
    does mean that you know where you stand. 
    
    So far in our case this hasn't happened.  I've read the various memos
    about what criteria are supposed to be used, but I've also heard a
    number of *different* things from the actual managers who have done
    the "laying off" in my area.  Things aren't quite adding up, either. 
    
    The consequence is obvious:  Rank and file employees really don't
    have any way to judge the security of their jobs.  Performance and
    meeting goals may not be the best way of keeping your job in the
    "New Digital", if the last round of layoffs is any indicator.  Let's
    face it, if your job now depends more upon how many middle managers
    recognize your name (favorably, of course) than it does on how well
    you've met your goalsheet, then a lot more people are going to spend
    their time covering their behinds than they are doing useful work.
    
    Needless to say, I don't think this is good for us or the company.
    
    Geoff Unland

    re: layoff selection criteria for sales
    
    Our District Mgr told us that the layoff was supposed to be focused on
    overall skills and future needs, rather than "making numbers".  He said
    that some people are likely to "make their numbers" in any given year
    _despite_ their efforts, rather than _because_ of them  (Can't
    remember who told me, but someone told me that a certain customer
    rated the salesperson very low on the customer survey, but liked the
    rest of Digital very much; result: big sale made _despite_ the sales
    rep who made his/her numbers).  Likewise, a good rep could look lousy
    on paper simply because the customer wasn't able to part with
    sufficient funds during the year to make the rep look good (in the
    Gov't arena, for instance, Desert Storm did a lot to dry up funds for
    several months).
    
    So, supposedly, the effort was to be centered on skills, rather than
    which rep had a good or bad year.
    
    Obviously, you mileage may vary considerably.
    
    -- Russ

    From what I've seen and heard, the first criteria in determining which
    people will receive TFSO is their business function or projects they
    may be working on.  If I were a manager, I might then determine that
    Project X is high-risk with a low profit potential, and my decision may
    therefore be to offer TFSO to all those people on Project X.  The
    difficulty comes when the Project X folks are high performers, while
    the hypothetical Project Y folks (a high-potential project) are low
    performers, but happen to be on the right project at the time.  This
    dilemma results in good people being shown the door, but also makes
    *some* business sense because it's keeping Project Y active. 
    
    One may argue that one or more individuals on Project Y be shown the
    door, and an appropriate number of Project X folks be given those jobs
    from Project Y.  But, then we raise the questions of re-skilling folks
    into the new project or the potential delays in Project Y because
    x-number of people have to be brought up-to-speed.  Not to mention the
    potential legal hassles in trying to justify the decision.
    
    It's a tough decision from a manager's perspective.  Another problem
    comes when it's determined that 4 people, for example, could accomplish
    a project when there are 6 people working on it.  How does a manager
    determine which two will be offered TFSO?  I've seen that done
    differently in different groups; one group offered it to all with the
    understanding that only two acceptances would be granted on a
    first-come-first-serve basis, and another group used performance
    criteria.
    
    Of course, then we get into politic games where a manager determines
    that Project X can be axed, so he transfers the people who aren't in
    the clique into that project, then a month or so later eliminates the
    project.  All the while, he's put his favorite people into projects
    that he knows will continue. [true story.]
    
    In short:  The system leaves a whole lot of discretion with Management. 
    Good managers are faced with tough decision, but the flexibility of
    different techniques to make the BEST decisions for the company and for
    his/her people.  But, with Digital's philosophy of leaving discretion
    with Management, there are bad managers out there who abuse it. 
    I guess it's a personal decision as to what we feel is best.  I like
    the idea that my manager has the options available to do what he feels
    is right; I'd alternately HATE a union-type shop that doesn't allow
    that flexibility (where seniority is everything, regardless of ability,
    for example).
    
    Disclaimer:  I'm talking only of what I've seen.  I have no idea how a
    manager of a sales team, for example, would choose among team members. 
    But I do know that we have a lot of managers who are trying their best
    in dealing with difficult decisions.  
    

    re: 1520.30 by PIPPER::LEBLANCR "Ruth E. LeBlanc, Pipper::LeBlancR"
    
>    One may argue that one or more individuals on Project Y be shown the
>    door, and an appropriate number of Project X folks be given those jobs
>    from Project Y.  But, then we raise the questions of re-skilling folks
>    into the new project or the potential delays in Project Y because
>    x-number of people have to be brought up-to-speed.  Not to mention the
>    potential legal hassles in trying to justify the decision.
    
    This behavior illustrates the worst type of short-sightedness.  Sure,
    it lessens the impact to the current program, but what about future
    programs?  Whenever we sacrifice a qualified and versatile employee
    just because they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time,
    then we are just destroying our hopes of becoming a player in the
    systems integration industry in the long term.  Too bad ...
    
