Conference 7.286::digital

   Re: <<< Note 1531.0 by CLOVAX::BARNETT >>>
            -< Let's Move Forward! >-

Well Said. I'm with you!

regards,

Jim

    It's so easy to knock .0 as yet another "Don't Worry, Be Happy" or
    "Digital has been knocked down before and has always bounced back"
    but I mention this to derail them and give to the Digital optimists
    my challenge:
    
    Convince me and convince the rest of us skeptics that the strategy that
    Digital is living right this moment will:
    
    (1) Restore Digital to profitability relative to other companies in the
    computer industry.
    
    (2) Offer products and services that will make IBM's, Sun's, and
    Apple's customers become Digital's customers.
    
    (3) Make managers accountable for their failure to meet commitments.
    
    Faith may move mountains but it doesn't sell computers and software.

    re: .2
    
    I suspect that the inablility to implement point (3) will make the
    acheiving of points (1) and (2) impossible.
    
    Don H.
    

    There is a Japanese parable about two friendly rivals, Mr Kobayashi and
    Mr Hashimoto. They are out walking in the forest when they suddenly
    come face to face with a snorting example of the dreaded high-speed
    giant wart-hog that eats human testicles, the Nakahaka. The Nakahaka
    bares it's two rows of teeth, flexes it's over-developed hind quarters
    and vibrates it's stubby bristled tail - a sure sign that it is about
    to attack.
    
    Mr Kobayashi kneels down and starts putting on a pair of running shoes.
    Mr Hashimoto says, "Don't be a fool, Kobayashi. Nobody can outrun the
    Nakahaka". Mr Kobayashi replies, "I don't have to outrun the Nakahaka, 
    I only have to outrun you".
    
    Moral of this intellesting story:- We only have to outrun our
    competition. 
    
    I'm with .0
    
    Ian

    I'd like to go along with .0 and I do my job to the best of my ability
    and feel as though I am an asset to the company.  That said, we still
    have to remember that there are 10,000 more layoffs hanging over our
    heads for FY92.  The vessel (Digital) must be stabled before we can
    chart and stay on a course.  If these layoffs need to be done, then
    let's do them NOW and tell the employees who remain that the layoffs
    are done and let's get on with things.  People don't work at there best
    with uncertainty hanging over their heads. (now I know nothing is
    certain, but the feeling about ones job here at Digital can be made
    more certain)  We have to get to the end of what we are going through
    now before we can "move on". IMHO
    
    Mike

    In principle I agree with .0, however I feel as -1 that if more layoffs
    hand over the heads of people that the moral and therefore our
    prospects of putting all this behind us are doomed.
    
    We were told on Monday at our "surviors" meeting that the NMS goals
    must be reached or else. The else was not spelled out but we all can
    imagine what will happen.
    
    I too came to Digital 4 years ago and and thought I finnally had
    arrived at a human company, after working for Jack (Neturon Bomb) Welsh
    at GE, but now I am not so sure. We all need assurance that the people
    at the top know what they are doing and have sound reasons and
    expectations, not a "well we will try this or that".
    
    frank

     
    re .0
    
    Having "great technologies and products" comes from having "great"
    people. Great technologies and products simply do not come about
    because the name of our company is Digital. Lots of the good things
    that have happened to Digital in the past were a direct result of people
    going the extra mile with most making personal sacrifices to make the 
    company successful. The spirit that moved people to perform in this
    fashion in my opinion is no longer present. Some good people have left the
    company involuntarily and little by little other folks that this
    company can ill afford to lose are leaving of their own volition. While
    both are disturbing trends, it is the latter that is the most
    disturbing. 
                     

    RE .0
    
    "great technologies and products"
    
    ...which we will be buying out instead of building from now on.
    
    Mark

    Nice try, .0,.......but until management (which got us in this mess) is
    
         1 - Held Accountable for their mistakes, and....
    
         2 - Forced to share equally in the down-sizing....
    
    I remain pessimistic.  I'm sure memo's like yours were written five
    years ago in DG and Wang too.  We all like to believe that this is the
    last lay-off.  I'm afraid that the unthinking implementation of mass
    layoffs will only lead to more....and then more.....and then more.  I
    suspect we'll be at about the 80,000 level by FY94, and a lot of that
    will be a direct function of the NMS as well as buy-rather-than-make
    decisions.
    
    Meanwhile, as so many of your colleagues are leaving, I'd suggest you
    get a cubicle where you can keep an eye on the door.

           Just a few comments on REPLY .2    
           
>   (3) Make managers accountable for their failure to meet commitments.

           How 'bout make EVERYONE accountable NOT ONLY for their
           failure to meet commitments, but REWARDED for helping others
           meet theirs?
                      
>   Faith may move mountains but it doesn't sell computers and software.

           Faith (in God and other people) does have an element of trust
           and personal relationship.  And that's true of both the
           vendor-customer relationship and the employee-manager
           relationships.

           
           Steve
           
         

    
    
    There's lots of statements about how this is all the fault of managers
    and until they do something we will be a long time in doom.
    
    To some degree the lack of vision from some of our upper-level managers
    has contributed in the havoc of today. But in business, this happens,
    has happend, and will happen again. Today however, in DEC, it's
    history, it's time to move on and yes unfortunately we will all have
    downsizing in the back of our minds for a very long time to come.
    
    So, what should we do? Should we continue to gripe? Should we feel
    fourtunate we still have jobs? Should we learn new skills? What should
    we do?
    
    How about everyone working and treating everyone weather he/she is
    internal or external as the customer. How about empowering yourself to
    change what has to be changed, from the person who is closer to the
    work up to the top. EMPOWER yourself! Corporate managers don't know how
    to do or what to do. They need our input.
    
    How about forming some teams? Who are the people that know how much it
    costs to manufacture a product vs. the product we are buying from
    vendors then slapping our name on and re-selling. How about these
    people take a look at the total cost. I bet we would find many, many
    products that should be pulled back in and we manufacture them
    ourselves at a lower cost. What does this mean? Higher profit to DEC.
    Lot's of things have changed and by building our own products again
    just might be profitable and most importantly we would keep our people
    working building our own product rather then someone else's. This could
    be product, service whatever.
    
    I could go on and on. Nuff said for now. Just think about it.
    
    BTW::  Hint-hint...... Learn everything you can about TQM!
    
    Rick
    

    Okay, I screwed up on .13 so shoot me.
    
    Fact is, all of the things that have been discussed need to happen if
    this company is to move forward.  Another fact is, life as we have
    known it--do a good job and you'll keep a good job until you retire--is
    over, not only at DEC but in most large corporations.  In addition to
    continuing to do a good job while you have one it's equally important
    to stay ready to move onto something else.

    Dave Barnett (.0) has not been back to discuss his note.  I'll discuss
    the reaction to my reply.
    
    (1) Profitability
    (2) Competitve Products and Services
    (3) Management Accountability
    
    I don't believe that the problems that got us into this mess have been
    fixed.  The course we are on is going to have us picked off by a larger
    company (like NCR) or merged with another company (as Burroughs and
    UNIVAC were).
    
    I don't believe the Digital has turned the corner.  I believe the
    optimists desparately want to believe that Digital _has_ turned the
    corner but can't convince the pessimists that this is so, only the they
    hope it is so.
    
    Blind faith in the ultimate restoration of Digital is a nice thing to
    have, but I can't afford it.  Convince me.
    
    re: more managers need to be fired
    
    This may be true for morale, but not as important as the three bullets
    above.  I'd accept 100 new VP's, if that is what it took  to get the
    company profitable
    
    re: empowerment
    
    Write a reply that shows me an actual case of empowerment and then
    we'll talk a bit more.
                  

    A lot of good stuff in here - yes we need good management, direction,
    some tools like TQM, top quality people, and to make it all happen we 
    need to know it will.
    
    Change brings out some interesting responses - by all means grieve for
    what has gone, and when you've done that get on with the future.
    
    There's a saying - Be careful about what you think you want, you might
    just get it. My preference is to believe that Digital has some great
    people who make up a very successful company - action oriented to
    achieve whatever we want.
    
    Chris S. (from OZ where we just lost 90 permanent and 50 temp staff)

    Absolutely we must move forward -- and without delay! 
    
    But personally I have difficulty buying into the stated objectives of
    the downsizing effort.  IMHO, the reasoning sounds incredibly sophomoric and
    myopic.  When I was in High School, and wanted to make money, I'd try
    to stop eating lunch for a week and save my allowance.  But somehow by
    Saturday or so, I'd be so hungry and ravenous that I'd lose it and
    binge out.
    
    Back when I took Accounting, I learned that Profit = Revenue - Expense.
    Reducing expense increses profit for awhile, but it also reduces
    opportunity for Revenue.  The trick is not how MUCH you expend, but how
    EFFICIENTLY you spend it.
    
    Life has risks -- yet our salaries and benefits are relatively fixed. 
    If the employees must absorb the risk, then why not compensate them for
    it by implementing a *PROFIT SHARING PLAN*.  I am certain that even the
    deadweighters might awaken and work harder if they had the opportunity
    to share in the benefits.
    