    Geoff
    

    I agree with Geoff.  In order to win in the long run we need to commit
    to retraining good people and to using them once they are retrained.
    Wouldn't it be nice if Digital made a commitment to keeping the best
    and brightest and in continuing to invest in them through retraining as 
    market conditions changed?
    
    Steve

    RE: .31 & .32:  Amen.  I was callin' 'em as I sees 'em, not as I think
    they should be.  My mother, who *was* a long-term DECcie, found herself
    on a bogus project, then shown the door.  DEC lost a dedicated and
    experienced person, all because of short-sight
    
    On the bright side, I *have* seen managers doing this process with
    morals, ethics, and human consideration, but the few bad ones are
    really hurting us.
    
    :-(
    

    I concur with Geoff (with the exception of unions :-); we are
    hurting DEC by not discussing *whatever* critera was used so far.
    
    But then again, perhaps there a some georgraphic areas who perhaps
    don't want anyone scrutinizing their critera too closely????
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I've already discussed a friend who had been a 2 performer all but
    her first 6 months in sales.....4 straight DEC 100's and DECathalon
    in '88.  She was well over budget.......she had been with DEC 15
    years.  NOT knowing why she was cut when others who are 20% of budget
    were kept (and reassigned to dubious accounts that stretch the
    theory of project importance being a consideration) anyway....not knowing
    almost turned a highly motivated and self-assured professional into
    a basket case for a few weeks.   She said she could have handled
    being told everyone on her team was a 2 performer....everyone had
    more than exceeded budget...but someone had to go....so a name was
    picked out of a hat <---------this she could have handled.
    
    As far as business going away......the rep who picked up her accounts
    had the audacity to call my friend at home.....see if they could
    "do lunch" and my friend could fill the new rep in on each account!!
    My friend agreed to the lunch because she was hired by one of our
    largest distributors.....so she'll hopefully get a leg up starting
    over.....stupid she is not!!  If she works even half as hard for
    the distributor as she did for DEC the last 15 years.....she'll
    probably be much better off financially!!!!
     
    I'm still not sure what to think of Ms. Sensitivity making
    that phone call yet :-(
    
    Someone else made the point about non-performers being given the
    package.......I witnessed this also.  A co-worker in a former group
    was constantly on verbal or written warning.....when things would
    get too hot the individual would suddenly be out on stressed re-
    lated STD.  That group had 6 managers in 5 years.....so there was
    never one manager in place long enough to follow established pro-
    cedures required to terminate a non-performer, thus the last manager
    used the package to get rid the individual.....needless to say, this
    individual had a BIG smile on her face the day she was notified....
    she got TFSO II!!!!
    
    

    Re .0
    
    Discussion seems to have drifted a bit from the subject of .0. Just
    wanted to wish you good luck on August 6th. Let us know what
    transpires.
    
    Dave

    I think my last entry might be more pertinent than you think.  The
    friend I spoke of was called at her home Monday evening by a VP of
    this company.  She forgot to ask how he found out about her, but
    he made it very clear he was looking into reports that there were
    some areas blatantly abusing the process that Dick described in 
    the base note.  She had a breakfast meeting with one of his rep-
    presentatives this AM.
    
    My friend was rather impressed by the VP's representative....she
    really expected to be given lip-service.....and she walked away
    from the breakfast feeling different.  She said they both agreed
    that quite a bit of down-sizing would have to happen, but he
    indicated the radio report of 20,000 still to go in FY 92 was still
    off the plans for FY '92.....but agreed (assuming DEC is still
    intact in a few more years).....that a population of 80-85,000
    would probably be more realistic.
    
    So it would appear that the noise level is starting to penetrate
    walls we thought sound-proof (or maybe it's the stench wafting
    in under the doors).
    
    Karen
    
    
    It would appear that people *are* starting to pay attention to the efforts
    made by people like Dick Joseph and others.....guess we all have to
    hope that it isn't too late.

    
    With all the long term employees who were supposedly good performers
    over their careers having been shown the door one has too wonder how
    many managers started looking at other employee cost areas when making
    some of their decisions. 

    It is very important to retain the most qualified personnel during the
    much needed down-sizing. However, some of the people making the choices
    are the same ones who directed Digital into its current problems.
    Therefore, who is and who is not qualified? 
    
    A change is necessary. To effect change, you must change the positions
    and resposnsibilities of the people implimenting the change. You can
    not assign the same person to the same job of new title and expect
    change.
    
    Their has been some change in the directorate level of Digital and
    personally I think this has been good. However, there has been little
    change in the mid range and lower levels of management. 
    
    I must say that constructive discussion is necessary to achieve good
    behavior (of managers and all of Digital's employees).
    
    Rex D. Jones