    Yes -- let us move forward immediately.  And let us begin by
    implementing the kinds of changes to our business style which
    demonstrate substantial opportunity for long term growth and
    prosperity.
    
    

    .20�    it by implementing a *PROFIT SHARING PLAN*.  I am certain that even the
    .20�    deadweighters might awaken and work harder if they had the opportunity
    .20�    to share in the benefits.
    
    Why should the deadwood behave any differently to how they do now? 
    Some of these people will just have been shoe-horned into the wrong
    job, so move them to something appropriate.  Others will always be
    deadwood, content just to come into work, shuffle some paper, and go
    home again without really caring about the company or being interested
    and motivated by their jobs.
    
    It is these people we need rid of, and I find it sad that, in the UK at
    least, redundancy has targetted all sorts of people with no regard for
    how useful or otherwise they are.  There is no stigma attached to it,
    as they say.  Why not attach the stigma, and get rid of the deadwood?
    Digital is being too nice about it here, and is paying some of its best
    people to walk out of the door.  I'm going in a month, but I wish
    "they", site management, had had the good sense (and courage) to do a
    spot of weeding out, rather than offer people an opportunity that many
    would have been daft to refuse.
    
    Finally, it would appear to my inexperienced eye that the most
    insuperable problem we have is the accurate, fair, objective
    identification of who and where the deadwood is.  We can't seem to do
    it.  We all know people here and there who have been malingerers for
    some time, but how are they identified?  We need someone from outside,
    a hatchet man, to do the job.  A tree doesn't identify its own dead
    branches and shed them - like in Digital they stick around until they
    drop off through age and decrepitude.  One secures the services of a
    hatchet man, the dead limbs are lopped off, and the tree suddenly
    thinks "Gosh!  I don't have this dead weight hanging around!  I'll
    start growing some more!".  Does my rambling make sense?
    
    Ian.

    I think it is interesting to note that the people (management) who have
    "lead" DEC into the current crisis is basically still in place.  One of
    the few constants here at DEC is that when change occurs it is done by
    the "bird-cage theory".  You pick up the bird cage and give it a
    vigorous shake, this causes the birds to move to different branches but
    doesn't change the birds.
    
    Until change comes from the top down (not Ken, who I admire, but the
    inner circle downward ) I'll continue to do my best but be  skeptical 
    that anything good will happen.

    re .22 that, of course, should be "led".
    
    Sorry bout that...
    

    rep -.1
    
    "lead" as in dead weight!
    
    
    
    Jim

Re: .18:

>>>          Are you by chance "Sheila" from the SOAPBOX notefile?
    
No.  I'm not familiar with who Sheila is, I've never been in SOAPBOX.


Re: .16

>>>    Dave Barnett (.0) has not been back to discuss his note.  I'll discuss
>>>    the reaction to my reply.

Sorry I've not been back yet.

    
>>>    I don't believe the Digital has turned the corner.  I believe the
>>>    optimists desparately want to believe that Digital _has_ turned the
>>>    corner but can't convince the pessimists that this is so, only the they
>>>    hope it is so.
    
I don't believe we have turned the corner either.  The point I'm trying to
make is that we NEVER WILL turn the corner until us worker-bees get back to
doing our part in helping us turn the corner.  Management has enough problems 
to deal with; they don't need the additional burden of a low-morale work force. 
Has management made mistakes?  Yes.  Do I make mistakes?  Yes. Will we continue
to make mistakes?  Yes.  But at least we're attempting to improve things.


>>>    Blind faith in the ultimate restoration of Digital is a nice thing to
>>>    have, but I can't afford it.  Convince me.

I'm not asking for blind faith.  I'm just suggesting that if all of us
(including management) focus all our energies on getting this ship back on
course, then we will restore Digital.  What do you expect us to do?  Sit here
and wait until Digital turns the corner, and only then decide that this is a
good place to work again, therefore I'll get back to doing my job?  If we all
wait, it'll never happen.  We each have a choice to make.  Do we want to work
for Digital?  If no, then we leave.  If yes, then we ought to try our hardest
to improve things and make the most of our time here.

-Dave Barnett 

    RE: .25
    
>I don't believe we have turned the corner either.  The point I'm trying to
>make is that we NEVER WILL turn the corner until us worker-bees get back to
>doing our part in helping us turn the corner.  Management has enough problems 
>to deal with; they don't need the additional burden of a low-morale work force. 
>Has management made mistakes?  Yes.  Do I make mistakes?  Yes. Will we continue
>to make mistakes?  Yes.  But at least we're attempting to improve things.

	Do you believe management is worried about morale? If so, what
	makes you thing so? (Not just an assumption is it?) Also if
	management does care about employee morale do you believe they
	have any role or responsibility in improving that morale? Or
	is it just up to the employees to do it with no help from
	management? What have you seen lately in the way of management
    	efforts to improve morale?

			Alfred

Re: <<< Note 1531.25 by CLOVAX::BARNETT >>>

.25>I'm not asking for blind faith.  I'm just suggesting that if all of us
.25>(including management) focus all our energies on getting this ship back
.25>on course, then we will restore Digital.

What is our course? If we have one, has it been effectively communicated
and understood by all on board the ship?

Lee

    RE: .21 (I believe), about hiring external folks to come remove some
    dead branches...
    
    I can't speak for the others, but I think this is an interesting idea. 
    I've pondered long and hard about WHY the good people are being shown
    the door, while so many of the "old boys" (and women -- just meaning
    those included in the cliques and personal networks) remain employed. 
    It seems all one needs to do at Digital nowadays is say "yes, boss" all
    the time, and s/he will remain on the payroll.  It neauseates me
    sometimes to watch it.  That's why I like the idea of someone OBJECTIVE
    coming in and looking at the situation.  Those hired to do such a
    function would not only look at management input and performance
    reviews (which are often the vehicles KEEPING these people in DEC right
    now), but also at **PEER INPUT** and **SUBORDINATE INPUT** and even
    watch the person at work to see if s/he is actually doing any work.
    
    I agree with .0 that we need to get on with things and we all need to
    concentrate on doing our jobs as best we can.  But Digital also needs
    to look at the present morale issues with its employees.  It's real
    tough to watch our peers, relatives, and co-workers getting walked out
    the door, while management sits in their ivory towers, protected--for
    all appearances--from what's going on below them.  I'd be willing to
    bet an objective agency coming in to review Digital's workforce would
    look long and hard at exactly how management is contributing to
    Digital's overall success.  Certainly, there are many good managers
    (and I've had the pleasure of working with a few), but there are others
    who should be shown the door long before any of their people see it.
    Further, it would help us worker bees in knowing/seeing (hopefully)
    that management has the nerve to have itself looked at, rather than
    this top-down b.s. that's been going on since last June.
    
    Of course, I'm sure there are many other pro/con arguments (for
    example, how much would an outside agency understand of our business? 
    How objective could they be, given the only substantiating
    documentation they can find, which is written by managers....)
      
    If nothing else, it's good to see proactive discussion in here
    providing ideas and support for Digital to get through this terrible
    era and moving on to bigger and better things.
    
    
                                                  

    RE: .28
    
    .28 was written by Ruth LeBlanc (Pipper::LeBlancR).  I forgot I was
    using someone else's account while my system was down at lunch.  If
    anyone's gonna flame, at least flame me, not the poor person whose
    account I'm using!!!  :-)
    
    Ruth
    

Re: .27
    
> What is our course? If we have one, has it been effectively communicated
> and understood by all on board the ship?

    *My* course is to support customers and help bring business in the door.
    That has been communicated to my by our District Manager.  My job is to
    sell the products and services Digital offers.  In fact, I'm off the 
    meet with a customer now, so I need to run.
    
    *Your* course is to do whatever it is that your job description
    specifies and which your immediate managaer has hopefully communicated
    to you.
    
    Sorry to sound simplistic, but that's the way I see it.
    
    -Dave
     

    When riding in a hot air balloon which threatens to crash, one
    typically tries to buoy the thing up by doing one or two things:
    
    (1) Increasing "lift" (assuming there is fuel) by heating the air
    	in the balloon, or
    
    (2) Reducing weight.
    
    If you're low on fuel and want to reduce weight, you don't usually
    begin by dropping the passengers overboard. Instead you look for less
    precious things like sandbags, trash, and baggage.
    
    Now I know we all want to move forward, keep the ship afloat, and so
    on, and that by restructuring (dropping passengers) we end up
    streamlining operations and reducing costs, but what are we doing to
    eliminate the excess baggage (hmmm, policies and procedures, red tape)
    which remains as a vestige of excess bureaucracy?
    
    While it may be recognized at many levels, I think employee awareness
    of a goal to simplify, focus, and align our efforts would help much
    to give those of us remaining a good reason to work more effectively
    at our respective tasks.  Maybe the key phrase should be "Just DO IT!".
    
    Chris

I agree with .30.  I think the fastest way to KILL Digital would be 
for all employees to stop working in paralysis because of the bad situation
we are all in right now.  My hope is that all the many many GOOD people
I've met here at Digital are the type to keep doing the right thing for
Digital and our customers even if some might argue that Digital didn't
do the right think for employees in this "involuntary separation".

Got to go -- there are customers to keep satisfied.

	Bob

	Today is the 15th anniversary of my employment with Digital
	Equipment Corp. and I'm very pleased that I am still on the
	payroll. 

	I recall the feelings I experienced my first day on the job
	and how very happy I was to be part of the Field Service
	organization in Wash. D.C.  The Comaradarie, dedication and
	true professionalism amoung the "foot soldiers" left me 
	feeling that at the ripe old age of 40, abandoning 11 years
	with my former employer, relocating from Colorado The D.C.
	indeed I HADN'T made a mistake by making a gigantic career
	move.

	In todays Digital things have certainly changed. I guess the
	things that bother me most is that this company who 15 years
	ago was considered outwardly by almost everyone I knew who
	worked for Digital to be the "Best Darn Computer Company in the
	world" now fosters among it's workers, Bitterness, Resentment,
	Fear, Distrust, Animosity, and downright Hatred. In many of
	these NOTES entries there seems to be a subtle wish that the
	company will disappear down the porcelain pluming so that "I
	told you so." becomes a claim to fame.

	How sad............ 

	Paradoxically many of these same employees still feel a dedi-
	cation to the principals and work ethic that made our Digital 
	so successful and refuse to abandon those things that they 
	consider worthy of their efforts. They continue to promote the 
	Good name and image of Digital. Even though they have their 
	apprehensions about their future careers with Digital They do 
	their jobs the very best they know how.
 
	This note is not intended to promote a Pollyanna outlook
	on the crippling problems that we face but neither do I feel 
	like bemoaning and wailing for my sake the uncertainty of the
	future of Digital. Because of us or in spite of us Digital will
	survive. Hopefully it is because of us.

	At the risk of making this sound like the chorus to "Ceilito
	Lindo " I can only do my job as best I know how. I am not by
	choice a leader. I do not possess the solutions to the problems
	we face at Digital nor can I even identify a lot of them.
	I am a worker-bee. I feel at home in the trenches. I can make
	decisions and I can be a leader but please don't ask me to. 
	I have immense empathy for my fellow employees who have been
	mis-treated by their "LITTLE BOSSES" in the present RIF. 
	I share their feelings of betrayal. I feel anger. I feel dispair.
	I feel helpless to ease the inequity. I feel fortunate to be
	a survivor but I want to feel good about it. I hope to retire 
	from Digital in the next ten years. 
	
	May the Digital of the future re-establish the mutual trust
	amoung its employees. May the future employees who fill our
	shoes experience the same pride and pleasure I found in my 
	employment and may they never suffer the present ordeals I
	have witnessed amoung my co-workers.

	Not giving up, just terribly dis-enchanted but hopeful.

	-Harold-

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    This all  reminds  me  of  the  story  I  once  was  told  on a MRP and
    accounting  course.   A  customer  has  a  problem  with  it's business
    administration,  and  a  computer  vendor and Software house come in to
    clean it up with a bit of automation.  The result: It cost money to do,
    but  didn't  make  any  difference,  because  they  were automating the
    problems, not providing a solution.

    That's what  I  feel letting people go in the way that is happening now
    is analagous to.  We are getting rid of people because the "problem" is
    that  we  have too many, whereas many people feel (me for one) that the
    numbers  of  people  are  a  symptom  of  the  problem,  ie we're badly
    organized, and you don't fix that by sacking Sales Support people.

    re .16
    
    Pat,
    
    This is a little late, but here's a real and recent case of empowerment
    making a difference.
    
    Our Printed Circuit Facility in San German has a long history of cyclic
    behavior.  Several years of good performance followed by a few months
    of problems followed by the arrival of sea-gulls and other experts.
    
    This time, we threw overhead people at the problem.  By my count, we
    added about 25% to the number of technical and professional support
    people for a period of about three months.  They did some good things,
    found some new and some old problems.  But production did not improve
    dramatically.
    
    Then the hourly employees (with an average of ten years of experience)
    were told, "You are in charge of the operation of this production line. 
    You are the sole judge(s) of whether preventative maintenance has been
    correctly executed.  You are the sole judge(s) of whether the line is
    ready to produce the quality product we are looking for."
    
    I don't know whether it was Hawthorne effect or empowerment, but the
    good output production rate increased 300% in two weeks.  I suspect
    there may be some of each.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick

    re .36
    It is amazing how much common sense has to be made up "scientifically
    sounding" these days to get thru.
    
    I wouldn't ask any "expert" to tell me if my 10 year old car
    still suits my transportation needs TODAY.
    I might ask the "expert" however what needs to be done, how much
    it costs to be the same TOMORROW as well.
    /fred